Proposal for a Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office - Policy debate - Hoofdinhoud

Council of the European Union Brussels, 8 June 2015 (OR. en)

7877/2/15

Interinstitutional File: REV 2 (en)

2013/0255 (APP) i

EPPO 24 EUROJUST 74 CATS 45 FIN 267 COPEN 89 GAF 9

NOTE

From: Presidency

To: Permanent Representatives Committee/Council

Subject: Proposal for a Regulation on the establishment of the European Public

Prosecutor's Office - Policy debate

A. Background

The Latvian Presidency of the Council has worked intensively with a view to finalising the first five chapters of the Regulation. These chapters cover most of the issues of importance for the functioning of the Office, as they include rules on the status, structure and organisation of the

Office, on the procedure for investigations, prosecutions and trial proceedings.

Thirteen meeting days in the competent Working Party (COPEN), one discussion in CATS and several meetings of JHA Counsellors have been organised on the file under the Latvian Presidency. The file was also discussed by Ministers in Council in March. The meetings have been held in a very constructive atmosphere and considerable advances have been made. However, there are still non-negligible differences between the positions of the Member States. The Presidency has formulated a balanced compromise text of the first 16 Articles, as indicated in Annex 1.

Annex 2 includes the full text of Articles 17-33, including footnotes.

B. State of Play

I. For the first 16 Articles set out in Annex 1 the most debated issues at expert level have been:

• The need to ensure an equal distribution of workload of the Permanent Chambers

• The powers of the Permanent Chambers during the investigations and prosecutions

• The possibility for the Permanent Chambers to delegate decision-making powers to the European Prosecutor supervising the case

• The voting-right of the European Prosecutor supervising the case in the Permanent Chamber

• The powers of European Prosecutors to give instructions to the European Delegated Prosecutors

• The mechanisms for substitution between the European Prosecutors

• A mechanism of temporary substitution of the European Prosecutor by a European Delegated Prosecutor

The text as it stands in Annex 1 represents a well balanced compromise proposal between different views expressed by the delegations during the negotiations and offers solutions for the majority of the concerns voiced during the working parties.

II. For the rest of the Articles (from 17 to 33) the most intensive discussions touched upon the following issues:

• The obligation of the Member States to report any criminal conduct which might constitutes an offence within the EPPO competence

• The modalities of reporting, including a summary report and its content

• The power of the Permanent Chamber to instruct the European Delegated Prosecutor to initiate an investigation

• The allocation and the reallocation of a case by the Permanent Chamber

• The right of evocation and transfer of proceedings from the national authorities to the EPPO

• The investigative measures and cross-borders investigations

• Transactions

The progress made during the Latvian presidency is reflected in the text set out in Annex 2.

However, some of those issues remain open, as highlighted in footnotes and will need to be revisited. Articles 2030-33 have only been touched upon briefly and have not been modified during the Latvian Presidency.

C. Questions

Without prejudice to the final decision of individual Member States on participation in the

European Public Prosecutor's Office, the Presidency invites Ministers to:

1. agree in principle on the text of the first 16 Articles of the Regulation as indicated in Annex 1, on the understanding that the details of the text will need to be reexamined

once the Council has reached an agreement in principle on the full text of the Regulation.

2. welcome the progress made in Articles 17-33 and take note of the current text of these Articles, as indicated in Annex 2.

_____________________ ANNEX 1

Draft

COUNCIL REGULATION

on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office

___________________

CHAPTER I

SUBJECT MATTER AND DEFINITIONS

Article 1

Subject matter

This Regulation establishes the European Public Prosecutor ’s Office and sets out rules concerning

its functioning.

Article 2

Definitions 1

For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply:

• a) 

  ‘person’ means any natural or legal person;

• b) 

  ‘financial interests of the Union’ means all revenues, expenditures and assets covered by, acquired through, or due to the Union budget and the budgets of institutions, bodies, offices and agencies established under the Treaties and budgets managed and monitored by them;

• c) 

  ‘administrative personal data’ means all personal data processed by the European Public

  Prosecutor’s Office except for operational personal data;

• d) 

  ‘operational personal data’ means all [case-related] personal data processed by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to meet the purposes laid down in Article [37];

1 This Article will be finalised only when the full text of the Regulation is known. The definitions, as well as the text in general, will need to be adapted to be consistent with the definitions that will finally be

included in the PIF-Directive. The issue of uniformity with EU law needs to be examined further. To be aligned with the final definition of the financial interests of the Union in the PIF Directive. IE has noted that this point appears unnecessary.

• e) 

  'staff of the European Public Prosecutor's Office' means personnel at the central level which supports the College, the Permanent Chambers, the European Chief Prosecutor, the European Prosecutors and the European Delegated Prosecutors in the day-to-day activities in the

  executions of the tasks of this Office under this Regulation; f) 'European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case' means the European Delegated Prosecutor

responsible for the investigations and prosecutions, which he/she has initiated, which has been

allocated to him/her or which he/she has taken over using the right of evocation;

• g) 

  'assisting European Delegated Prosecutor' means the European Delegated Prosecutor located

in the Member State, other than the Member State of the European Delegated Prosecutor

handling the case, where an investigation or other measure assigned to him/her shall be

carried out.

CHAPTER II Establishment, tasks and basic principles of the European Public Prosecutor’s

Office

Article 3

Establishment 1. The European Public Prosecutor's Office is established as a body of the Union. 2. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall have legal personality. 3. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall cooperate with Eurojust and rely on its support

in accordance with Article [57]. Article 4 Tasks

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, the criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the Union [which are provided for in Directive 2015/xx/EU and determined by

this Regulation] 2 . In that respect the European Public Prosecutor's Office shall undertake

investigations, and carry out acts of prosecution and exercise the functions of prosecutor in the

competent courts of the Member States, until the case has been finally disposed of 3 .

2 IE has suggested that this reference should be to Article 17.

3 The following recital should be considered: 'The functions of prosecutor in competent courts apply until the conclusion of the proceedings, which is understood to mean the final determination of the question whether the suspect or accused person has committed the offence, including, where applicable,

sentencing and the resolution of any appeal. AT has suggested to add the following sentence to this recital: The functions of the prosecution could e.g. exclude representation in proceedings before the highest courts of a Member States by the highest prosecutorial institutions, such as the Advocate General, particularly if they serve the purpose of administration of justice rather than prosecutorial functions'.

Article 5

Basic principles of the activities

• 1. 

  The European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall ensure that its activities respect the rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

• 2. 

  The European Public Prosecutor's Office shall be bound by the principles of rule of law and

  proportionality in all its activities 4 .

• 3. 

  The investigations and prosecutions on behalf of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall be governed by this Regulation. National law shall apply to the extent that a matter is not regulated by this Regulation. Unless otherwise specified in this Regulation, the applicable national law shall be the law of the Member State whose European Delegated Prosecutor is

  handling the case in accordance with Article 12(1) 5 . Where a matter is governed by national

  law and this Regulation, the latter shall prevail.

• 4. 

  The European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall conduct its investigations in an impartial

  manner and seek all relevant evidence 6 , whether inculpatory or exculpatory.

• 5. 

  The European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall open and conduct investigations without undue delay.

• 6. 

  The competent national authorities shall actively assist and support the investigations and prosecutions of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Any action, policy or procedure

  under this Regulation shall be guided by the principle of sincere cooperation 78 .

4 IT would include the principle of legality here. PT shares the concerns of IT but has noted that the issue

could be addressed in the context of Article 21.

5 This phrase will have to be revisited in the light of developments of Articles 12(1) and 26a.

6 SI wishes that this and other provisions would clarify the role of investigative judges in cases handled by

the EPPO.

7 An accompanying recital along the following lines could be added: ' In the light of the sincere

cooperation, both EPPO and competent national authorities should inform each other with the aim to

efficiently combat the crime. Even in cases which fall outside the scope of EPPO competence, EPPO

should inform the competent national authorities of any facts, which were brought to its attention or

which were gained autonomously, and which might constitute a criminal offence, for example a false

testimony. Such cases could include various facts, which should not escape the attention of the competent

national authorities in order to ensure efficient fight against the crime.'

8 The following provision shall be included the text of the Regulation (e.g. Chapter VIII, Chapter IX or

Article 69): 'To the extent that recovery or collection procedures under administrative law are deferred

as a result of decisions taken by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office or by national prosecution

authorities in connection with investigations or prosecutions to protect the financial interests of the

European Union, any financial shortfalls that may occur shall not be borne by the national budget of the

respective Member State.'

Article 6

Independence and accountability

• 1. 

  The European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall be independent. The European Chief

  Prosecutor, the Deputy European Chief Prosecutors, the European Prosecutors, the European Delegated Prosecutors as well as the staff of the European Public Prosecutor´s Office shall act in the interest of the Union as a whole, as defined by law, and neither seek nor take instructions from any person external to the office, any Member State or any institution, body, office or agency of the Union in the performance of their duties under this Regulation. The Member States and the Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies shall respect the independence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and shall not seek to influence it in the exercise of its tasks.

• 2. 

  The European Public Prosecutor's Office shall be accountable to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission for its general activities, and shall issue annual reports in accordance with Article 6a.

Article 6a

Reporting

• 1. 

  Every year the European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall draw up and issue a public Annual

Report 9 in the official languages of the Union institutions on its general activities. It shall

transmit the report to the European Parliament and to national parliaments, as well as to the Council and the Commission.

• 2. 

  The European Chief Prosecutor shall appear once a year before the European Parliament and the Council, and before national parliaments at their request, to give account of the general

  activities of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, without prejudice to the Office's obligation of discretion and confidentiality as regards individual cases and personal data. The European Chief Prosecutor may be replaced by one of the Deputies for hearings organised by national parliaments.

9 A recital further clarifying the content of the Annual Report shall be included: 'The report of the

European Public Prosecutor's office should be prepared annually, and as a minimum it should contain all

relevant statistical data on the work of the Office'.

CHAPTER III

STATUS, STRUCTURE AND ORGANISATION OF EPPO

S ECTION 1

STATUS AND STRUCTURE OF THE E UROPEAN P UBLIC P ROSECUTOR ’ S O FFICE

Article 7

Structure of the European Public Prosecutor's Office

• 1. 

  The European Public Prosecutor's Office shall be an indivisible Union body operating as one single Office with a decentralised structure.

• 2. 

  The European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall be organised at a central level and at a decentralised level.

• 3. 

  The central level shall consist of a Central Office at the seat. The Central Office shall consist of the College, the Permanent Chambers, the European Chief Prosecutor, his/her deputies and the European Prosecutors.

• 4. 

  The decentralised level shall consist of European Delegated Prosecutors located in the

  Member States.

• 5. 

  The Central Office and the European Delegated Prosecutors shall be assisted by the staff of the European Public Prosecutor's Office in their duties under this Regulation.

  Article 8

The College

• 1. 

  The College of the European Public Prosecutor's Office shall consist of the European Chief Prosecutor and one European Prosecutor per Member State. The European Chief Prosecutor shall chair the meetings of the College and be responsible for their preparation.

• 2. 

  The College shall meet regularly and be responsible for the general oversight 10 of the

activities of the Office. It shall take decisions on strategic matters, and on general issues

arising from individual cases 11 , in particular with a view to ensuring coherence, efficiency and

consistency in the prosecution policy of the Office throughout the Union, as well on other matters as specified in this Regulation. The College shall not take operational decisions in individual cases. The Internal rules of procedure shall provide for the modalities of the general oversight of activities and decisions on strategic matters and general issues by the college in accordance with this Article.

• 3. 

  On a proposal by the European Chief Prosecutor and in accordance with the Internal Rules of Procedure, the College shall set up Permanent Chambers.

• 4. 

  The College shall adopt Internal Rules of Procedure of the European Public Prosecutor's

  Office in accordance with Article 16, and shall further stipulate the responsibilities for the performance of functions of the members of the College and the staff of the European Public Prosecutor's Office.

• 5. 

  Unless stated otherwise in this Regulation, the College shall take decisions by simple majority. Any member of the College shall have the right to initiate voting on matters to be decided by the College. Each Member of the College shall have one vote. The European Chief Prosecutor shall have a casting vote in the event of a tie vote on any matter to be decided by

  the College 12 .

10 In this document, the terms 'general oversight', 'monitoring and directing' and 'supervision' are used to

describe different control activities. These terms will need more detailed explanations in the recitals, in line with the following:

✓ The 'general oversight' refers to the general administration of the activities of the Office, in which instructions are only given on issues which will have a horizontal importance for the Office;

✓ 'monitoring and directing' refers to certain clear powers to monitor and direct individual investigations and prosecutions when such directions appear to be necessary.

✓ 'supervision' refers to a closer and rather continuous oversight of investigations and prosecutions, including, whenever necessary, intervene and give instruction on investigations and prosecution matters.

  BE opposes the inclusion of the tentative definition of the terms. NL, PT, SI have noted that this tentative definition of supervision may not be acceptable, as it would imply an infringement of the principle of

autonomy of their national prosecutors, as laid down in their national law and constitutions.

11 A recital with the following wording could be considered: 'The College should take decisions on strategic

matters, including as regards determining the priorities and policy of the Office, as well as on general

issues arising from individual cases, for example as regards to the application of the Regulation, the

correct implementation of the policy of the Office or questions of principle or of significant importance

for the development of a coherent prosecution policy of the Office. Decisions of the College on general

issues should be of a policy nature and should not affect the duty to investigate and prosecute according

to this Regulation and national law.

12 A recital with the following wording should be introduced: 'The College should use their best efforts to

reach consensus. If such a consensus cannot be reached, decisions should be taken by voting.'

Article 9

The Permanent Chambers 13

• 1. 

  The Permanent Chamber shall be chaired by the European Chief Prosecutor or one of the Deputies, or a European Prosecutor appointed as Chair in accordance with the Internal Rules

of Procedure 14 . The Permanent Chamber shall have two additional permanent Members. The

number of Permanent Chambers, their composition as well as the division of competences between the Chambers shall take due account of the functional needs of the Office and be

determined in accordance with the Internal Rules of Procedure 15 .

These shall ensure an equal distribution of workload on the basis of a system of random allocation of cases and shall, in exceptional cases, provide for procedures allowing, where necessary for the proper functioning of the Office, for deviations from the principle of random

allocation upon decision by the European Chief Prosecutor. 16

13 SE, supported by CY, CZ, FI, HR, HU, IE, MT, NL, PT and SI, maintains its general opinion that a

system where the European Delegated Prosecutors are responsible for taking the bulk of the operative decisions would contribute significantly to the effectiveness of the EPPO. The European Delegated Prosecutors should to the furthest extent possible take the necessary decisions in the cases they are handling. SE still believes that the Regulation should move in that direction. This could be achieved in a number of different ways, preferably by shortening the list of decisions that the Chambers should make in Article 9. Other options, such as enhanced possibilities for the Permanent Chambers to delegate their powers to the European Delegated Prosecutors and/or introduce extensive possibilities to use written or silent procedures, could be considered. FR, on the contrary, believes that such mechanisms would water down the powers of the central level of EPPO.

14 The inclusion of the recital should be considered that during administrative establishment of the EPPO, or

if necessary at the later stage, a European Prosecutor should in principle be appointed as a Chair of the Permanent Chamber if there are not enough Deputies.

15 A recital with the following wording should be introduced: 'The composition of Permanent Chamber

should be determined in accordance with the Internal Rules of Procedure, which may allow, among other things, a European Prosecutor to be a member in more than one Permanent Chamber where this is appropriate to ensure, to the extent possible, even workload of individual European Prosecutors.'

16 The introduction of the following recital should be considered: 'The allocation of cases should ensure distribution of cases in accordance with established consequence between the Permanent Chambers at the random pace as to ensure, to the extent possible, equal distribution of workload'.

• 2. 

  The Permanent Chambers shall monitor and direct the investigations and prosecutions conducted by the European Delegated Prosecutors in accordance with paragraphs 3, 3a and 4

in this Article 17 . They shall also ensure the coordination of investigations and prosecutions in

cross-border cases and the implementation of decisions taken by the College in accordance

with Article 8(2).

• 3. 

  18 The Permanent Chambers shall take the following decisions, in accordance with the

  conditions and procedures set out by this Regulation, where applicable after reviewing a draft

  decision proposed by the handling European Delegated Prosecutor and decide to:

  • a) 

    bring a case to judgment in accordance with Article 27(2) 19 ;

  • b) 

    dismiss a case in accordance with Article 28(1) (a-f) 20 ;

  • c) 

    dismiss a case through a transaction in accordance with Article 29.

3a. Where necessary, the Permanent Chambers shall take the following decisions, in accordance with the conditions and procedures set out in this Regulation:

• a) 

  to instruct the European Delegated Prosecutor to initiate an investigation in accordance with the rules in Article 21(1)-(3) where no investigation has been initiated;

• b) 

  to instruct the European Delegated Prosecutor to evoke a case in accordance with Article 21a(6) where the case has not been evoked;

• c) 

  to refer to the College strategic matters or general issues arising from individual cases in accordance with Article 8(2);

• d) 

  to allocate a case in accordance with Article 21(2);

17 COM advocates a solution where one of the Members of a Permanent Chamber - regardless of his or her

nationality - will be selected to be Rapporteur of the case in order to ensure the neutrality of the Rapporteur. PT and SI would exclude that the Permanent Chamber shall have the right to intervene in individual cases, except in cases of inactivity or manifest delays. NL, PT and SI have suggested that the notion of monitoring should be explained as follows in a recital: 'The monitoring role of the Permanent Chamber refers to a general oversight, in which as a general rule instructions may be given against inactivity or manifest delays in pending criminal proceedings. '. AT, RO, DE, IT, LT, BG, ES, FR and COM oppose this recital.

18 AT, CY, CZ, DE, FI, MT and SE believe that 9(3) and 9 (3a) should be finalized only after work on other

Articles has been completed. BE, BG, ES, FR, IT, LT, RO and COM have expressed strong reserves as regards the latest wording of Article 9(3)(a) and 9(5a).

19 CZ, NL, PT objects to the competence of the Permanent Chamber to decide whether to bring the case to judgment. In the opinion of CZ, this should be decided by the European Delegated Prosecutors.

20 PT does not agree with the competence of Permanent Chamber to dismiss a case for reasons related to the autonomy of the magistrates and efficiency of the procedure. PT advocates for an ex post intervention or a silent procedure mechanism of review.

• e) 

  to reallocate a case in accordance with Article 21(4) and 23(3a);

[i) to approve the decision of a European Prosecutor to conduct the investigation himself or herself in accordance with Article 23(4).]

• 4. 

  The competent Permanent Chamber, acting through the European Prosecutor who is

supervising 21 an investigation or a prosecution, may in a specific case give instructions 22 in compliance with applicable national law 23 to the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the

case, whenever necessary for the efficient handling of the investigation or prosecution, orand in the interest of justice, or a coherent functioning of the European Public Prosecutor's

Office.

• 5. 

  The Permanent Chamber shall take decisions by simple majority. The Chamber shall vote at the request of any of its Members. Each Member shall have one vote. The Chair shall have a casting vote in the event of a tie vote. The decisions shall be taken in deliberation in

  meetings of the Chambers on the basis of a summary report presented to the Chamber by the

  competent European Prosecutor, and where applicable in principle 24 on the basis of the draft

  decision proposed by the handling European Delegated Prosecutor.

21 SI suggest to replacing 'supervising' with 'directing'. The same applies for the subsequent paragraphs of

Article 9 and subsequent Articles.

22 The following recital will be considered: RO, with support from IT and BE, has suggested that a recital

with the following wording (or similar) should be considered: 'The European Delegated Prosecutors

should be bound to follow instructions coming from the Central Office. They will however have the right

to ask for a review by the Permanent Chamber of an instructions, if it is not compliant with the

Regulation or the applicable national lawDE, supported by AT, CZ and NL, is in addition to the RO

recital proposing the following text: 'Where he or she considers that the instruction would require

him/her to undertake any measure that would not be in compliance with national law, the European

Delegated Prosecutor shall ask for a review of the decision and should ultimately be given the possibility

to refrain from following the instruction and to request that he/she is relieved from the responsibility for

handling the case. Being active members of the public prosecution service or the judiciary of the Member

States, the European Delegated Prosecutors should not be obliged to follow, under any circumstances,

instructions where this would be conflicting with national disciplinary provisions.' AT, DE, RO oppose

the wording of the recital above. SI would like to add the following words in the body of the text 'A

European Prosecutor or a European Delegated Prosecutor may refuse instructions given by the

Permanent Chamber if they are in conflict with this Regulation, applicable national law or because of the

diverging written reasoned legal opinion of the European Prosecutor or the European Delegated

Prosecutor'.

23 A recital indicating that the supervising European Prosecutor has an active duty to check the instruction’s

compliance with his/her national law and inform the Permanent Chamber PC if it does not should be

introduced.

24 The following recital should be considered: ‘The Permanent Chambers in adopting the decisions in

accordance with Article 9(3a) and (3b) should base them following the draft decision proposed by the

handling European Delegated Prosecutor. However, in exceptional cases, the Chamber should be able to

All case material shall at request be accessible to the competent Permanent Chamber in view

of the preparation of the decisions. 25

5a. The Permanent Chambers may decide to delegate its decision-making power under paragraph 3 (a) and (b) to the European Prosecutor supervising the case in accordance with Article 11 para 1 in cases where such delegations can be duly justified with reference to the

degree of seriousness of the offence 26 or the complexity of the proceedings in the individual

case, with regard to an offence which caused or is likely to cause damage to the financial interests of the Union of less than € 100.000. The Internal Rules of Procedure shall, if necessary, set guidelines with a view to ensure the consistent application within the Office.

Where the offence has been committed by officials, other servants of the European Union, members of the Institutions or officials of the Member States, The Chamber shall inform the the delegation shall be subject to approval of the European Chief Prosecutor on any decision to delegate decision-making power. On reception of this information, tIn case the European Chief Prosecutor may within 24 working hours request the Chamber to review its decision if she or he considers that the interest to ensure the coherence of the investigations and prosecutions of the Office so requires. If the European Chief Prosecutor is a Member of the relevant Chamber, one of his/her Deputies shall exercise the right to request the said review. took part in the vote to delegate, one of his/her Deputies shall approve of the decision.

The supervising European Prosecutor shall report to the Permanent Chamber about the final disposal/conclusion of the case as well as any information or circumstance he/she deems likely to necessitate a new assessment of the opportunity to maintain the delegation, in particular in cases referred to in Article 27(2).

adopt decision without a draft decision of the handling European Delegated Prosecutor. In such cases, the European Prosecutor supervising the case may present such a draft decision.’

25 A recital with the following wording should be considered: 'The work of the EPPO should in principle be

ensured in electronic form'.

26 The following recital should be considered: 'When assessing the degree of seriousness of an offence

account should be taken to the magnitude of Delegations can be justified e offence or the complexity of the proceedings, which for example could include cases involving several Member States or cases having repercussions at Union level'. and the legal questions or, in exceptional cases of high workload in a Chamber, an efficient organisation of the work of the Office.

A delegation may be withdrawn at any time upon request of one of the Members of the Permanent Chamber and shall be decided in accordance with paragraph 5. A delegation shall be withdrawn when a European Delegated Prosecutor has substituted the European Prosecutor in accordance with Article 14(7).

To ensure coherent application of the principle of delegation, each Permanent Chamber shall report annually to the College on the use of the delegation.

5b. The Internal Rules of Procedure shall authorise the Permanent Chambers to take decisions by means of a written procedure to be laid down in detail in the Internal Rules of Procedure.

All decisions taken and instructions given in accordance with paragraphs 3, 3a, 4 and 5a shall be recorded in writing and become part of the case file.

• 6. 

  In addition to the permanent Members, the European Prosecutor who is supervising an investigation or a prosecution in accordance with Article 11(1) shall participate in the deliberations of the Permanent Chamber. That supervisingThe European Prosecutor supervising the case shall have a right to vote, except for the Permanent Chamber's decisions on delegation or withdrawal of delegation in accordance with Article 9(5a), on allocation and reallocation under Articles 21(3) and (4), Article 21a(56) and on bringing a case to judgment (Art. 27(2)), where more than one Member States has jurisdiction for the case, as well in

  situations described in Article 26a (8) 27 .

  A Permanent Chamber may also, either at the request of a European Prosecutor or a European Delegated Prosecutor or at its own initiative, invite other European Prosecutors or European

  Delegated Prosecutors who are concerned by a case to attend their meetings without a right to vote.

27 COM and AT, BE, BG, DE, ES, FR, IT, LT, RO have voiced concern as regards the voting-right for the supervising European Prosecutor; in their view the voting rights in the chamber should be limited to

'neutral' members and it would not be appropriate to give a voting right only to one of potentially several European Prosecutors who are concerned by the case. MT, supported by FI, would like to have voting right in all cases for the European Delegated Prosecutors.

Subject to prior approval by the European Chief Prosecutor in a particular case, the Permanent

Chamber may delegate its decision making-power under paragraph 3 (a) and (b) to the European Prosecutor supervising the case in accordance with Article 11(1) where the offence:

• a) 

  caused or is likely to cause damage to the financial interests of the Union of less than 50 000 euros;

• b) 

  does not have repercussions at European Union level, and

• c) 

  has not been committed by officials and other servants of the European Union, or members of the Institutions.

  Such delegation shall be withdrawn at any time upon request by one Member of the Permanent Chamber.

To ensure coherent application of the principle of delegation each Permanent Chamber shall report annually to the College on use of the delegation. The College, if necessary, may issue guidelines with a view to ensure the consistency in the prosecution policy of the Office.

• 7. 

  The Chairs of the Permanent Chambers shall, in accordance with Internal Rules of Procedure, keep the College informed of the decisions taken pursuant to this Article, in order to enable

  the College to fulfil its role in accordance with Article 8(2).

Article 10

The European Chief Prosecutor and the Deputies

• 1. 

  The European Chief Prosecutor shall be the head of the European Public Prosecutor's Office. The European Chief Prosecutor shall organise the work of the Office, direct its activities, and take decisions in accordance with this Regulation and the Internal Rules of Procedure.

• 2. 

  [Two] Deputies shall be appointed to assist the European Chief Prosecutor in the discharge of his/her duties and act as replacement when he/she is absent or is prevented from attending to his/her duties.

• 3. 

  The European Chief Prosecutor shall represent the European Public Prosecutor’s Office towards the institutions of the Union and of the Member States, and third parties. The

  European Chief Prosecutor may delegate his/her tasks relating to representation to one of the Deputies or to a European Prosecutor.

Article 11

The European Prosecutors 28

• 1. 

  The European Prosecutors shall, on behalf of the Permanent Chamber 29 and in compliance

  with any instructions it has given in accordance with Article 9(3), 9(3)(a) and 9(4), supervise the investigations and prosecutions for which the European Delegated Prosecutors handling

the case in their Member State of origin are responsible 30 . The European Prosecutors shall

present summaries of the cases under his or her supervision and, where applicable, proposals for decisions to be taken by the said Chamber, on the basis of draft decisions prepared by the European Delegated Prosecutors.

The Internal Rules of Procedure shall, without prejudice to Article 14(7), provide for a mechanism of substitution between European Prosecutors in case the supervising European

Prosecutor is temporarily 31 absent from his/her duties or for other reasons not available to

carry out the functions of the European Prosecutors. The substitute European Prosecutor may fulfill any task of a European Prosecutor, except the possibility to conduct an investigation as foreseen under Article 23(4).

• 2. 

  The supervising European Prosecutors, in compliance with applicable national law and in compliance with the instructions given by the competent Permanent Chamber, may in specific case give instructions to the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case, whenever necessary for the efficient handling of the investigation or prosecution and in the interest of justice, or a coherent functioning of the European Public Prosecutor's Office.

28 CY, FI, MT would keep the old version of paragraph 3, under which the European Prosecutors could be

allowed to fulfil other tasks than those of European Prosecutors.

29 PT and SI are opposed to the idea that the European Prosecutors shall supervise investigations and

prosecutions on behalf of the Permanent Chamber. 30 COM and BG oppose the addition of the word 'in their Member State of origin'. DE agrees with the

principle set out in this paragraph but considers it appropriate to foresee that the Internal Rules of Procedure may allow for deviations from this principle.

31 The inclusion of a recital may be considered 'The substitution mechanism should be used in principle in cases when European Prosecutor briefly unable to fulfil his/her duties, for example, due to vacation or illness.'

• 3. 

  The European Prosecutors shall function as liaisons and channels of information between the Permanent Chambers and the European Delegated Prosecutors in their respective Member

  States of origin and shall monitor the implementation of the tasks of the Office in their respective Member States, in close consultation with the European Delegated Prosecutors. The European Prosecutors shall ensure, in accordance with this Regulation and the Internal Rules of Procedure that all relevant information from the Central Office is provided to European Delegated Prosecutors and vice versa.

  Article 12 The European Delegated Prosecutors

• 1. 

  The European Delegated Prosecutors shall act on behalf of the European Public Prosecutor's

Office in their respective Member States 32 and shall have the same powers as national

prosecutors in respect of investigations, prosecutions and bringing cases to judgment, in addition and subject to the specific powers and status conferred on them and under the conditions provided for in this Regulation.

The European Delegated Prosecutors shall be responsible for the investigations and prosecutions which they have initiated, which have been allocated to them or which they have taken over using their right of evocation. The European Delegated Prosecutors shall follow the direction and instructions of the Permanent Chamber in charge of a case as well as the instructions from the supervising European Prosecutor.

32 The following recital should be considered: 'The European Delegated Prosecutors shall be an integral

part of the European Public Prosecutor's Office and as such, when investigating and prosecuting offences

within the Office competence, they shall act exclusively on behalf and in the name of that Office on the

territory of their respective Member State. This shall entail granting them under this Regulation a

functionally and legally independent status, which is different from any status under national law,

including national prosecutors. Notwithstanding their status under this Regulation, the European

Delegated Prosecutors shall during their term of office also be active member of the prosecution service

of their Member State and shall be granted by their Member State the same powers as national

prosecutors.'

CY, IE and MT have argued that it should be made clear in the recitals that the European Delegated

Prosecutors should be able to give instructions to the police force to carry out the investigations according

to the national legal system. A such recital could look as follows 'In following the direction and

instruction of the Permanent Chamber in charge of a case as well as the instructions from the supervising

European Prosecutor, the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case should be responsible for

the investigations in accordance with national law'. BG, DE and IT, supported by COM, opposes this

recital.

The European Delegated Prosecutors shall also be responsible for bringing a case to judgment, in particular have the power to present trial pleas, participate in evidence taking and exercise the available remedies in accordance with national law.

• 2. 

  There shall be two 33 or more European Delegated Prosecutors in each Member State. The

European Chief Prosecutor shall, after consulting and reaching an agreement with the relevant

Member State’s authorities, approve 34 the number of the European Delegated Prosecutors, as

well as the functional 35 and territorial division of competences between the European

Delegated Prosecutors in each Member State.

• 3. 

  The European Delegated Prosecutors may also exercise functions as national prosecutors, to the extent that this does not prevent them from fulfilling their obligations under this

  Regulation. They shall inform the supervising European Prosecutor of such functions. In the event that a European Delegated Prosecutor at any given moment is unable to fulfil his/her tasks as European Delegated Prosecutors because of such other commitments, he/she shall notify the supervising European Prosecutor, who shall consult with the competent national prosecution authorities in order to determine whether priority should be given to their functions deriving from this Regulation. The European Prosecutor may propose to the Permanent Chamber to reallocate the case in accordance with Article 23(3a) and 4.

33 This provision should be without prejudice to future discussions, in the context of the administrative

provisions in the second half of the Regulation, about the number of full-time equivalent European Delegated Prosecutors positions to be financed by the EU budget. The text in paragraph 2, and in particular 'the number of European Delegated Prosecutors, may need to be reviewed again in the context of the provisions of the formal status of the European Delegated Prosecutors ('special advisors') and the financial provisions.

34 The inclusion of the following recital will be included in the text: 'When the European Chief Prosecutor

is consulting with relevant Member State on the number of the European Delegated Prosecutors and the

functional and territorial division of competences between the European Delegated Prosecutors in each

Member State, due account should be taken of the organisation of the national prosecution system.

35 The following recital will be included in the text: 'The notion of functional division of competences

between European Delegated Prosecutors should allow for such a division of tasks, whereby certain

European Delegated Prosecutors could be in charge of dealing with cases and taking certain specific

decisions on initiation of investigations and other European Delegated Prosecutors could be in charge of

dealing with complaints against such decisions'.

S ECTION 2

A PPOINTMENT AND DISMISSAL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE E UROPEAN P UBLIC

P ROSECUTOR ’ S O FFICE

Article 13 36

Appointment and dismissal of the European Chief Prosecutor

• 1. 

  The European Parliament and the Council shall appoint by common accord the European

  Chief Prosecutor for a term of seven years, which shall not be renewable. The Council shall act by simple majority.

• 2. 

  The European Chief Prosecutor shall be selected from among candidates

  • a) 

    who are active members of the public prosecution service or judiciary of the Member States, or active European Prosecutors;

  • b) 

    whose independence is beyond doubt;

  • c) 

    who possess the qualifications required for appointment, in their respective countries, to the highest prosecutorial or judicial offices and have relevant practical experience of

    national legal systems, financial investigations and of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters, or have served as European Prosecutors, and

  • d) 

    who have sufficient managerial experience and qualifications for the position.

• 3. 

  The selection shall be based on an open call for candidates, to be published in the Official

  Journal of the European Union, following which a Selection panel shall draw up a shortlist of qualified candidates to be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council. The panel shall comprise 12 persons chosen from among former members of the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors, former national members of Eurojust, members of national supreme courts, high level prosecutors and lawyers of recognised competence, one of whom shall be proposed

  by the European Parliament 37 . The Council shall establish the panel's operating rules and adopt a decision appointing its members on a proposal from the Commission 38 .

36 CY, PT, MT, HU, ES, HR and PL, opposed by AT, BE, DE, IT and RO, would prefer that the European Chief Prosecutor is chosen from among the Members of the College.

37 The following recital should be added: 'Account should be taken of a balanced membership of the panel, both in geographical terms and in terms of representation of the legal systems of the Member States.'

38 A Recital will be added to duly justify the conferral of implementing powers on the Council, in accordance with Article 291(2) TFEU.

3a. If a European Prosecutor is appointed to be the European Chief Prosecutor, his or her position of European Prosecutor shall immediately be filled in accordance with the procedure set out

in Article 14(1) and (2).

• 4. 

  The Court of Justice of the European Union may, on application by the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission, dismiss the European Chief Prosecutor if it finds that he or

  she is no longer able to perform his or her duties, or that he or she is guilty of serious misconduct.

• 5. 

  If the European Chief Prosecutor resigns, if he/she is dismissed or leaves his/her position for any reason, the position shall immediately be filled in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraphs 1 – 3 above.

Article 13a

Appointment and dismissal of the Deputy European Chief Prosecutors

• 1. 

  The College 39 shall appoint [two] European Prosecutors to serve as Deputy European Chief

  Prosecutors for a renewable mandate period of three years, which shall however not exceed their mandate period as European Prosecutors. The selection process shall be regulated by the Internal Rules of procedure. The Deputy European Chief Prosecutors shall retain their status of European Prosecutors.

• 2. 

  The rules and conditions for the exercise of the function of Deputy European Chief Prosecutor shall be set out in the Internal Rules of Procedure. If a European Prosecutor is no longer able

  to perform his or her duties as Deputy European Chief Prosecutor, the College may in accordance with the Internal Rules of Procedure decide that he or she shall not serve as Deputy European Chief Prosecutor and be dismissed from this position.

• 3. 

  If a Deputy European Chief Prosecutor resigns, if he/she is dismissed or leaves his/her position as a Deputy for any reason, the position shall immediately be filled in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraph 1. Subject to the rules in Article 14, he or she shall remain European Prosecutor.

39 COM maintains that the Deputies, like the European Chief Prosecutor, should be appointed by the Council and the EP.

Article 14 40

Appointment and dismissal of the European Prosecutors

• 1. 

  Each Member State shall nominate three candidates for the position as European Prosecutor from among candidates which:

  • a) 

    are active members of the public prosecution service or judiciary of the Member States;

  • b) 

    whose independence is beyond doubt, and

  • c) 

    who possess the qualifications required for appointment, in their respective countries, to high prosecutorial or judicial office and have relevant practical experience of national legal systems, of financial investigations and of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

• 2. 

  The Council shall, after having received the reasoned opinion of a Selection Panel referred to in Article 13(3), select and appoint one of the candidates to be the European Prosecutor of the Member State in question. If the Selection Panel finds that a candidate does not fulfil the

  conditions required for the performance of the duties of a European Prosecutor, its opinion shall be binding on the Council.

• 3. 

  The European Prosecutors shall be selected and appointed for a non-renewable term of six years by the Council, acting by simple majority. The Council may decide to extend the

  mandate for a maximum of three more years at the end of the six-years period.

• 4. 

  Every three years there shall be a partial replacement of a third of the European Prosecutors.

  The Council, acting by simple majority, shall adopt transitional rules 41 for the appointment of European Prosecutors for and during their first mandate period 42 .

• 5. 

  The Court of Justice of the European Union may, on application by the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission, dismiss a European Prosecutor if it finds that he or she is no longer able to fulfils the conditions required for the perform his or her duties or that he or she is guilty of serious misconduct.

40 PL is of the opinion that it would be enough for each Member State to nominate one candidate for the

position as European Prosecutor. 41 A Recital will be added to duly justify the conferral of implementing powers on the Council, in

accordance with Article 291(2) TFEU. 42 The following recital will be added in this context: 'The Council should take into account the

geographical range of the Member States when deciding on the partial replacement of a third of the European Prosecutors during their first mandate period'.

• 6. 

  If a European Prosecutor resigns, if he/she is dismissed or leaves his/her position for any other reason, the position shall immediately be filled in accordance with the procedure set out in

  paragraphs 1 and 2 above. If the European Prosecutor serves as Deputy European Chief Prosecutor, he or she shall automatically be dismissed also from the latter position.

• 7. 

  The College shall, upon nomination of every European Prosecutor, designate among the

  European Delegated Prosecutors of the same Member State a person to substitute the European Prosecutor who is unable to carry out his/her functions or who left his/her position

  according to paragraphs 5 and 6 above 43 .

  Where the College acknowledges the need for substitution, the designated person shall act as an interim European Prosecutor pending replacement or return of the European Prosecutor for a time period that shall not exceed 3 months. The College may upon request prolong the time

  period if necessary 44 . The mechanisms and modalities of temporary substitution shall be determined and governed by the Internal Rules of Procedure 45 .

  Article 15 Appointment and dismissal of the European Delegated Prosecutors

• 1. 

  The College shall, upon proposal by the European Chief Prosecutor, appoint the European

Delegated Prosecutors nominated by the Member States 46 . The College may reject the

nominated person if he/she does not fulfil the criteria referred to in paragraph 2. The

European Delegated Prosecutors shall be appointed for a term of [five] years 47 , which shall be

renewable.

43 The following accompanying recital will be considered: 'The European Delegated Prosecutor substituting

the European Prosecutor in accordance with Article 14(7) should for the time of the substitution not be in charge of the investigation led by him/her as a European Delegated Prosecutor or as national prosecutor. With regard to proceedings of the EPPO, which were led by the European Delegated Prosecutor substituting a European Prosecutor, Article 23(3)(a) should apply'.

44 A footnote with the following wording will be added: 'Recourse to such possibility should be left to the

discretion of the College, where deemed necessary, taking into account the workload of the office and the duration of the absence, as well as in the cases referred to in paragraph 6 until the European prosecutor’s position is filled in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 above.'

45 The following recital should be introduced in this sense: 'Substitution of a European Prosecutor by one of the European Delegated Prosecutors of the respective Member Stats may take place in cases referred to in Article 14 (6) or in cases, for example, of prolonged illness, whereas a European Prosecutor shall be substituted by another European Prosecutor according to the Internal Rules of Procedure (Article

11(1)), if he or she is e.g. not available due to vacation, a business trip etc.' 46 COM maintains that European Delegated Prosecutors should be appointed by the College based on a list

with a sufficient number of candidates from each MS allowing for a choice. 47 AT and DE have noted that the appropriate maximum term of office will need to be decided in the context

of negotiations on their formal status under EU law.

• 2. 

  The European Delegated Prosecutors shall, from the time of his or her appointment as a

  European Delegated Prosecutor until dismissal, be active members of the public prosecution service or the judiciary of the Member States which nominated them. Their independence shall be beyond doubt and they shall possess the necessary qualifications and relevant

  practical experience of their national legal system. 48

• 3. 

  The College shall dismiss a European Delegated Prosecutor if it finds that he or she no longer fulfils the requirements set out in paragraph 2 or is not able to perform his or her duties, or

  that he or she is guilty of serious misconduct.

• 4. 

  If a Member State decides to dismiss or take disciplinary action against a national prosecutor who has been appointed as European Delegated Prosecutor for reasons not connected with

  his/her responsibilities under this Regulation, it shall inform 49 the European Chief Prosecutor

  before taking such action. A Member State may not dismiss or take disciplinary action against

  a European Delegated Prosecutor for reasons connected with his/her responsibilities under

this Regulation 50 without the consent of the European Chief Prosecutor. If the European Chief

Prosecutor does not consent, the Member State concerned may request the College to review the matter.

• 5. 

  If a European Delegated Prosecutor resigns, if his/her services are no longer necessary to fulfil the duties of the Office, if he/she is dismissed or leaves his/her position for any other reason, the relevant Member State shall immediately inform the European Chief Prosecutor

and, where necessary 51 , nominate another prosecutor to be appointed as the new European

Delegated Prosecutor in accordance with paragraph 1.

48 With regard to the first phrase of the paragraph, the Presidency considers that it will be sufficient to

clarify in a recital that the Member States shall appoint a European Delegated Prosecutor as a Prosecutor under national law if at the time of his or her appointment as a European Delegated Prosecutor, he or she did not have this status already.

49 COM would replace 'inform' with 'consult'.

50 CY and FR have noted that a differentiation between the respective roles of a European Delegated

Prosecutor and of a national prosecutor may need to be spelled out in this context. A number of delegations have also underlined their view that the European Delegated Prosecutors will remain in the national prosecution structure and that national rules on disciplinary actions and other matters should apply to them as regards their activities as national prosecutors. The provision may need to be examined again, in conjunction with the whole Regulation. The following recital should be considered: 'Being active members of the public prosecution service or the judiciary of the Member States, national disciplinary provision should apply accordingly.'

51 A recital should clarify that the number of European Delegated Prosecutors may not be modified without account taken to the rule in Article 12(2) on the approval of the European Chief Prosecutor of the

number of the European Delegated Prosecutors.

S ECTION 3

I NTERNAL RULES OF P ROCEDURE

Article 16 52

Internal rules of Procedure of the European Public Prosecutor ’s Office

• 1. 

  The Internal Rules of Procedure shall govern the organisation of the work of the Office.

• 2. 

  A proposal for the Internal Rules of Procedure of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office

shall be prepared by the European Chief Prosecutor and adopted by the [College] 53 by two

thirds majority without delay once the Office has been set up.

• 3. 

  A modifications in the Internal Rules of Procedure may be proposed by any European

  Prosecutor and shall be adopted by the [College] by two thirds majority.

52 CZ has suggested that a written opinion regarding the binding nature of the Rules of Procedure in relation

with national legislation should be requested from the legal service. The Presidency believes that oral opinions emitted by the legal service were sufficient.

53 The Internal Rules of Procedure, depending on their content and the final analysis as regards the binding nature of the Rules, may need to be confirmed by the Council. The Presidency suggests to come back to this issue at a later stage of negotiations, when a clearer picture of what rules will need to be included in the Internal Rules of Procedure is at hand.

ANNEX 2

S ECTION 4

C OMPETENCE OF THE E UROPEAN P UBLIC P ’ ROSECUTOR S O FFICE

Article 17 1

Criminal offences within the competence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall have competence in respect of the criminal offences

affecting the financial interests of the Union, which are provided for in Directive 2015/xx/EU 2 . The

European Public Prosecutor's Office shall exercise this competence on the basis of the applicable

national law implementing this Directive 3 .

1 PL is of the opinion that the question in art. 17 is linked to the negotiations on the scope of PIF directive.

This includes the sensitive issue of VAT fraud. Therefore this provision should be finalized only after the scope of PIF directive has been clarified and confirmed.

2 The competence of the EPPO as determined by this Article raises complex legal issues that will need to

be considered further. One of the open issues in this Article is whether a dynamic reference (the standard

solution ensuring legal certainty) or a static reference to the substantive law should be chosen. Some

delegations would prefer to see the offences defined in this Regulation directly.

3 COM and CZ have a reservation on this wording and proposes to go back to the previous text ('[...] which

are provided for in Directive 2015/xx/EU, as implemented in national law'). This is considered necessary

because the national law implementing the PIF Directive will not and cannot govern the exercise of

EPPO’s competence. DE has proposed an alternative Article 17, which would be linked to modifications

in other provisions as well (DS 1245/15). The proposal of DE has the support, fully or in part, from a

number of delegations. Other delegations have suggested that the applicable national law should be made

available in an Annex to the Regulation or a dedicated website.

Article 18 4

Ancillary competence

• 1. 

  Where an offence constituting a criminal offence referred to in Article 17 is based on a set of facts which are identical or inextricably linked to a set of facts constituting, in whole or in part under the law of the Member State concerned, a criminal offence other than those referred to in Article 17, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall also be competent for those other criminal offences, under the condition that the offence referred to in Article 17 is

  preponderant. Where the offence referred to in Article 17 is not preponderant, the Member State that is competent for the other offence shall also be competent for the offence referred to

  in Article 17 5 .

• 2. 

  When assessing whether two set of facts are inextricably linked within the meaning of paragraph 1, account shall be taken as to whether one of the relevant offences has been instrumental in committing the other offence or to whether one offence has been committed

  with a view to ensuring impunity 6 .

• 3. 

  An offence in accordance with Article 17 shall be considered to be preponderant:

  • a) 

    if the damage caused or likely to be caused to the Union exceeds the damage caused or

likely to be caused by the same act to the Member State or a third party, or 7 ,

• b) 

  in case the same act, under the law of the Member State, constitutes a different type of offence: if the sanction that may be imposed in respect of the offence in accordance

  with Article 17 is 8 more severe than the sanction that may be imposed in respect of the

  other type of offence.

4 Many delegations continue to question whether the legal basis in Article 86 TFEU covers this Article.

5 The need for this provision has been questioned by some. Others have noted that it must be seen in the

light of the right of evocation as foreseen in Article 21a.

6 A few delegations have suggested that this provision should rather be a recital. Others have suggested that

the text should be given more detail.

7 Many delegations have pointed out that it would be difficult to measure and compare the financial

damage, or that it would at least be difficult to know what the damage is at an early stage of investigation. The assessment of the damage may also change during an investigation. It has been suggested that this rule should be seen as a hierarchical order of criteria. An explanatory recital could be considered to address these concerns. 8 COM, CZ and some delegations would add the words 'equal or' here.

• 4. 

  The European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the national prosecution authorities shall consult each other in order to determine which authority should exercise its competence pursuant to paragraph 1. Where appropriate to facilitate this choice, Eurojust may be

  associated in accordance with Article [57].

• 5. 

  In case of disagreement between the European Public Prosecutor's Office and the national prosecution authorities over the exercise of competence pursuant to this Article, the national

  authorities 9 competent to decide on the attribution of competences concerning prosecution at national level 10 shall decide who shall exercise the ancillary competence.

Article 19 11

Exercise of the competence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office

• 1. 

  The European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall have has priority 12 competence to investigate

and prosecute any criminal offence referred to in Articles 17 and, where applicable, Article

18, where such offence 13 14

• a) 

  was committed in whole or in part within the territory of one or several Member States, or

• b) 

  was committed by a national of a Member State, or

• c) 

  when committed outside of these territories referred to in point a) of this Article by a person who was subject to the Staff Regulations or Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, at the time of the offence, provided that a Member State, according to its law, has jurisdiction for such offences when committed outside its territory.

9 A recital explaining that the notion of national authorities in this provision refers to judicial authorities or

other authorities how have competence to decide on the attribution of competence in accordance with national law.

10 IT and some delegations and COM would prefer to refer to the College or to the Court of Justice for these

decisions (linked to Article 33 on judicial review).

11 COM has a reservation on the lack of proper safeguards for the EPPO’s priority competence: Member

States should refrain from starting investigations –with the exception of taking urgent measures- until the EPPO has decided not to exercise its competence.

12 FI, MT, NL and PL would delete the word 'priority' here.

13 This jurisdiction provision should at term be in principle identical with the corresponding jurisdiction provision in the PIF-Directive. Some delegations would introduce a reference to "participating Member States" in this and other provisions.

14 One delegation has requested that non-serious offences for which intent is presumed according to national law should not be covered by the competence of the Office.

• 2. 

  The European Public Prosecutor's Office shall exercise its competence by initiating an investigation in accordance with Article 21 unless the Office has become aware that national authorities have already opened an investigation in respect of the same offence. If the European Public Prosecutor’s Office decides to exercise its competence, the national authorities shall not exercise an own competence in respect of the same offence. If the national authorities have already started a criminal investigation in respect of the same offence, the European Public Prosecutor's Office may take over the investigation initiated by the national authority by exercising its right of evocation in accordance with Article 21a.

CHAPTER IV

RULES OF PROCEDURE ON INVESTIGATIONS, PROSECUTIONS AND

TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

S ECTION 1

REPORTING AND BASIC RULES ON INVESTIGATIONS

Article 20 15

Reporting, registration and verification of information

• 1. 

  The institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, and the authorities of the Member States competent in accordance with applicable national law, shall inform without delay the European Public Prosecutor's Office of any criminal conduct which might constitute an

offence within its competence. 16 Information referred to in this Article shall be provided in a

structured way, as established by the European Public Prosecutor's Office. The report shall include, as a minimum, a short description of the conduct, including an assessment of the damages caused or likely to be caused, and available information about victims and suspects.

The report may be presented in the form of automatically generated information.

15 FR proposes to include the following additional paragraph: 'The College may, in consultation with

national authorities, upon proposal by the European delegated prosecutors, determine specific modalities

of information or discharge the national authorities from their obligation to inform the European Public

Prosecutor’s Office regarding certain types of offences, in particular customs infringements violating

Union customs legislation. Recourse to such possibility may be envisaged in particular for offences which

the European Public Prosecutor’s Office deems to be best dealt with by national authorities under

domestic law.' The provision should be joined with the following recital 'The European Public

Prosecutor’s Office, on decision by the College, upon proposal by the European delegated prosecutors,

should be entitled to determine specific modalities of information or discharge the national authorities

from their obligation to report regarding certain types of offences, including where the conduct caused or

is likely to cause damage to the Union’s financial interest of more that EUR 20 000. Recourse to such

possibility could be envisaged in particular in cases of offences of minor nature in order to ensure an

even exercise of competence by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, taking into account possible

discrepancies in Member States’ criminal law.'

BE, ES and COM would oppose a threshold of EUR 20 000.

SI, BE has proposed that the information obligation could be linked to a review clause.

16 A recital stating the following should be considered: 'Member States should set up a system which will

ensure that information is reported to EPPO as soon as possible. It is up to the Member States to decide

whether to set up a direct or centralized system.''

The College may, in consultation with national authorities, determine specific modalities of information or discharge the national authorities from their obligation to inform the European Public Prosecutor’s Office regarding certain types of offences. Recourse to such possibility may be envisaged in particular for offences which the European Public Prosecutor’s Office

deems to be best dealt with by national authorities.

• 2. 

  Where the criminal conduct caused or is likely to cause damage to the Union's financial

interest of less than EUR [20 000] 17 , and neither has repercussions at Union level 18 which

require an investigation to be conducted by the Office nor which does not involve a criminal offence has been committed by officials and other servants of the European Union or members of the institutions, the information obligation may be fulfilled through a summary

report every six months 19 . The content of the summary report may be limited to a summary

description of the relevant criminal conduct and an assessment of damages caused or likely to be caused. The content of the summary report may be limited to the number of criminal proceedings initiated, a number of cases where an investigation has not been initiated, the number of proceedings dismissed, the number resulting in a conviction, the number resulting in an acquittal and the number of ongoing proceedings. The report may be presented in the

form of automatically generated information.

Based on such summary reports, the College EPPO shall be entitled to request national authorities to report without delay offences matching a specific crime pattern s offence likely to cause damage to the Union's financial interest of less than EUR 20 000 when committed in

circumstances deemed to have repercussions at Union level.

17 PL and SE, supported by AT, BE, CY, CZ, EE, ES FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, NL, SI, have a reservation on

the reporting obligation as regard offences causing or likely to cause damages of less than EUR 10 000 (DS 1249/15 and DS 1274/15). IT, RO, ES, CZ, LT, DE, HR, BE, BG and COM would prefer the 10 000 threshold.

18 A definition of repercussion at Union level will be added in a recital. FR, supported by EE, ES, HR, IT

and LT, proposes the following wording: 'A particular case should be considered as having repercussions at Union level inter alia where a given fraud has a transnational nature and scale, where such fraud involves a criminal organisation, or where, given the nature of the case, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office would be best placed to investigate, in view of the seriousness of the damage caused to the Union’s financial interests or the Union Institutions’ credit and Union citizen’ confidence.' The exact wording of this recital is under discussion. BE has suggested that the College could elaborate guidelines on the meaning of the notion of repercussions. 19 COM reservation: reports should be more frequent (every 3 months as in previous versions).

• 3. 

  Information provided to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall be registered and verified by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in accordance with the Internal Rules of Procedure. The verification shall aim to assess whether, on the basis of the information

provided in accordance with Article 21(1), there are grounds to initiate an investigation 20 .

• 4. 

  Where, upon verification, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office decides that there are no grounds to initiate an investigation, the reasons shall be noted in Case Management system. It shall inform the national authority, the Union institution, body, office or agency, and, if

  requestedwhere necessary, crime victims and other persons who provided the information, thereof. Where the information received by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office reveals that a criminal offence outside of the scope of the competence of the Office may have been committed, it shall without undue delay inform the competent national authorities.

• 5. 

  The European Public Prosecutor’s Office may collect or request 21 any information that is relevant for the functions of the Office 22 .

20 CZ proposes the following wording: 'Verification shall aim to assess whether the information shows that the conditions set by Articles 17 and 18 determine the competence of the Office'. The Presidency, supported by ES, would prefer to include this text in a recital.

21 DE has a reservation on the words ‘may request’, arguing that the text could be interpreted that the recipient of the request is required – under any circumstance – to provide the requested information.

22 A recital explaining that the rules of registration and verification set out in this Article shall apply mutatis mutandis if the information received refers to any conduct which might constitute a criminal offence

within its competence will be considered. The recital will also clarify that Member States may provide any information to the Office.

Article 21

Initiation of investigations and allocation of competences within the European Public Prosecutor’s Office

• 1. 

  Where, in accordance with the applicable national law, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence within the competence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is being or has been committed, a European Delegated Prosecutor in a Member State which

  according to its national law has jurisdiction in the case shall 23 , without prejudice to the rules

  in Article 19(2) and 21(a)(3), initiate an investigation and note this in the Case Management

  System 24 .

• 2. 

  The Permanent Chamber which receives the information shall instruct the European

  Delegated Prosecutor to initiate the investigation 25 , in accordance with the criteria referred in

  paragraph 3, where no investigation has been initiated by a European Delegated Prosecutor. 3. A case shall in principle be handled by a European Delegated Prosecutor from the Member

  State where the focus of the criminal activity is or, if several connected offences within the competences of the Office have been committed, the Member State where the bulk of the offences has been committed. A Permanent Chamber may only instruct a European Delegated Prosecutor of a different Member States to initiate an investigation where that Member State has jurisdiction for the case and where a deviation from the above mentioned principles is

  duly justified, taking into account the following criteria, in order of priority 26 :

  • a) 

    the place where the suspect or accused person has his/her habitual residence;

  • b) 

    the nationality of the suspect or accused person;

  • c) 

    the place where the main financial damage has occurred 27 .

23 FR and NL would prefer the word "may" here.

24 It is the understanding of the Presidency that the notification in the Case Management System will cover

the necessary information from the European Delegated Prosecutors to the Central Office.

25 The following recital should be introduced in this context: 'An investigation should be systematically

initiated where there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence falling within the EPPO's competence is being or has been committed. Such an obligation should not preclude subsequent decisions of the EPPO not to prosecute, by dismissing the case or proposing a transaction.'

26 HU has emitted a reservation on this paragraph.

27 HU and SK would like to add additional criteria, in particular the location of the evidence. PL prefers to

follow the model of bases of jurisdiction contained in other EU criminal law instruments, where “habitual residence” is absent or - at most - optional – hence no reason to put it in the first place in order of priority. See e.g. Directive 2001/93 i and Directive 2013/40 i.

• 4. 

  Until a decision to prosecute in accordance with Article 27 is taken, the competent Permanent Chamber in a case concerning the jurisdiction of more than one Member State may, after

  consultation with the European Prosecutors and/or European Delegated Prosecutors concerned, decide to:

  • a) 

    reallocate a case to a European Delegated Prosecutor in another Member State;

• b) 

  merge or split 28 cases and in each case choose the European Delegated Prosecutor

  handling the case;

  if such decisions are in the interest of the efficiency of investigations and in accordance with the criteria for the choice of the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case set out in paragraph 3 in this Article.

• 5. 

  Whenever the Permanent Chamber is taking a decision to reallocate, merge or split a case it shall take due account of the current state of the investigations.

28 The term 'split' will be explained in a recital, which could have the following wording: 'In principle a

suspect shall only face one investigation or prosecution by the EPPO in order to best safeguard the rights of the defendant. Therefore the Permanent Chamber should seek to merge/combine proceedings concerning the same suspect but may refrain from doing so where this is in the interest of the efficiency of investigations or prosecutions. Where an offence has been committed by several persons, the EPPO should in principle initiate only one case and conduct investigations in respect of all suspects jointly. Where several European Delegated Prosecutors had opened investigations in respect of the same criminal offence, the Permanent Chamber should in principle merge/combine such investigations. The Permanent Chamber may decide not to merge/combine or decide to subsequently split such proceedings if this is in the interest of the efficiency of investigations, e.g. if proceedings against one suspect can be terminated at an earlier stage whereas proceedings against other suspects still have to be continued or if splitting the case could shorten the period of pre-trail detention of one of the suspects etc. In case the Permanent Chamber decides to split a case its competence for the cases should be maintained'. COM considers that splitting a case is against the spirit of EPPO, being one single office.

Article 21a 29

Right of evocation and transfer of proceedings to the European Public Prosecutor's Office

• 1. 

  When a judicial or law enforcement authority 30 of a Member State exercises competence in

  respect of a criminal offence where the European Public Prosecutor's Office could be competent and have a right of evocation in accordance with this Regulation, it shall without delay inform the European Public Prosecutor's Office so that the latter may decide whether to exercise the Office’s right of evocation. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall take its decision as soon as possible but no later than 5 days after having received all relevant

  information from the national authority, unless the European Chief Prosecutor 31 in a specific

  case takes a reasoned decision to prolong the time frame of 5 days with a maximum prolongation of 5 days. During this timeperiod the national authority shall refrain from taking any decision under national law which may have the effect of precluding the European Public Prosecutor’s Office from exercising its right of evocation, but shall take any urgent measures necessary, according to national law, to ensure effective investigation and prosecution.

• 2. 

  If the European Public Prosecutor's Office becomes otherwise aware of the fact that an investigation in respect of the same case is already undertaken by the competent authorities of a Member State, it shall inform these authorities without delay, and shall take a decision on whether to exercise its competence, after being duly informed under paragraph 1, within the time periods of the previous paragraph.

2a. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office 32 shall, where appropriate, consult competent

authorities of the Member State concerned before deciding whether to exercise its right of evocation. Where the European Public Prosecutor's Office exercises its right of evocation, the competent authorities of the Member States shall transfer the proceedings to the Office and refrain from carrying out further acts of investigation in respect of the same offence except when acting on behalf of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in accordance with Article 23.

29 CZ would like to include new para on the right to delegate a case from EPPO to the competent national

authorities, if EPPO finds out that it is not competent any more (for example for the reason of the damage which showed up to be lower than previously estimated and is below the threshold of the EPPO competence). COM reservation on this article: the EPPO should enjoy priority competence, and Member States should refrain from starting investigations – with the exception of taking urgent measures - until the EPPO has decided not to exercise its competence.

30 MT, FI, SE would prefer to refer to 'competent authorities' here.

31 FI has a reservation as regards the level of European Chief Prosecutor here.

• 3. 

  Where a criminal offence caused or is likely to cause damage to the Union's financial interests

of less than EUR [20 000] 33 the European Public Prosecutor ’s Office shall refrain from

exercising its right of evocation, unless

• a) 

  a case has repercussions at Union level which require an investigation to be conducted by the Office, or

• b) 

  a case has been opened following suspicions that an offence has been committed by

  officials and other servants of the European Union, or members of the Institutions 34 .

The Office shall, where appropriate 35 , consult the competent national authorities or Union

bodies in view of establishing whether the criteria of the cases defined in (a) and (b) in this provision are fulfilled.

• 4. 

  In case of an ancillary competence in accordance with Article 18, the European Public

  Prosecutor’s Office may exercise its right of evocation in accordance with the conditions set

  out in that Article 36 .

• 5. 

  The right of evocation in accordance with this Article may be exercised by a European

  Delegated Prosecutor from any Member State, whose competent authorities have initiated an own investigation in respect of an offence in accordance with Articles 17 or 18, or in cases

referred to in Article 9 (3)(a) and (b) 37 upon instruction by a Permanent Chamber. Where a

European Delegated Prosecutor, who has received the information in accordance with paragraph 1 and 4 of this Article considers not to exercise the right of evocation, he/she shall inform the European Prosecutor of his/her Member State with a view to enabling the Permanent Chamber to exercise the Office’s right in accordance with Article 9(3)(b). Article 21(2), (3) and (4) shall apply when the right of evocation is exercised.

• 6. 

  Where the Office has refrained from exercising its right of evocation, it shall inform the competent national authority without undue delay. The competent judicial or law enforcement authorities shall at any time in the course of the proceedings inform the Office of any new facts which could give the Office reasons to reconsider its previous decision.

33 See footnote 17 above.

34 A few delegations have questioned whether these cases always need to be handled by the Office. DE

would like to include a recital to address this issue. Many delegations would like to see a definition or explanation of the concept of 'repercussions at Union level' included in the text.

35 CZ, NL, SK wish to delete the words 'where appropriate'. RO would oppose such a deletion.

36 CY, FI, MT, NL and SI have emitted general reservations as regards Article 18 in the Regulation.

37 DE has a reservation has regards the words 'or in cases referred to in Article 9(3)(a) and (b).'

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office may exercise its right of evocation after receiving such information, provided that the national investigation has not already been finalised and that an indictment has not been submitted to and received by a court. The decision shall be taken within the time frame set out in paragraph 1 of this Article .

Article 23 Conducting the investigation

• 1. 

  The European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case may, in accordance with national law,

either undertake the investigation and other measures 38 on his/her own or instruct the

competent authorities in the Member State where he/she is located. These authorities shall, in accordance with national law, ensure that all instructions from the European Public

Prosecutor's Office 39 , coming through the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case 40 , are followed and undertake the measures assigned to them. The European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case shall report 41 through the competent European Prosecutor to the

Permanent Chamber on significant developments in the case, in accordance with the rules laid down in the Internal Rules of Procedure.

• 2. 

  In cross-border cases, where measures need to be executed in another Member State, the

  European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case shall act in cooperation with the European Delegated Prosecutor where the measure needs to be carried out in accordance with Article 26a.

• 3. 

  At any time during investigations conducted by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, the competent national authorities shall take urgent measures necessary to ensure effective

  investigations even where not specifically acting under an instruction given by the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case. The national authorities shall without delay inform the European Delegated Prosecutor of the urgent measures taken.

38 DE would like to see the words 'and other measures' deleted.

39 NL would like to replace 'European Public Prosecutor's Office' with 'European Delegated Prosecutors' in

this paragraph. 40 COM and DE wishes to delete the reference to the European Delegated Prosecutor here. 41 CZ wishes to see a recital explaining the exact meaning of the notion of report, such as how these reports

should look like, how they should be prepared and who will translate them. It is presumable that European Delegated Prosecutors could take advantage of automated systems (see Article 20(2)) and that they will not be in charge of translation of the reports; it will be up to the central level to ensure necessary translations.

3a. 42 The European Prosecutor may propose to the Permanent Chamber to reallocate the case to

another European Delegated Prosecutor in the same Member State when the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case a) cannot perform the investigation or prosecution, or b) fails to follow the instructions of the competent Permanent Chamber or the European Prosecutor.

• 4. 

  The supervising European Prosecutor may - with the approval of that Permanent Chamber - in

exceptional cases take a reasoned decision to conduct the investigation himself/herself 43 , if

this appears indispensable in the interest of the efficiency of the investigation or prosecution on the grounds of one or more of the following criteria: a) the seriousness of the offence, in particular in view of its possible repercussions on

Union level 44 ;

• b) 

  when the investigation concerns Members of the institutions of the European Union; c) when the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case in the Member State cannot

  perform the investigation or prosecution 45 .

When a European Prosecutor conducts the investigation himself/herself, he/she shall have all the powers, responsibilities and obligations of a European Delegated Prosecutor in accordance with this Regulation and national law. The competent national authorities and the European Delegated Prosecutors concerned by the case shall be informed without delay of any decision taken under this paragraph.

42 CZ and HU would like to explicitly clarify the consequences when the instructions given are "wrong".

43 CY, IE, NL opposes this provision. CY, MT have noted that the provision is, as such, difficult to

conciliate with common law systems. FI, HR, SI have asked for it to be clarified that a European Prosecutor who conducts the investigation himself or herself shall be appointed to be national prosecutor.

44 BE, SI considers this criterion to be too broad.

45 PT has noted that an explanatory recital in necessary for this point. Such a recital could have the following wording 'This condition entails that the European Delegated Prosecutor or the national authorities in charge of the investigation under his/her instructions are unable or unavailable to undertake certain measures or finalise the investigation within the time-frame set'.

• 5. 

  Investigations carried out under the authority of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall be protected by the rules concerning professional secrecy under the applicable Union

  legislation. Any person participating or assisting in carrying out the functions of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall be bound to respect professional secrecy as provided under

  the applicable national law. 46

  Article 24 Lifting privileges or immunities

• 1. 

  Where the investigations of the European Public Prosecutor ’s Office involve persons

protected by privileges or immunities under national law, and such privilege or immunity

presents an obstacle to a specific investigation being conducted, the European Delegated

Prosecutor handling the case 47 shall make a reasoned written request for its lifting in

accordance with the procedures laid down by that national law.

• 2. 

  Where the investigations of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office involve persons protected by privileges or immunities under the law of the European Union, in particular the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, and such privilege or immunity presents an obstacle to a specific investigation being conducted, the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case shall make a reasoned written request for its lifting in accordance with the procedures laid down by Union law.

46 CZ would add another provision here, to deal with evidence-related issues. CZ proposes the following paragraph: 'For using the information obtained within the investigation and prosecution conducted by the European Public Prosecutor's Office as evidence for the purpose of the criminal proceedings by the

competent national authorities, it is not necessary to have the consent of the European Public Prosecutor's Office'.

47 BE, BG, IT, RO and COM have suggested that this request should rather be made by European Chief

Prosecutor, or following instructions from the European Chief Prosecutor or a Permanent Chamber.

S ECTION 2

INVESTIGATION AND OTHER M EASURES

Article 25 The European Public Prosecutor's Office's authority to investigate

The European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case shall be entitled to order or request the same types of measures in his/her Member State which are available to investigators/prosecutors according to national law in similar national cases. In addition to the conditions set out in national law, such measures may only be ordered where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the specific measure in question might provide information or evidence useful to the investigation, and

where there is no less intrusive measure available which could achieve the same objective. 48

Article 26

Investigation and other measures 49

Member States shall, in addition to the measures indicated in Article 25, ensure, at least in cases where the offence subject to the investigation is punishable by a maximum penalty of at least four years of imprisonment, and in accordance with the conditions and procedural requirements foreseen in national law and in Article 25 in this Regulation for the application of these measures, that the

following measures are also available 50 under their laws to the European Public Prosecutor’s

Office:

• a) 

  search any premises, land, means of transport, private home, clothes and any other personal property or computer system, and any conservatory measures necessary to preserve their

  integrity or to avoid the loss or contamination of evidence;

48 DE, IT and COM would reintroduce the old paragraph 2 (see doc 7070/15), and FI, FR, LT the old

paragraph 3, in this Article. COM opposes that the European Delegated Prosecutors deal with the lifting of immunities under EU law.

49 The inclusion of following recital should be considered 'Taking into account the status of European

Delegated Prosecutors in their respective Member States, they should be able to use investigative or

other measures available to the national prosecutors, to the extent these measures would be lawfully

available to national prosecutors in a concrete situation.'

DE, SI, NL, SE has a reservation on the Article. SE sees three options for changing Article 26: (1)

deletion of the whole article, (2) inclusion of a clear cut reference to national law without the provisions

of “shall ensure”, “in addition”, “also”. Thus it would be more or less an information and not really

adding to the Regulation, but that is also our intention, or (3) keep the first paragraph but delete the last

two points d) and e). Point d) is not really fully available in our legal system as the text is currently

proposed. Point e) is of course available but demands a different/higher threshold than foreseen in the

current wording of article 26.

• b) 

  obtain the production of any relevant object or document, or of stored computer data, including traffic data and banking account data, encrypted or decrypted, either in original or in some other specified form;

• c) 

  freeze instrumentalities or proceeds of crime, including freezing of assets, which are expected to be subject to confiscation by the trial court and there is reason to believe that the owner,

  possessor or controller will seek to frustrate the judgement ordering confiscation 51 ;

• d) 

  freeze future financial transactions, by ordering any financial or credit institution to refrain from carrying out any financial transaction involving any specified account or accounts held

  or controlled by the suspected or accused person 52 ;

• e) 

  intercept electronic communications to and from the suspected person, on any electronic

  communication connection that the suspected or accused person is using 53 .

Article 26a 54

Cross-border investigations

• 1. 

  The European Delegated Prosecutors shall assist and regularly consult each other in crossborder cases. Where a measure needs to be undertaken in a Member State other than the

  Member State of the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case, the latter shall assign

the measure to a European Delegated Prosecutor 55 located in the Member State where that

measure needs to be carried out.

51 DE would like c) to be deleted.

52 DE, PL would like d) to be deleted, COM and FR oppose the deletion.

53 MT would like to delete e), based on the reluctance of national authorities to use it.

54 There are many diverging views on the content of this provision. This text is an attempt by the Presidency

to reconcile as many as possible of the views expressed by delegations. AT, DE have proposed an alternative content and structure of the Article, and have received support from a number of delegations for this (DS 1237/15). FI, with support of AT, CZ, DE, MT, PL, SE has suggested an additional Article to be added to the AT/DE proposal (DS 1238/15). Some delegations have also suggested that the European Delegated Prosecutors should be able to apply the instruments of mutual recognition. SE has noted a reservation on the whole text of the Article.

55 A separate provision ensuring clarity as regards the right European Delegated Prosecutor to contact will be added to the Regulation.

• 2. 

  The European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case may assign any measure in his or her competence in accordance with this Regulation or with national law of the Member State

  where he or she is located. The adoption and justification of such measures shall be governed

  by the law of the Member States of the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case 56 .

  The enforcement of such measures, including conditions, modalities and procedures for taking

  such measures, shall be governed by the law of the Member State of the assisting European

  Delegated Prosecutor.

• 3. 

  The assignment shall set out, in particular, a description of the measures(s) needed, and where necessary any specific formalities that have to be complied with, where available and relevant for the handling of the case, the evidence to be obtained, the description of the facts and the

  legal qualification of the criminal act which is the subject of the investigation. The assignment may call for the measure to be undertaken within a given time.

• 4. 

  Where the law of the Member State of the assisting European Delegated Prosecutor requires judicial authorisation for a particular measure, it shall be obtained by him/her. Where the law of the Member State of the assisting European Delegated Prosecutor does not require such a judicial authorisation, but the law of the Member State of the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case requires it, the authorisation shall be obtained by the latter European

  Delegated Prosecutor. 57

  If judicial authorisation for the assigned measure is refused, the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case shall withdraw the assignment.

56 A recital with the following wording will be considered: 'The European Delegated Prosecutorhandling

the case should assess the specific need for certain evidence gathering measures, taking into account, from a procedural perspective, the prerequisites set in the law of his MS for ordering the evidence gathering measure or for asking the judicial authorisation, in full respect of the division of judicial powers.'

57 Many delegations have criticised this paragraph on different grounds. The following recital maybe

considered to accompany the paragraph: 'The purpose of the rules on judicial authorisation of measures

in cross-border cases should ensure that the duplication of the procedure of judicial authorisation can be

avoided. In principle judicial authorisation should be ensured in all the cases if the law of the handling or

assisting Member States provides for such authorisation. In order to ensure efficient investigation, the

authorisation of the assisting Member State should be given priority. Authorisation of the handling

Member State should only be sought, if the law of the assisting Member State does not require the

authorisation, but the law of the handling Member State does'.

In principle, the remedies against decisions regarding such judicial authorisation shall be governed by the

law of the Member State in which the decision is taken. The place in the Regulation of the provision

saying this remains to be determined.

• 5. 

  The assisting European Delegated Prosecutor shall undertake the assigned notified measure, or instruct the competent national authority to do so. The assisting European Delegated

  Prosecutor shall thereby comply with the formalities and procedures expressly indicated by the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case, provided that such formalities and

  procedures are not contrary to fundamental principles of law 58 .

• 6. 

  Where the assisting European Delegated Prosecutor considers that:

  • a) 

    the assignment is incomplete or contains a manifest relevant error,

  • b) 

    the measure cannot be undertaken within the time limit set out in the assignment for justified and objective reasons,

• c) 

  an alternative measure would achieve the same results as the measure assigned, or

• d) 

  the assigned measure does not exist or would not be available in a similar domestic case

  under the law of his or her Member State 59 ,

  he or she shall consult with the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case in order to resolve the matter bilaterally.

• 7. 

  If the European Delegated Prosecutors cannot resolve the matter within 7 working days and the assignment is maintained, the matter shall be referred to the competent Permanent

  Chamber. The same applies where the assigned measure is not undertaken within the time limit set out in the assignment or within a reasonable time.

• 8. 

  The competent Permanent Chamber shall to the extent necessary hear the European Delegated Prosecutors concerned by the case and then decide without undue delay whether and by when the measure needed, or a substitute measure, shall be undertaken by the assisting European

Delegated Prosecutor, and communicate this decision through the competent European

Prosecutor 60 .

58 Some delegations have questioned the need for the last 14 words of this Article.

59 Some delegations have suggested that it should explicitly be stated that also national law implementing Article 26 a) to e) is covered by this provision.

60 A number of delegations have noted that the link between this provision and Article 9(6) may need to be clarified.

Article 26b

Pre-trial arrest and cross-border surrender

• 1. 

  The European Delegated Prosecutors may order or request from the competent judicial authority the arrest or pre-trial detention of the suspected or accused person in accordance with national law.

• 2. 

  Where the arrest and surrender of a person who is not present in the Member State in which the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case is located, is necessary, the latter shall, for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution, issue or request the competent authority of that Member State to issue a European Arrest Warrant in accordance with Council

  Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States.

  S ECTION 3 61

  T ERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION AND POWERS OF PROSECUTION

Article 27 62

Prosecution before national courts

• 1. 

  When the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case considers the investigation to be completed, he/she shall submit a summary of the case with, where applicable, a draft

  indictment to the competent European Prosecutor and Permanent Chamber for review. Where it does not instruct to dismiss the case pursuant to Article 28, the Permanent Chamber, acting through the competent European Prosecutor, shall instruct the European Delegated Prosecutor to bring the case before the competent national court with an indictment, or refer it back for

  further investigations. 63

61 DE proposes a new Article X, as well as a redrafting of Articles 27 and 28 (DS 1266/15).

62 It has been suggested that a new Article with an enumeration of the decisions that the Office can take to

terminate an investigation are indicated should be introduced before this provision. CZ would prefer the wording included in doc 14710/14.

63 The phrase 'If the European Delegated Prosecutor has not received any instruction in this sense within [x working days], it may decide to bring the case to the competent national Court on its proper initiative'

has been deleted following recent discussions in Council, during which a majority of delegations have spoken out against decision-making through silent procedure.

• 2. 

  The competent Permanent Chamber shall determine, in close consultation with the European Delegated Prosecutor submitting the case, the Member State in which the prosecution shall be brought. The Permanent Chamber shall in principle bring the prosecution in the Member State of the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case. The Chamber may determine

another Member State, which has jurisdiction in the case, if there are sufficiently justified

grounds related to the criteria for determining the European Delegated Prosecutor handling

the case in Article 21 (2) and (3) 64 .

• 3. 

  The competent national court is determined on the basis of national law.

• 4. 

  Where necessary for the purposes of recovery, administrative follow-up or monitoring, the

  Central Office shall notify the competent national authorities, the interested persons and the relevant Union institutions, bodies, agencies of the indictment.

Article 28

Dismissal of the case 65

• 1. 

  The competent Permanent Chamber shall, on proposal from the European Delegated

  Prosecutor handling the case 66 , dismiss the case against a person where prosecution has become impossible on account of any of the following grounds 67 :

  • a) 

    death of the suspect or accused person;

  • b) 

    amnesty granted in the state which has jurisdiction in the case;

  • c) 

    immunity granted to the suspect, unless it has been lifted;

  • d) 

    expiry of the national statutory limitation 68 to prosecute;

  • e) 

    the suspect or accused person has already been finally acquitted or convicted of the same facts within the Union or the case has been dealt with in accordance with

    Article 29;

  • f) 

    lack of relevant evidence.

64 Many have called for specific rules on judicial review of the decision on jurisdiction of trial.

65 CZ has concerns as regards cases when an accused person insists on prosecution. CZ has also noted

further concerns regarding this Article linked to the handling of investigation in practice in CZ. 66 It may be necessary to clarify that the law of the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case will

apply here. 67 Delegations have made a number of suggestions as regards the grounds. A criterion regarding

permanently deranged persons has been called for, and a link to the prescription rules has also been asked for.

68 SK raised the question under which national law this should be assessed in cross-border cases.

• 2. 

  A decision in accordance with paragraph 1 shall not bar further investigations on the basis of new facts, which could not have been known to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office at the time of the decision and which become known hereafter and before expiry of applicable statutory limitations in all Member States where the case can be brought to judgment. The

  decision to reopen investigations on the basis of such new facts shall be taken by the competent Permanent Chamber.

• 3. 

  Where a case has been dismissed, the Central Office shall officially notify the competent national authorities and shall inform the relevant Union institutions, bodies and agencies, as

  well as suspects or accused and the injured party, thereof. 69 The cases dismissed may also be

  referred to OLAF or to competent national administrative or judicial authorities for recovery, other administrative follow-up or monitoring.

• 4. 

  Where an investigation initiated by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office reveals that the conduct subject to investigation may constitute a criminal offence, which is not within its

  competence, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall refer the case without delay to the

  competent national authorities.

69 A number of delegations have requested that a more detailed rule on ne bis in idem should be inserted in this Article, in particular in relation to point e).

Article 29 70

Transactions

• 1. 

  After obtaining the approval of the competent Permanent Chamber, the European Delegated

Prosecutor handling the case may propose 71 , to the suspect to pay a lump-sum fine which,

once paid, entails the final dismissal of the case (transaction), if the following cumulative criteria are satisfied:

aa) the offence has not been committed in circumstances that may be considered to be particularly serious, for example since the level of guilt of the suspect can not be

considered to be particularly severe;

• a) 

  the damages caused in total, to the Union's financial interests as well as to other victims,

  does not exceed 50 000 72 euros;

  • b) 

    it would serve the purpose of proper administration of justice and the general criminal law objectives;

  • c) 

    the damage has been compensated to all victims;

  • d) 

    the suspect has neither been the subject of a transaction under this Regulation nor been convicted of offences affecting the Union's financial interests before.

• 2. 

  The suspect shall have the right to receive legal advice on the advisability of accepting or refusing the proposal for the transaction as well as on its legal consequences, in accordance with national law.

70 Some delegations would prefer if this Article is deleted from the Regulation, of that the provision give

Member States the possibility to apply alternative mechanisms instead. CZ, DE, SI are of the opinion that

a thorough revision of this Article is necessary. AT has submitted an alternative drafting proposal for the

Article (DS 1310/15). PL enters a reservation due to imposition of further harmonization only on Member

States which provide for transaction.

71 BE, FI, HU, MT, NL, PT and SE would keep a reference to national law here.

72 FR and NL believe the threshold to be too low.

• 3. 

  The European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall ensure that the amount of the fine is proportionate to the damage caused and to the suspect’s financial means. The amount of the fine shall be calculated in accordance with the method of calculation defined by the rules

  referred to in Article 72 (e) 73 .

3a. When a judicial authorisation of a transaction is required under the law of the Member State of the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case, the said European Delegated

Prosecutor shall seek such authorisation before communicating the final transaction proposal to the suspect.

3b. Where the European Public Prosecutor’s Office exercices a competence in accordance with Article 18 (1), the decision to offer a transaction shall be taken only with the consent of the competent national authorities of the Member State concerned. Where the competent

authorities deny giving their consent, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office may refer the case to the judicial authorities of the Member State for further investigation or prosecution [in accordance with Article 28a (2)].

• 4. 

  The transaction proposal shall set out the alleged facts, the identity of the suspect, the alleged offence, the compensation of the damage caused and the commitment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to dismiss the case if the suspect agrees with this proposal and pays the

  fine to the Union budget, as well as the time-limit within which the suspect has to pay the fine, which shall not exceed 4 months. Where the suspect agrees to such proposal, he/she shall pay within the set time-limit following receipt of the proposal of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office can upon the request of the suspect extend the period for the payment by another [15/30/45] days, where this is justified.

• 5. 

  The European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall supervise the collection of the financial payment involved in the transaction. Where the fine is paid by the suspect within the timelimit set out in paragraph 4, the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case shall finally dismiss the case and notify the competent national authorities and shall inform the relevant Union institutions, bodies, agencies and injured parties thereof. The transaction shall be noted in the Case Management System of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

73 RO has requested that a more precise method for calculation should be included already in this Article.

• 6. 

  If the proposed fine is not paid within the time set out in paragraph 4 the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case shall continue the prosecution of the case.

• 7. 

  The European Public Prosecutor’s Office or the competent national authorities may not prosecute the suspect for the same facts which constituted the offence being the subject of the final dismissal through a transaction.

S ECTION 4

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

Article 30

Admissibility of evidence 74

• 1. 

  Evidence presented by the prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor ’s Office to the

  trial court, where the court considers that its admission would not adversely affect the fairness of the procedure or the rights of defence or other rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, shall [not be subject to/be admitted in the trial without] any validation or similar legal process even if the national law of the Member State where the court is located provides for different rules on the collection or presentation of such evidence.

• 2. 

  Once the evidence is admitted, the competence of national courts to assess freely the

  evidence presented by the prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor ’s Office at trial

  shall not be affected.

74 Many delegations have noted that this provision can only be finalised when the final wording of Article 27

will be there. Some delegations have called for a more explicit and detailed rule, in particular as regards illegally collected evidence. A few delegations have asked for a reference to national constitutions to be added. The text of this Article may need to be reassessed as a result of the outcome of discussions on Article 26a.

S ECTION 5 C ONFISCATION

Article 31

Disposition of the confiscated assets 75

Where, in accordance with the requirements and procedures laid down by national law including the national law implementing Directive 2014/42 i, the competent national court has decided by a final ruling to confiscate any property related to, or proceeds derived from, an offence within the

competence of the European Public Prosecutor ’s Office, Member States shall ensure that the

monetary value of such property or proceeds shall ultimately be transferred to the Union ’s budget,

to the extent necessary to compensate the prejudice caused to the Union and to administrative measures such as the recovery of any amounts lost as a result of irregularities or negligence. This transfer shall not prejudice the rights of other victims subject to their legitimate claims.

CHAPTER IV

PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS

Article 32 76

Scope of the rights of the suspects and accused persons as well as other persons involved

• 1. 

  The activities of the European Public Prosecutor ’s Office shall be carried out in full

compliance with the rights of suspected persons enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental

Rights of the European Union, including the right to a fair trial and the rights of defense.

75 Some delegations have questioned whether there is a legal basis for this provision. Others have suggested

that national law should apply in this are. Some delegations have requested that clarifying and detailed provisions on, for example, how money should be collected must be added, how claims should be made, how the monetary value shall be decided etc. It has also been requested that it must be ensured that the EU will not receive the same money twice, first through recovery and then from confiscated proceeds.

76 Many delegations have underlined that provisions on access to the file for in particular suspected persons

must be included in the Regulation. Some delegations would prefer to delete the list of instruments in this provision, and move it to the recitals. Some have also noted that precisions as regards applicable law are needed.

• 2. 

  Any suspect and accused persons as well as other persons who are a party in the criminal

proceedings of the European Public Prosecutor ’s Office shall, as a minimum, have the

procedural rights as they are provided for in Union law, including directives concerning the rights of individuals in criminal procedures, such as:

(a) the right to interpretation and translation, as provided for in Directive 2010/64 i/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,

(b) the right to information and access to the case materials, as provided for in Directive 2012/13 i/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,

(c) the right of access to a lawyer and the right to communicate with and have third persons informed in case of detention, as provided for in Directive 2013/48 i/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in

criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty,

(d) the right to remain silent and the right to be presumed innocent as provided for in Directive 201x/xx/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council to strengthen the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings,

(e) the right to legal aid as provided for in Directive 201x/xx/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the right to provisional legal aid for citizens suspected or accused of a crime and for those subject to a European Arrest Warrant,

• 3. 

  Without prejudice to the rights provided in this Chapter, suspects and accused persons as well

  as other persons involved in the proceedings of the European Public Prosecutor ’s Office shall

  have all the procedural rights available to them under the applicable national law.

CHAPTER V

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Article 33

Judicial review 77

OPTION 1:

When adopting procedural measures in the performance of its functions, the European Public

Prosecutor’s Office shall be considered as a national authority for the purpose of judicial review.

OPTION 2:

• 1. 

  Only procedural measures taken by the European Public Prosecutor's Office on the basis of

  Articles [18(6) 78 , 27(4)] [and ….] shall be subject to review of their legality before the Court of Justice of the European Union in accordance with Article 263 of the Treaty 79 .

• 2. 

  Without prejudice to Article 267 of the Treaty, the courts of Member States shall be competent to review other procedural decisions taken by the European Public Prosecutor's Office in the performance of its functions, in accordance with the requirements and

  procedures laid down by national law 80 .

77 A relative majority of delegations prefer option 2, but most delegations still believe that the options need

to be modified slightly or clarified.

78 Article 18(6) on ancillary competence should be redrafted as a consequence of this provision.

79 A Recital should set out the criteria taken into account to limit the competence of the ECJ on actions for

annulment to those specific cases, in the light of the objectives and principles referred to in the CLS legal opinion (doc. 13302/1/14 REV1) .

80 A Recital should be added to explain that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness as interpreted by

the case law of the Court of Justice should be respected. Another recital should clarify that this provision

is without prejudice to Article 267 of the Treaty, in particular preliminary rulings on the interpretation of

Union law, on the validity of this Regulation and of procedural decisions taken by the European Public

Prosecutor's Office. Finally another Recital should also clarify the issue of judicial review of procedural

decisions taken by the European Public Prosecutor's Office which are governed by national law.

Met de EU Monitor volgt u alle Europese dossiers die voor u van belang zijn en bent u op de hoogte van alles wat er speelt in die dossiers. Helaas kunnen wij geen nieuwe gebruikers aansluiten, deze dienst zal over enige tijd de werkzaamheden staken.

De EU Monitor is ook beschikbaar in het Engels.