The European Parliament’s Committees on Budgetary Control (CONT) and Civil Liberties (LIBE) with the European Public Prosecutor, Laura Codruța Kövesi, took stock of the state of preparation of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which has still not officially started its activities, on Tuesday 26 January.
Ms Kövesi generally reported a “high level of preparedness”. The premises in Luxembourg were delivered on time and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office has started to set up shop there. The college of 22 European Prosecutors was sworn in in September (see EUROPE 12569/23). It has since elected two deputy prosecutors (see EUROPE 12600/39) and decided on the number and composition of the permanent chambers.
The European Public Prosecutor’s Office has adopted its rules of procedure, financial regulation, data protection rules and rules on access to documents. Preparation of the code of conduct and the anti-fraud strategy is also well under way. The business management system is ready for the launch of operations, as well, she said.
In addition, the new body has just signed a working agreement with Europol (see EUROPE 12641/35) and hopes to sign two more very soon with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and Eurojust.
The European Public Prosecutor’s Office has also started negotiations for working agreements with Member States not participating in enhanced cooperation. Discussions are about to be concluded with Hungary; Poland needs a little more time to give its opinion on the draft text; while Denmark and Sweden have yet to engage in discussions on the content, explained Ms Kövesi, although she was “surprised” by the lack of reaction from Ireland.
So, what is still missing for the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to finally start its activities? It still lacks its 140 European delegated prosecutors. So far, only 18 European delegated prosecutors from four Member States could be appointed.
The European Commissioner for Justice, Didier Reynders, indicated that 15 of the 22 participants in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office are expected to be able to submit the names of their candidates by 1 March and that two countries may be slightly behind schedule.
On the other hand, he was much more concerned about the situation in five other Member States, including Malta, which had already experienced difficulties in appointing its European prosecutor due to a lack of candidates (see EUROPE 12499/13).
In Greece and Italy, delays are reportedly linked to the fact that national legislation allowing the appointment of European delegated prosecutors is not yet in place. But the situation is probably most complicated for Cyprus and Finland, since the two countries have still not reached an agreement with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office on the number of European delegated prosecutors nor on a full-time working regime.
Appointment of the Portuguese prosecutor: European Parliament wants the truth
Questioned by several MEPs on the controversy surrounding the appointment of the Portuguese prosecutor, José Guerra (see EUROPE 12634/11), both the European Chief Prosecutor and the Commissioner for Justice referred the matter back to the Council of the EU, recalling that they had had no say in the appointment of European prosecutors.
“My job is to make sure that all European prosecutors and European delegated prosecutors act independently and do not take instructions from anyone”, Ms Kövesi said.
But the fact that the Portuguese Minister of Justice, Francisca van Dunem, who was invited at the last minute to take part in the meeting (see EUROPE 12642/24), completely avoided the matter in her introductory remarks somewhat irritated the MEPs, who asked her to “tell the truth”.
As Ana Paula Zacarias, the Portuguese Secretary of State for European Affairs, did last week in the plenary session of Parliament (see EUROPE 12641/7), Ms van Dunem refuted accusations that her government had interfered in this appointment. “The selection committee’s ranking is not binding”, she said.
At the end of her speech, Sophie in’t Veld (Renew Europe, the Netherlands) and Paulo Rangel (EPP, Portugal) were very dissatisfied with the answers given by the Minister of Justice. Ms van Dunem will have the right to a give her speech again when she presents the priorities of the Portuguese Presidency of the Council of the EU to the LIBE Committee on 4 February.
Ms in’t Veld further suggested that the CONT and LIBE Committees should formally request access to documents related to the appointments not only of the Portuguese prosecutor, but also of the Belgian (see EUROPE 12639/20) and Bulgarian prosecutors, for whom the Council of the EU had also chosen to deviate from the ranking established by the selection committee.
If the EU Council refuses, MEPs would then have to refer the matter to the EU Court of Justice, according to the Dutch liberal. (Original version in French by Marion Fontana)