While the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) is finalising the final preparations before taking up its duties (see EUROPE 12599/16), the German Presidency of the EU Council is putting the finishing touches to a document clarifying the relations between the new body and the Member States not participating in the enhanced cooperation on its establishment (Hungary, Poland, Ireland, Sweden and Denmark).
Once agreement has been reached at technical level on the text, Berlin intends to present it to the Member States’ ambassadors to the EU (Coreper) and to the Council of the EU as part of a Presidency report.
In accordance with the Regulation establishing the EPPO, the Member States participating in the enhanced cooperation are required to recognise and notify the EPPO as a competent authority for the purposes of implementing Union acts applicable in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters for cases falling within the jurisdiction of the EPPO.
The text in question, dated 16 November and copied to EUROPE, aims to clarify the legal consequences of such a requirement and its effects in the relations between the EPPO and the Member States not participating in the enhanced cooperation.
“In light of the principle of sincere cooperation, both the EPPO and the competent authorities of the non-participating Member States should support each other with the aim of efficiently combating crimes against the financial interests of the Union”, it emphasises by way of a preamble.
European Investigation Order. The text reviews several EU judicial cooperation instruments. It interprets in particular the Directive on the European Investigation Order (EIO) so as to allow the exchange of decisions between the EPPO and non-participating Member States.
The text further specifies that the EPPO may act as the issuing authority of an EIO as well as an executing authority by providing information or evidence which it has already obtained or which it could obtain following the opening of an investigation within its area of competence.
European Arrest Warrant. As regards the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) Framework Decision, the text considers that a European Delegated Prosecutor in charge of a case may issue an EAW or request the competent authority of his or her Member State to issue an EAW.
However, this provision is only applicable in respect of other Member States participating in the EPPO, underlines the text. Furthermore, the EPPO does not have the possibility to act as executing authority for an EAW, as this is not within its competence, it explained.
Freeze. As regards the Regulation on mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders of criminal assets, the document states that the EPPO should be able to act as the issuing authority of a freezing order requested or ordered by a European Delegated Prosecutor.
However, it would not be in a position to issue confiscation orders, as it only has jurisdiction until the case has been finally decided.
The document also looks at the framework decision on joint investigation teams, the application of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to pre-trial detention as well as the prevention and settlement of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings.
See document: https://bit.ly/2UAWcI7 (Original version in French by Marion Fontana)