Advanced

Europeiska åklagarmyndigheten - Ett adekvat skydd för EU:s ekonomiska intressen?

Fransson, Elin LU (2017) JURM02 20171
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Brott, bedrägerier och andra oegentligheter, vilka riktar sig mot EU:s eko-nomiska intressen skadar allvarligt EU:s budget varje år. För att garantera ett bättre skydd för EU:s finanser framlade kommissionen i juli 2013 För-slag till Rådets förordning om inrättande av Europeiska åklagarmyndighe-ten . Myndigheten ska ha en exklusiv kompetens att utreda brott mot EU:s ekonomiska intressen över hela unionen.
Om förslaget antas kommer myndigheten att inkorporeras i det redan befintliga straffrättsliga samarbetet inom unionen. Samarbetet bygger främst på principen och ömsesidigt erkännande och tillnärmning av den materiella straffrätten. EU-organen Eurojust , ENS och OLAF bidrar för närvarande med bl.a. koordinering av mål, informationsutbyte... (More)
Brott, bedrägerier och andra oegentligheter, vilka riktar sig mot EU:s eko-nomiska intressen skadar allvarligt EU:s budget varje år. För att garantera ett bättre skydd för EU:s finanser framlade kommissionen i juli 2013 För-slag till Rådets förordning om inrättande av Europeiska åklagarmyndighe-ten . Myndigheten ska ha en exklusiv kompetens att utreda brott mot EU:s ekonomiska intressen över hela unionen.
Om förslaget antas kommer myndigheten att inkorporeras i det redan befintliga straffrättsliga samarbetet inom unionen. Samarbetet bygger främst på principen och ömsesidigt erkännande och tillnärmning av den materiella straffrätten. EU-organen Eurojust , ENS och OLAF bidrar för närvarande med bl.a. koordinering av mål, informationsutbyte och administrativa utredningar. Förslagets rättsliga grund är artikel 86 i fördraget om Europeiska unionens funktionssätt.
Enligt kommissionen är det nuvarande samarbetet inte tillräckligt effektivt för att skydda EU:s intressen. Medlemsländernas utredningar och åtal, in-klusive resultaten av dessa, är inte tillfredställande. Kommissionen har identifierat ett antal orsaker som de menar föranleder de lokaliserade bristerna i utredningarna. Den gränsöverskridande karaktären av dessa brott gör utredningarna mycket komplexa. Behovet av samarbetsvilja från andra medlemsländer, och avsaknad av nämnda samarbetsvilja, under utredningarna försenar desamma. Informationsutbytet är bristande och språkförbistringar hindrar ett effektivt samarbete. Vidare uppstår processuella hinder både i utredningsfasen och vid lagföringen. Enligt kommissionen ska Europeiska åklagarmyndigheten lösa, eller minska, dessa problem. Uppsatsen är avgränsad till samordningsproblemen under utredningsfasen.
Den europeiska åklagarmyndigheten ska ha en hierarkisk decentraliserad struktur, bestående av en europeisk åklagare, dennes fyra biträden och de nationella delegerade åklagarna. De delegerade åklagarna ska verka på nationell nivå och, under övervakning av den europeiska åklagaren, utreda brott riktade mot EU:s ekonomiska intressen. Den europeiska åklagaren har även möjlighet att vid behov själv ta över utredningen och sköta lagföringen av ett mål. Myndigheten har exklusiv befogenhet att utreda och lagföra dessa brott. Utredningar och lagföring ska ske i enlighet med nationell rätt och målen ska prövas av de nationella domstolarna. Medlemsstaternas territorium ska ses som ett enhetligt rättsligt område.
Förslaget innebär ett inkräktande på den nationella suveräniteten; myndighetens exklusiva befogenhet, och även andra bestämmelser i förslaget, minskar det nationella inflytandet över utredningen och rättsprocessen. För att ett sådant förslag ska anses rättfärdigat, måste förslaget vara en adekvat lösning på de problem som identifierats som orsaker till det bristande skyddet av EU:s ekonomiska intressen, samt vara förenligt med subsidiaritets- och proportionalitetsprincipen.
Vid en närmare analys av förslagets bestämmelser, kan det konstateras att förslaget i sin helhet inte är en adekvat lösning på de problem som ställts upp. Förslaget medför vissa förtjänster avseende samarbetet inom unionen; förfarandet kring internationell rättslig hjälp kommer att förenklas, informationsutbytet kommer öka och parallella utredningar kommer att undvikas. Dock kommer det faktum att målen ska åtalas i de nationella domstolarna, och att prövningen därmed kommer vara föremål för nationell rätt, att hindra myndigheten från att uppnå kontinuitet i utredningarna. Vidare kommer problemen med att brotten är svårupptäckta, och att brottsutredningarna är komplexa, att kvarstå. De åtgärder som presenteras i förslaget kommer inte att medföra den förbättring i effektivitet och kontinuitet i samordningen under utredningsfasen, vilka de är ämnade att göra. Förslaget om inrättande av Europeiska åklagarmyndigheten, är därmed inte en ändamålsenlig lösning avseende samordningsproblemen. Därmed är frågan huruvida förslaget är proportionerligt, och förenligt med subsidiaritetsprincipen, irrelevant. (Less)
Abstract
Fraud and other offences, aimed towards the financial interestets of the union, are seriously harming the union’s budget every year. To guarantee a better protection of the unions finances, the Commission put forward Pro-posal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office . The Office will have an exclusive competence to in-vestigate and prosecute criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the union.
If the proposal is adopted, the European Prosecutor’s Office will be incorporated into the existing EU criminal law cooperation. The cooperation is primarily based on the principle of mutual recognition and approximation of substantive criminal law. The EU agencies Eurojust , Europol ,... (More)
Fraud and other offences, aimed towards the financial interestets of the union, are seriously harming the union’s budget every year. To guarantee a better protection of the unions finances, the Commission put forward Pro-posal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office . The Office will have an exclusive competence to in-vestigate and prosecute criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the union.
If the proposal is adopted, the European Prosecutor’s Office will be incorporated into the existing EU criminal law cooperation. The cooperation is primarily based on the principle of mutual recognition and approximation of substantive criminal law. The EU agencies Eurojust , Europol , EJN and OLAF are currently contributing with coordination of cases, information exchange and administrative investigations. The legal basis of the proposal is Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European union.
According to the Commission, the current cooperation is not sufficiently effective, with regards to protecting the financial interests of the EU. The results of the Member States’ investigations and prosecution of these crimes are not sufficient. The Commission has identified a number of reasons which they consider are causing the inadequate investigations. The cross-border nature of these crimes makes the investigations very complex. The need for cooperation from other member states, and the lack of the before mentioned cooperation, during the investigation is delaying investigations of these crimes. The exchange of information is inadequate and language barriers prevent effective cooperation. Furthermore, procedural barriers arise during the investigation phase and during the prosecution. According to the Commission, the European Public Prosecutor's Office will solve or reduce these problems. The essay is limited to the problems related to coordination during the investigation phase.
The European Public Prosecutor's Office will have a hierarchical decentralized structure consisting of a European Public Prosecutor, his or hers four Deputies and the European delegated prosecutors. The delegated prosecutors shall act at national level and, under the supervision of the European Public Prosecutor, investigate crimes affecting the financial interests of the EU. When the European Public Prosecutor finds it neccesary, he or she can take over the investigation and the prosecution of a specific case. The Office has an exclusive competence to investigate and prosecute crimes of this type. Investigations and prosecutions shall be conducted in accordance with national law and the trial shall be held in the national courts. The territory of the Member States shall be regarded as a single legal area.
The proposal involves an intrusion on the national sovereignty; the exclusive comptence of the Office, and other provisions of the proposal, reduces the national influence over the investigations and the judicial processes. In order for such a proposal to be considered justified, the proposal must be an adequate solution to the problems identified as reasons for the lack of protection of the financial interests of the EU. Furthermore the proposal needs to be in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
In an analysis of the proposal's provisions, it can be noted that the proposal as a whole is not an adequate solution to the problems raised. The proposal entails a number of benefits for cooperation within the Union; international legal assistance will be faciliated, information exchange will increase and parallel investigations will be avoided. However, the fact that the cases will be prosecuted before the national courts will result in the trial being subject to national law, this fact will prevent the Office from achieving continuity in the investigations. Furthermore, one of the problems is that the crimes are difficult to solve, and that the criminal investigations are complex. This problem with complexity will persist. The actions presented in the proposal will not result in the improvement of effectiveness and coordination during the investigation phase, which the proposal is intended to do. The proposal for the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office is therefore not an effective solution to the coordination problems. Thus, the question whether the proposal is proportional and consistent with the subsidiarity principle is irrelevant. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Fransson, Elin LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The European Public Prosecutor's Office - An adequate protection of the EU's financial interests?
course
JURM02 20171
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
straffrätt, EU-rätt, Europeiska åklagarmyndigheten, EÅM criminal law, EU law, the European Public Prosecutor's Office, EPPO
language
Swedish
id
8908615
date added to LUP
2017-06-08 11:25:04
date last changed
2017-06-08 11:25:04
@misc{8908615,
  abstract     = {Fraud and other offences, aimed towards the financial interestets of the union, are seriously harming the union’s budget every year. To guarantee a better protection of the unions finances, the Commission put forward Pro-posal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office . The Office will have an exclusive competence to in-vestigate and prosecute criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the union. 
If the proposal is adopted, the European Prosecutor’s Office will be incorporated into the existing EU criminal law cooperation. The cooperation is primarily based on the principle of mutual recognition and approximation of substantive criminal law. The EU agencies Eurojust , Europol , EJN and OLAF are currently contributing with coordination of cases, information exchange and administrative investigations. The legal basis of the proposal is Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European union. 
According to the Commission, the current cooperation is not sufficiently effective, with regards to protecting the financial interests of the EU. The results of the Member States’ investigations and prosecution of these crimes are not sufficient. The Commission has identified a number of reasons which they consider are causing the inadequate investigations. The cross-border nature of these crimes makes the investigations very complex. The need for cooperation from other member states, and the lack of the before mentioned cooperation, during the investigation is delaying investigations of these crimes. The exchange of information is inadequate and language barriers prevent effective cooperation. Furthermore, procedural barriers arise during the investigation phase and during the prosecution. According to the Commission, the European Public Prosecutor's Office will solve or reduce these problems. The essay is limited to the problems related to coordination during the investigation phase.
The European Public Prosecutor's Office will have a hierarchical decentralized structure consisting of a European Public Prosecutor, his or hers four Deputies and the European delegated prosecutors. The delegated prosecutors shall act at national level and, under the supervision of the European Public Prosecutor, investigate crimes affecting the financial interests of the EU. When the European Public Prosecutor finds it neccesary, he or she can take over the investigation and the prosecution of a specific case. The Office has an exclusive competence to investigate and prosecute crimes of this type. Investigations and prosecutions shall be conducted in accordance with national law and the trial shall be held in the national courts. The territory of the Member States shall be regarded as a single legal area.
The proposal involves an intrusion on the national sovereignty; the exclusive comptence of the Office, and other provisions of the proposal, reduces the national influence over the investigations and the judicial processes. In order for such a proposal to be considered justified, the proposal must be an adequate solution to the problems identified as reasons for the lack of protection of the financial interests of the EU. Furthermore the proposal needs to be in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
In an analysis of the proposal's provisions, it can be noted that the proposal as a whole is not an adequate solution to the problems raised. The proposal entails a number of benefits for cooperation within the Union; international legal assistance will be faciliated, information exchange will increase and parallel investigations will be avoided. However, the fact that the cases will be prosecuted before the national courts will result in the trial being subject to national law, this fact will prevent the Office from achieving continuity in the investigations. Furthermore, one of the problems is that the crimes are difficult to solve, and that the criminal investigations are complex. This problem with complexity will persist. The actions presented in the proposal will not result in the improvement of effectiveness and coordination during the investigation phase, which the proposal is intended to do. The proposal for the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office is therefore not an effective solution to the coordination problems. Thus, the question whether the proposal is proportional and consistent with the subsidiarity principle is irrelevant.},
  author       = {Fransson, Elin},
  keyword      = {straffrätt,EU-rätt,Europeiska åklagarmyndigheten,EÅM criminal law,EU law,the European Public Prosecutor's Office,EPPO},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Europeiska åklagarmyndigheten - Ett adekvat skydd för EU:s ekonomiska intressen?},
  year         = {2017},
}