Following the first trialogue at the beginning of November (see EUROPE 11901), inter-institutional negotiations on reform of the Eurojust model of governance are continuing to progress, particularly with regard to the sharing of competency between Eurojust and the future European Prosecutor’s Office.
It should be recalled that only 20 EU member states are participating in the European Prosecutor’s Office by way of strengthened cooperation. This office is expected to be operational in 2020 and will be in charge of tackling fraud involving European funds and VAT in cross-border dimensions.
Unlike the European Prosecutor’s Office, Eurojust does not have jurisdictional power and cannot proceed by itself in investigations and pursuits. Its role is to improve cooperation and coordination between the national legal authorities in charge of investigations and pursuits involving cases between several different member states.
In its initial proposal, the Commission proposed that Eurojust could undertake its missions on its own initiative or at the request of the competent national authorities. According to an Estonian Presidency working document consulted by EUROPE, Parliament and the Council will also have to agree with each other on whether this agency can be used within the scope of the European Prosecutor’s Office.
Eurojust competencies are set out in Annex I of the proposal and include a wide range of crimes ranging from counterfeiting to crimes against humanity, including crimes for which the European Prosecutor’s Office will be responsible, such as offences that harm the financial interests of the Union or terrorism and which in the future, could become a competency of the Prosecutor’s Office (see EUROPE 11872).
In its proposal, the Commission suggests excluding Eurojust’s competencies for crimes for which the European Prosecutor’s Office will be responsible. At the Council, the member states want Eurojust to continue with its remit for crimes covered by that of the European Prosecutor’ Office in member states not participating in strengthened cooperation or at the request of the European Prosecutor’s Office or the members involved. The European Parliament has accepted this approach but would like more exceptions to it, such as a temporary distinction indicating that Eurojust would continue to be competent for all the crimes included in Annex I until the European Prosecutor’s Office is operational.
According to this document, the Presidency therefore intends to propose a compromise combining the two approaches by dividing the competencies of Eurojust into two temporary phases, whilst covering the states that are not participating in this strengthened cooperation.
Some questions relating to the structure of Eurojust and data protection still need to be resolved. According to one European source, the next trialogue is planned for 27 November. (Original version in French by Marion Fontana)