File #2464: "2018_Book_ShiftingPerspectivesOnTheEurop.pdf"
Text
1|Foreword|5
1|Contents|8
1|1 Introduction|10
2|References|16
1|General Perspectives on the EPPO: From the Outside and the Inside|18
1|2 The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO): Introductory Remarks|19
2|Abstract|19
2|2.1 The European Public Prosecutor’s Office: A Controversial Body|20
2|2.2 Problem Identification: Size of EU Fraud and Lack of Enforcement|22
2|2.3 EPPO’s Added Value|24
2|2.4 Final Comments|26
2|References|26
1|3 EPPO—Developments Under the Presidency of The Netherlands|28
2|Abstract|28
2|3.1 Introduction|29
2|3.2 Relations with Partners|29
2|3.3 Data Protection|30
2|3.4 Simplified Prosecution Procedures|30
2|3.5 Epilogue|31
2|References|33
1|4 European Public Prosecutor’s Office—A View on the State of Play and Perspectives from the European Parliament|34
2|Abstract|34
2|4.1 Introduction|35
2|4.2 Role of the European Parliament in the Decision-Making Procedure|35
2|4.3 Parliament’s Appraisal of the Impact Assessment Accompanying the Original Commission Proposal|36
2|4.4 Parliament’s Interim Resolutions on the EPPO and the ‘Response’ by the Council|39
3|4.4.1 Effectiveness|39
3|4.4.2 Fundamental Rights|40
2|4.5 Further Negotiations on This File|43
2|References|43
1|Scholarly Perspectives on the EPPO: Constitutional, Regulatory and Institutional Issues|46
1|5 The Establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office: Between ‘Better Regulation’ and Subsidiarity Concerns|47
2|Abstract|47
2|5.1 Introduction|48
2|5.2 EU Financial Criminal Law and the EPPO Project|50
2|5.3 The Emergence of the EPPO|54
2|5.4 What Is Better Regulation in this Context?|56
3|5.4.1 Better Regulation: Main Features|56
3|5.4.2 Does the EPPO Comply with the Idea of Better Regulation?|57
2|5.5 Better Regulation in Relation to Subsidiarity|59
2|5.6 Conclusion|61
2|References|62
2|Articles, Books, and Studies|62
2|EU Documents and Other Sources|63
1|6 The European Public Prosecutor’s Office and Human Rights|64
2|Abstract|64
2|6.1 Introduction|65
2|6.2 The Applicability of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to the Proceedings of the EPPO|66
2|6.3 Procedural Safeguards|71
3|6.3.1 Rights of Suspects and Accused Persons|71
3|6.3.2 Rights and Evidence|80
2|6.4 Judicial Review of the Acts of the EPPO|83
2|6.5 Mutual Recognition in the Framework of the EPPO: Cross-Border Investigations and Human Rights|92
2|6.6 Conclusion|97
2|References|98
2|Articles, Books, and Studies|98
2|EU Case Law|102
2|EU and Council of Europe Legislation|102
1|7 A Blunt Weapon for the EPPO? Taking the Edge Off the Proposed PIF Directive|104
2|Abstract|104
2|7.1 Introductory Remarks|105
2|7.2 Establishing the Foundations of a Criminal Law Directive in the PIF Sector: From the Commission Proposal to the Council General Approach|109
2|7.3 The Contribution of the CJEU to the Negotiation on the PIF Directive: The Taricco Case|113
3|7.3.1 The Taricco Case: Facts and Considerations|113
3|7.3.2 Impact of the Taricco Case on the PIF Directive Negotiations|117
2|7.4 The Compromise: Back to Good Weather After the Storm? Not Really|121
2|7.5 The ‘Side’ Effect of the PIF Directive: An EPPO Lost in Translation?|126
2|7.6 Conclusions|130
2|References|130
1|8 Ancillary Crimes and Ne Bis in Idem|133
2|Abstract|133
2|8.1 Introduction|134
2|8.2 Legal Framework|137
2|8.3 Legal Analysis|137
3|8.3.1 Preliminary Remarks|137
3|8.3.2 Justification Based on the Need to Preserve the Effectiveness of Article 86(1) TFEU|139
3|8.3.3 Conditions Which Have Been Laid Down by the Council to Circumscribe the Competence of, and Its Exercise by EPPO for Ancillary Crimes: Analysis of Articles 22 and 25(3) of the Draft EPPO Regulation|141
4|8.3.3.1 Analysis of the First Criterion in Article 22(1)|141
4|8.3.3.2 Analysis of the Criterion of ‘Participation in a Criminal Organisation’ in Article 22(2)|142
4|8.3.3.3 Analysis of the Criterion of ‘Inextricably Linked Offence’ in Article 22(3) in the Light of the CJEU Case Law|142
4|8.3.3.4 Difficulties Linked to the Use of the Undefined ‘Preponderance’ Criterion and How They Have Been Overcome by the Council|142
2|8.4 Conclusion|144
1|9 Towards an Inconsistent European Regime of Cross-Border Evidence: The EPPO and the European Investigation Order|145
2|Abstract|145
2|9.1 Introduction|146
2|9.2 Rationales and Models of Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters in the EU|147
2|9.3 Cross-Border Evidence in the Lisbon Context|149
3|9.3.1 The Horizontal Scheme: The European Investigation Order|149
3|9.3.2 The Desired Vertical Scheme: The European Public Prosecutor’s Office|151
4|9.3.2.1 The 2013 Commission EPPO Proposal|151
4|9.3.2.2 Cross-Border Evidence in the Current Version of the Council Text|152
3|9.3.3 Interactions Between the Different Schemes|153
2|9.4 Conclusion|155
2|References|155
1|10 Forum Choice and Judicial Review Under the EPPO’s Legislative Framework|158
2|Abstract|158
2|10.1 Introduction|159
2|10.2 Choice of Forum in the EPPO Proposal|160
2|10.3 Judicial Review of the Choice of Forum in the EPPO Proposal|162
3|10.3.1 The Provisions of the EPPO Proposal|162
3|10.3.2 Procedural Acts Intended to Produce Legal Effects Vis-À-Vis Third Parties|164
3|10.3.3 Appraisal of the Proposal and Provisional Findings|169
2|10.4 A Different Perspective: The Swiss Experience|170
2|10.5 Conclusions|172
2|References|173
1|11 Relations Between the EPPO and Eurojust—Still a Privileged Partnership?|174
2|Abstract|174
2|11.1 Introduction|175
2|11.2 General Overview of the EPPO-Eurojust Relations|177
2|11.3 Administrative and Management Links Between the EPPO and Eurojust|179
2|11.4 The EPPO-Eurojust Relations in Operational Matters|182
3|11.4.1 Preliminary Remarks|182
3|11.4.2 Modalities of Their Cooperation in Operational Matters|184
2|11.5 Conclusions|187
2|References|189
1|Summa Summarum: Assessing EPPO’s Raison d’Ȇtre in the Light of the Debates|190
1|12 EPPO’s Raison d’Ȇtre: The Challenge of the Insertion of an EU Body in Procedures Mainly Governed by National Law|191
2|Abstract|191
1|13 The European Public Prosecutor’s Office: A Chronicle of a Failure Foreseen|194
2|Abstract|194
2|References|198
1|Contents|8
1|1 Introduction|10
2|References|16
1|General Perspectives on the EPPO: From the Outside and the Inside|18
1|2 The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO): Introductory Remarks|19
2|Abstract|19
2|2.1 The European Public Prosecutor’s Office: A Controversial Body|20
2|2.2 Problem Identification: Size of EU Fraud and Lack of Enforcement|22
2|2.3 EPPO’s Added Value|24
2|2.4 Final Comments|26
2|References|26
1|3 EPPO—Developments Under the Presidency of The Netherlands|28
2|Abstract|28
2|3.1 Introduction|29
2|3.2 Relations with Partners|29
2|3.3 Data Protection|30
2|3.4 Simplified Prosecution Procedures|30
2|3.5 Epilogue|31
2|References|33
1|4 European Public Prosecutor’s Office—A View on the State of Play and Perspectives from the European Parliament|34
2|Abstract|34
2|4.1 Introduction|35
2|4.2 Role of the European Parliament in the Decision-Making Procedure|35
2|4.3 Parliament’s Appraisal of the Impact Assessment Accompanying the Original Commission Proposal|36
2|4.4 Parliament’s Interim Resolutions on the EPPO and the ‘Response’ by the Council|39
3|4.4.1 Effectiveness|39
3|4.4.2 Fundamental Rights|40
2|4.5 Further Negotiations on This File|43
2|References|43
1|Scholarly Perspectives on the EPPO: Constitutional, Regulatory and Institutional Issues|46
1|5 The Establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office: Between ‘Better Regulation’ and Subsidiarity Concerns|47
2|Abstract|47
2|5.1 Introduction|48
2|5.2 EU Financial Criminal Law and the EPPO Project|50
2|5.3 The Emergence of the EPPO|54
2|5.4 What Is Better Regulation in this Context?|56
3|5.4.1 Better Regulation: Main Features|56
3|5.4.2 Does the EPPO Comply with the Idea of Better Regulation?|57
2|5.5 Better Regulation in Relation to Subsidiarity|59
2|5.6 Conclusion|61
2|References|62
2|Articles, Books, and Studies|62
2|EU Documents and Other Sources|63
1|6 The European Public Prosecutor’s Office and Human Rights|64
2|Abstract|64
2|6.1 Introduction|65
2|6.2 The Applicability of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to the Proceedings of the EPPO|66
2|6.3 Procedural Safeguards|71
3|6.3.1 Rights of Suspects and Accused Persons|71
3|6.3.2 Rights and Evidence|80
2|6.4 Judicial Review of the Acts of the EPPO|83
2|6.5 Mutual Recognition in the Framework of the EPPO: Cross-Border Investigations and Human Rights|92
2|6.6 Conclusion|97
2|References|98
2|Articles, Books, and Studies|98
2|EU Case Law|102
2|EU and Council of Europe Legislation|102
1|7 A Blunt Weapon for the EPPO? Taking the Edge Off the Proposed PIF Directive|104
2|Abstract|104
2|7.1 Introductory Remarks|105
2|7.2 Establishing the Foundations of a Criminal Law Directive in the PIF Sector: From the Commission Proposal to the Council General Approach|109
2|7.3 The Contribution of the CJEU to the Negotiation on the PIF Directive: The Taricco Case|113
3|7.3.1 The Taricco Case: Facts and Considerations|113
3|7.3.2 Impact of the Taricco Case on the PIF Directive Negotiations|117
2|7.4 The Compromise: Back to Good Weather After the Storm? Not Really|121
2|7.5 The ‘Side’ Effect of the PIF Directive: An EPPO Lost in Translation?|126
2|7.6 Conclusions|130
2|References|130
1|8 Ancillary Crimes and Ne Bis in Idem|133
2|Abstract|133
2|8.1 Introduction|134
2|8.2 Legal Framework|137
2|8.3 Legal Analysis|137
3|8.3.1 Preliminary Remarks|137
3|8.3.2 Justification Based on the Need to Preserve the Effectiveness of Article 86(1) TFEU|139
3|8.3.3 Conditions Which Have Been Laid Down by the Council to Circumscribe the Competence of, and Its Exercise by EPPO for Ancillary Crimes: Analysis of Articles 22 and 25(3) of the Draft EPPO Regulation|141
4|8.3.3.1 Analysis of the First Criterion in Article 22(1)|141
4|8.3.3.2 Analysis of the Criterion of ‘Participation in a Criminal Organisation’ in Article 22(2)|142
4|8.3.3.3 Analysis of the Criterion of ‘Inextricably Linked Offence’ in Article 22(3) in the Light of the CJEU Case Law|142
4|8.3.3.4 Difficulties Linked to the Use of the Undefined ‘Preponderance’ Criterion and How They Have Been Overcome by the Council|142
2|8.4 Conclusion|144
1|9 Towards an Inconsistent European Regime of Cross-Border Evidence: The EPPO and the European Investigation Order|145
2|Abstract|145
2|9.1 Introduction|146
2|9.2 Rationales and Models of Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters in the EU|147
2|9.3 Cross-Border Evidence in the Lisbon Context|149
3|9.3.1 The Horizontal Scheme: The European Investigation Order|149
3|9.3.2 The Desired Vertical Scheme: The European Public Prosecutor’s Office|151
4|9.3.2.1 The 2013 Commission EPPO Proposal|151
4|9.3.2.2 Cross-Border Evidence in the Current Version of the Council Text|152
3|9.3.3 Interactions Between the Different Schemes|153
2|9.4 Conclusion|155
2|References|155
1|10 Forum Choice and Judicial Review Under the EPPO’s Legislative Framework|158
2|Abstract|158
2|10.1 Introduction|159
2|10.2 Choice of Forum in the EPPO Proposal|160
2|10.3 Judicial Review of the Choice of Forum in the EPPO Proposal|162
3|10.3.1 The Provisions of the EPPO Proposal|162
3|10.3.2 Procedural Acts Intended to Produce Legal Effects Vis-À-Vis Third Parties|164
3|10.3.3 Appraisal of the Proposal and Provisional Findings|169
2|10.4 A Different Perspective: The Swiss Experience|170
2|10.5 Conclusions|172
2|References|173
1|11 Relations Between the EPPO and Eurojust—Still a Privileged Partnership?|174
2|Abstract|174
2|11.1 Introduction|175
2|11.2 General Overview of the EPPO-Eurojust Relations|177
2|11.3 Administrative and Management Links Between the EPPO and Eurojust|179
2|11.4 The EPPO-Eurojust Relations in Operational Matters|182
3|11.4.1 Preliminary Remarks|182
3|11.4.2 Modalities of Their Cooperation in Operational Matters|184
2|11.5 Conclusions|187
2|References|189
1|Summa Summarum: Assessing EPPO’s Raison d’Ȇtre in the Light of the Debates|190
1|12 EPPO’s Raison d’Ȇtre: The Challenge of the Insertion of an EU Body in Procedures Mainly Governed by National Law|191
2|Abstract|191
1|13 The European Public Prosecutor’s Office: A Chronicle of a Failure Foreseen|194
2|Abstract|194
2|References|198