Negotiations between the Council of the EU and the European Parliament on the appointment of the Head of the European Public Prosecutor's Office officially began on Wednesday 20 March. The battle is between the Romanian candidate chosen by the Parliament (see EUROPE 12203/7), Laura Codruţa Kovësi, and the French candidate, Jean-François Bohnert, selected by the Council of the EU (see EUROPE 12198/1).
"No one was expecting an agreement today", a European source said. This first meeting, which lasted one hour, mainly allowed each party to explain the methods and procedures used for selecting its candidate, they explained.
Who was present? On the Parliament side, the negotiating team consists of the Chairman of the Civil Liberties Committee (LIBE), Claude Moraes (S&D, UK), its Vice-Chairman, Judith Sargentini (Greens/EFA, Netherlands), and the Chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Control (CONT), Ingeborg Grässle (EPP, Germany) (see EUROPE 12209/4).
For the Council of the EU, the ambassadors of the forthcoming Council of the EU Presidencies, Finland, Croatia and Portugal, are responsible for negotiating. Germany and Romania were excluded as they each had a candidate in the running.
According to our information, their assistants, some members of the secretariats of the institutions and legal services were also present, but neither the European Commission nor the representatives of the Romanian Presidency of the Council of the EU attended the meeting.
In the course of the discussions, MEPs also questioned the way in which the selection process had been conducted in the Council of the EU. The meeting of the Committee of the Permanent Representatives of the Governments of the Member States to the European Union (Coreper) during which the vote took place was not chaired by Romania and the vote took place by secret ballot, which was highlighted by the trio of ambassadors to defend the procedure.
They also specified that the Council of the EU procedure gave full confidence to the expertise of the Selection Committee, which is why the institution had decided not to organise additional hearings of candidates as the Parliament did (see EUROPE 12202/1).
MEPs also mentioned the possibility of inviting the Chair of the Selection Committee to a future meeting (see EUROPE 12093/20) to explain the reasons for the ranking established at the end of February, which placed Ms Kövesi in the lead (see EUROPE 12187/27).
But the Council of the EU took a negative view of this proposal, considering that the objective of the Selection Committee was to carry out an independent ranking and then provide a written report, which it did.
The institution therefore saw no any added value to this proposal. It was clear from the outset that institutions were not bound by this classification and that they could have their own analytical grid, our source argued.
“The two sides did not discuss the merits of the candidates at this stage”, she said. On the other hand, they agreed to discussions at the next meeting on their vision for the European Public Prosecutor's Office in this first phase of implementation.
Based on the results of this exercise, they will then have to determine the best candidate to meet these expectations. There is therefore no officially defined analytical grid for competencies and institutions will rely on the information they have on candidates' careers, their national or international components, or their language skills.
The importance of the appointment of this first Head of the European Public Prosecutor's Office has not escaped the attention of either the Parliament or the Council of the EU. And both institutions want a person who can establish the legitimacy of the European Public Prosecutor's Office vis-à-vis the judiciary in the Member States.
The co-legislators also share the ambition to move quickly so as not to delay the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office, which should be operational by 2020. Indeed, without having a European Prosecutor appointed to head it, the new body would be paralysed since several decisions, including the rules of procedure, have to be proposed by the post-holder.
Three further negotiating sessions have been scheduled. The next one is scheduled for March 27. According to our information, it will be a meeting by videoconference because of the Parliamentary plenary session in Strasbourg.
Two further meetings should follow on 4 April and 10 April, with the aim of confirming the appointment at the last plenary session of the European Parliament in April. (Original version in French by Marion Fontana)