Will the European prosecutor, a European Commission flagship project, come to light under the Maltese Presidency of the Council of the EU through unanimous agreement by all member states bar Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom or will it take the form of enhanced cooperation?
The question was raised after EU28 justice ministers discussed the project in Brussels on Thursday 8 December. While the majority of member states say they support the idea of a European prosecutor and the draft compromise cobbled together by the Slovak Presidency, the talks have not revealed any greater enthusiasm on their part.
Countries like France, Germany and Belgium have warmly welcomed the presidency’s compromise, the first to be ready to form the basis for political agreement that same day.
Other countries, such as Italy, say they are interested in the idea of a prosecutor to tackle fraud in the EU budget and even VAT fraud under certain conditions (EUROPE will return to the agreement reached at the Council on protection of the EU’s financial interests). But they are not satisfied. They feel that the most recent progress report given by the Slovak Presidency shows backward steps compared with October. Italy therefore feels that this is not a good basis for setting up a prosecutor’s office.
This view is shared by other countries. Austria feels that the European prosecutor is a good idea but it has its doubts. It feels that recent procedures are ineffective, slow and costly and including VAT will make things even more difficult. Austria says it’s an honourable project that needs more time.
Other countries may not be able to join the European prosecutor plan, such as the Netherlands, whose parliament blocked the idea a few weeks ago. Minister Ard Van der Steur, who issued doubts in Luxembourg in October (see EUROPE 11646), brought up a raft of queries. Among these concerns is whether it would reduce Eurojust’s capabilities through the transfer of a number of people from the judicial cooperation agency to the prosecutor’s office, and a reduction in its budget.
The Swedish parliament is also sceptical about the plan but Sweden’s representative said the country would be able to join the prosecutor plans at a later date.
Faced with doubts from these countries and the need to reach unanimous agreement to launch the project, a few countries, such as Belgium, suggested leaving a bit of time, possibly waiting until the Justice Council in March to remove all doubts.
For the Commission and certain Member States, it is possible, in particular, to have recourse to the provisions of the Treaty and to refer the matter to the March European Council in order to find unanimity, which they still consider possible. According to fthe Treaty, an Extraordinary Justice Council should be agreed upon in February, a source said. It is only in case of failure of this process that this enhanced cooperation could be envisaged, according to these actors.
Believing there is no time to be lost in setting up a prosecutor’s office, countries like France and Germany have brought up the option of using enhanced cooperation if unanimous agreement cannot be reached.
The European Commission says it is ready to work to find a solution. It says it is in talks with Eurojust about the transfer of staff. Vera Jourova said they were talking about 12 or 13 jobs to be provided to the prosecutor’s office without undermining Eurojust’s work. The Justice Commissioner said it made sense to provide experts who are working on issues that concern the prosecutor’s office.
The transfer of jobs was initially planned for April 2019, when the prosecutor’s office was supposed to become operational if the ministers reached agreement in principle on Thursday. The talks with Eurojust will therefore continue. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)