EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

Commission moves to set up European Prosecutor’s Office

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
-A +A
Published 17 July 2013
7 comments
Tags
anti-fraud, European Prosecutor, OLAF

The European Commission today (17 July) proposed establishing a European Prosecutor’s Office, in an attempt to improve the investigation and conviction of criminals who defraud the EU. British Conservatives immediately said they would opt out of the plan.

The Commission wants to improve Union-wide prosecution of criminals who defraud EU taxpayers by establishing a European Public Prosecutor's Office and by reinforcing the procedural guarantees of the EU anti-fraud office OLAF.

Britain's ruling Conservatives immediately rejected the idea, leaving the remaining 27 EU members with the option of continuing without Britain, using the so-called 'enhanced cooperation' procedure (see background).

The UK announced in October 2012 that it would opt out 'en masse' from EU police and crime laws and cherry pick legislation it wants to adhere to, such as recent EU proposals on cybercrime.

>> Read: Britain's opt-out on EU police and crime laws raises eyebrows

The Commission's move, however, appears long overdue in the light of various scandals involving EU funds, which British eurosceptics were quick to criticise.

It also comes amid warnings by the OLAF chief that the European Union itself would be at stake if it was unable to properly address the issue of corruption.

>> Read: OLAF chief pleads for European public prosecutor

OLAF head Giovanni Kessler did not appear at today's Commission announcement, as he faced pressure from MEPs over the handling of the case which led to the resignation of former Health Commissioner John Dalli last year.

Recent experience has shown that for the same crime involving EU funds, defendants were acquitted in Bulgaria and given heavy sentences in Germany.

A table produced by the Commission showed that relatively few cases transferred by OLAF to the member states prosecutors' office eventually led to conviction of wrongdoers, although the rate varied significantly among countries. Sweden had the highest rate, with all of the five cases transferred leading to conviction. The lowest was Slovakia, with no convictions for 16 cases transferred.

The record-holder of transferred cases is Romania with a total of 225, and a conviction rate of 23.4%. Second comes Germany with 168 cases and a 57% conviction rate. The average rate of conviction for the EU is 42.3%.

The Commission proposes to further strengthen OLAF's governance and to reinforce procedural guarantees when its representatives are in the field performing their investigations.

OLAF's role is also changed considerably under the Commission proposal, as the EU's anti-fraud office will no longer carry out administrative investigations into EU fraud, leaving full competence to the proposed new European Public Prosecutor's Office. However, OLAF would remain responsible for investigations in areas which don't fall under the authority of the European Public Prosecutor. These include irregularities affecting the EU's financial interests, and serious misconduct or crimes committed by EU staff without a financial impact. 

Positions: 

European Commission President José Manuel Barroso said: "As promised in my 2012 address on the State of the Union, the Commission has today proposed to set up a European Public Prosecutor's Office. This initiative confirms the Commission commitment to upholding the rule of law; it will decisively enhance the protection of taxpayers' money and the effective tackling of fraud involving EU funds. The Commission has also delivered on its commitments to reinforce and strengthening OLAF procedures applied to procedural guarantees, in line with the guarantees that the European Public Prosecutor Office will apply."

Commission Vice-President Viviane Reding, in charge of Justice and home affairs, said: “Criminals who exploit legal loopholes to pocket taxpayers' money should not go free because we do not have the right tools to bring them to justice. Let's be clear: If we, the EU, don't protect our federal budget, nobody will do it for us. I call on Member States and the European Parliament to rally behind this important project so that the European Public Prosecutor's Office can assume its functions as of 1 January 2015.”

Algirdas Šemeta, the EU's Tax and Anti-Fraud Commissioner added: "What we are essentially proposing is the best of both worlds. […] The EU budget will undoubtedly be safer with the new European Public Prosecutor's Office - and a better functioning anti-fraud office - as its watchdogs".

Timothy Kirkhope MEP, Conservative Justice and Home Affairs spokesman, slammed the Commission plans. He pledged that Conservative MEPs will seek to halt the plans, unlike Labour and Liberal Democrat MEPs whom, he claimed, have already voted for discussion to begin so that the Prosecutor can be established.

"Just because some EU countries' prosecutors are doing a bad job at stamping out misuse of EU funds, it's not a good reason for the EU to begin taking over all 28 judicial systems. Instead, those countries should be forced to clean up their act and establish a prosecution system that can protect the financial interests of European taxpayers”

French MEP Véronique Mathieu Houillon, spokesperson of the Parliament's centre-right EPP group, welcomed the Commission proposal. “It is time for the EU to retaliate against crime and to recover more than 500 million euro that are diverted each year at the expense of European citizens,” she stated. 

EurActiv.com
External Links

European Commission

COMMENTS

  • The need to establish a European Prosecutor we are told is to protect the EU against fraud. But how many of us believe that this will be the final position. Once established the powers of the prosecutor will be endlessly extended until once again we find we have a supranational body usurping a significant part of national sovereignty without the views of the electorate ever having been sought.

    The UK representatives can’t help but oppose this step. Handing such power to the EU would automatically trigger a referendum and it is impossible to see how any UK government could win such a vote. Once the UK electorate have voted NO once they are even more likely to vote no on subsequent referenda.

    By :
    Iwantout
    - Posted on :
    17/07/2013

  • We all know about the British ... Anyway, though its a good idea its not enough as the judge will be facing a prosecutor who is an expert on how the EU works inside, while the lawyers have a great difficulty to understand even some basics. I see the main problem with a judge that not understanding herself/himself several technical aspects from EU tenders will strongly lean to the prosecutor´s side. This causes obviously problems for a fair decision. Another option would be to deal with such affairs in the European court. But we also know they are very biased towards the Institutions. In fairness, its better to leave things they are today ... at least until some solutions or mechanisms are put forward to strengthen the position of the defendant. We can not forget that in some countries, especially Belgium, the host of the European Institutions, these affairs take a much more political side than legal.

    By :
    Bermond
    - Posted on :
    18/07/2013

  • Iwantout is correct if the UK agreed this it would surely trigger a referendum which would terrify Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, so that won't happen.

    However as Iwantout points out citizens who do not want a Federal state should worry greatly if this goes ahead. The way that the EU operates means that once a power has been given to the Commission it can grow arms and legs and develop into something that was never intended by the member states. Unfortunately once these powers have been given to the Commission the rules say that they cannot be reversed, changed or held to account in any way (unless all 28 countries agree, which is not likely). This in itself is proof that Cameron's attempt to repatriate powers has absolutely no chance of succeeding.

    By :
    George McGhie
    - Posted on :
    19/07/2013

  • The UK block every single initiative. Apparently they hate the idea of strong Europa. Why the hell we still have Britons in the EU?

    By :
    Otto
    - Posted on :
    20/07/2013

  • Otto,

    It beats me why you have us in the EU, most of us don’t want to be in either.

    Just so you fully understand how things are going to grind to a halt, the UK government are now legally obliged to offer a referendum to the UK electorate every time there is a significant transfer of power to the EU. (The European Prosecutor is clearly a significant transfer so would require a referendum.) Personally I doubt they could ever win such a vote regardless of what the subject is because the public are so overwhelmingly hostile to the EU. So the UK government will be forced to obstruct all initiatives that provide any extra authority to the EU in order to avoid a vote, and even if they were to agree, the people won’t. This means that the EU is essentially frozen and certainly cannot change fundamentally while the UK is a full member.

    It must be frustrating for you, sorry. I can only suggest the EU comes up with a trade only arrangement for the UK as suggested by Jacques Delors coupled with an acceptance that future treaties and treaty changes will inevitably include comprehensive opt outs for the UK.

    By :
    Iwantout
    - Posted on :
    21/07/2013

  • There is another problem with this as highlighted he the silentmajority.

    Many people see Britain as being the home of FREEDOM as we created our unique system of parliamentary democracy backed by our COMMON LAW. The latter has been adopted, in various forms, by the other English speaking nations, notably the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland and Malta. Our legal system is unique in that it embodies our concept of the individual’s freedom (Power of the People as embodied in our Common Law) and makes our laws quite different to those of our friends in Continental Europe. These ancient rights are now under imminent threat from Brussels under a proposal known as ‘Corpus Juris’ ("CJ").

    How our law differs from that of Continental Europe
    Our Common Law, as far back as 1215 with Magna Carta, states that a citizen can only be judged by his peers. These rights protect the individual against arbitrary conviction and imprisonment. Our Common Law recognises several vital rights to the citizen:
    The right of Habeas Corpus (that the accused must be taken to a public court within a very short period of time, usually 24 hours, and the accusers must produce their evidence then and there)
    The right to Trial by Jury at which jurors can in fact even disregard the law if they think it would give an unjust conviction. The jurors are thus ‘sovereign’
    If found innocent, the accused cannot be tried again on the same charge (‘double jeopardy’)
    In other words our process is 1) suspicion,2) investigation, 3) arrest, 4) charge
    Under the Continental system, know as the Inquisitorial System (often loosely referred to as the Napoleonic system) things are quite different:
    In Europe the sequence of events is 1) suspicion, 2) arrest, 3) investigation and 4) charge. In other words the citizen can be arrested and imprisoned without anyone having to produce any evidence against him. There is therefore:
    No Habeas Corpus so one can be imprisoned for very long periods (weeks, months, occasionally years) without any evidence being produced against you.
    No right to Trial by Jury as their system involves judgements being made by a career judiciary who are the judges and prosecutors and who are, to all intents and purposes, ‘colleagues’ (a quite separate body of lawyers makes the defence and are often treated as inferiors).
    In most instances the accused can be tried a second time for the same offence, since the prosecution has the right of appeal against acquittal.

    Yet another reason to leave this Union.

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    30/07/2013

  • There is another problem with this as highlighted he the silentmajority.

    correction: by the silent majority.

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    30/07/2013

EurActiv reserves its right to remove comments regarded as offensive, racist, or homophobic as well as hate-speech in general. Spamming or posts with an obvious commercial character will be removed as well. Thank you for your understanding.

EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding (L) and Taxation Commissioner Algirdas Šemeta (Photo: EC)
Background: 

The European Public Prosecutor's Office would be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to justice those who damage assets managed by or on behalf of the EU.

The European Council may adopt a decision extending the powers of the European Public Prosecutor's Office to include serious crime having a cross-border dimension.

The discussion on the European Prosecutor found its way into the European Convention, and ultimately, the Lisbon Treaty. For the first time, Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU allows for the possibility of establishing the European Public Prosecutor's Office.

The Commission has already done preparatory work in this area, starting with the well known 'Corpus Juris' study.

The European Public Prosecutor's Office may be established from Eurojust by adopting a series of regulations following a special legislative procedure. This requires the Council to act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

In the absence of unanimity, a group of at least nine EU countries can go ahead with the project, by establishing enhanced cooperation.

More on this topic

News

OLAF chief pleads for European public prosecutorEurope's centre-right parties want OLAF chief to resign over DalligateBritain's opt-out on EU police and crime laws raises eyebrowsTransparency International: Corruption fuels euro zone crisisFirst Greek politician arrested over corruptionItalian Northern League leader resigns over corruption affairsRomanian minister resigns over corruption affairSlovak politics rocked by 'Gorilla' corruption scandalCorruption creeping up in Bulgaria, Greece, Romania: TI
More in this section

Advertising

Videos

EU Treaty and Institutions News

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

EU Treaty and Institutions Promoted

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising