Whether “Crime Busters” – the action comedy featuring Bud Spencer and Terence Hill – deserved the Golden Screen Award in 1977 is surely debatable. But the public obviously liked the story of two unknown individuals turning into a police force following an improbable series of events; more than 3,000,000 tickets were sold within 18 months. At the time, certainly a success!
Somehow this reminds me of yesterday’s discussion in the European Parliament and the ongoing negotiations in the Council on the establishment of the European Public Prosecution Office (EPPO). Would the public like the EU – so far unknown as crime investigator/prosecutor – to turn into a strong and committed crime-buster through the improbable, but actually and shockingly realistic series of corruption scandals across Europe? What we can say is that EU citizens keep repeating their call to governments that corruption is, in their view, a major problem (see our latest Corruption Perception Index, CPI).
Are they heard by their governments? To find out, listen into yesterday’s plenary discussions in the European Parliament here and the recent orientation debate at the Council of the European Union – Justice and Home Affairs of 4 March 2014 (or read our short analysis below).
Where do EU member state governments currently stand regarding the EU Prosecutor?
Of the 24 member states[*] who made contributions to the Council orientation debate all, except for the Netherlands, answered the Greek Presidency’s questions on the structure of the EU Prosecutor, its scope of competence and applicable procedural safeguard for those who are under investigation.
The majority of countries prefer a collegial model that would be independent from EU- and member state influence . Only 7 EU member states (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Luxemburg, Romania and Slovakia) support the European Commission’s proposal to establish an integrated centralised, hierarchical prosecution office. Spain does not seem to be fan of a college-structure either but is said to agree with the idea to gain wider acceptance among EU member states – probably because of the heavy-weight building block of France and Germany who both want to see a Eurojust-like structure with 28 members (one per country). To ensure efficiency in such a large body Finland, Malta and Cyprus propose the set up of chambers within the college or decisions to be taken in qualified majority.
Most innovative suggestions, in our view: Luxemburg is of the opinion that the centralised and college-structure are not mutually exclusive but can be combined, if there is one public prosecutor heading the office with the support of a collegial office. Spain’s and France’s call for review of the functioning of the EPPO after 5 years, including an assessment of the actual independence and efficiency of such a collegial structure, is highly advisable – no matter which model and structure ultimately become reality.
Broad agreement seems to exist on preventing jeopardising the EPPOs basic mission to investigate and prosecute criminal offences affecting the EU’s financial interests (so-called PIF-crimes) by flooding the office with minor, less serious crimes, which would better be dealt with by national experts at domestic level. This approach would also prevent increased costs and backlogs of investigations and prosecutions of more complex trans-border cases. Undoubtedly, the EPPO should be as efficient as possible. Yet, opinions are divided on where to draw the line between serious and less serious crime, whether there should be a value threshold (as proposed by Lithuania) – of for example 10.000 EUR – or not (as proposed by Germany who suggest that national prosecutors should work in parallel with EPPO). In order to ensure efficiency, it will be essential to agree on clear criteria to define the scope of competence of the EPPO but at the same time allow for the possibility of intervention and take over by the EPPO, especially where a minor case turns out to be trans-national in nature in the course of the investigation.
As for procedural safeguards, the Greek Council Presidency concluded that there are different proposals on guarantees for the suspects, accused and victims on the table that would need to be further examined, as EU ministers could not agree on whether the Commission’s proposal is sufficient and whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights or national rules should apply.
All in all, the EU Prosecutor is on its way: today, the European Parliament endorsed the resolution on the EPPO with an overwhelming majority (467 in favour, 161 against and 30 abstentions).
[*] The UK, Ireland and Denmark opted-out and will not be part of the EPPO, while Greece chaired the debate.
For more information, see also our previous blog post on the EPPO.
