Rodyklė 
 Ankstesnis 
 Kitas 
 Visas tekstas 
Procedūra : 2013/0255(APP)
Procedūros eiga plenarinėje sesijoje
Dokumento priėmimo eiga : A7-0141/2014

Pateikti tekstai :

A7-0141/2014

Debatai :

PV 11/03/2014 - 15
CRE 11/03/2014 - 15

Balsavimas :

PV 12/03/2014 - 8.27
CRE 12/03/2014 - 8.27
Balsavimo rezultatų paaiškinimas

Priimti tekstai :

P7_TA(2014)0234

Diskusijos
Antradienis, 2014 m. kovo 11 d. - Strasbūras Atnaujinta informacija

15. Europos prokuratūra (diskusijos)
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas
PV
MPphoto
 

  Πρόεδρος. - Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη είναι η συζήτηση επί της ενδιάμεσης έκθεσης του Salvatore Iacolino, εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής Πολιτικών Ελευθεριών, Δικαιοσύνης και Εσωτερικών Υποθέσεων σχετικά με την πρόταση κανονισμού του Συμβουλίου για την Ευρωπαϊκή Εισαγγελία (COM(2013)0534 - 2013/0255) (APP)) (Α7-0141/2014)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Salvatore Iacolino, relatore. - Signora Presidente, signora Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, da molti anni si discuteva della possibilità di creare una procura europea. Pertanto non si può che plaudire all'iniziativa della Commissione per aver voluto dare un segnale forte nella costruzione di un'area comune di giustizia penale, con la pubblicazione di un pacchetto legislativo che mette insieme Eurojust e procura europea che guarda naturalmente a una revisione di OLAF.

Va comunque riconosciuto al Parlamento europeo un'attività incessante, svolta anche all'interno della commissione speciale CRIM nella quale io ero il relatore unico quando abbiamo individuato una lista di priorità, un timing e un cronoprogramma con raccomandazioni alla Commissione e agli Stati membri nell'orizzonte temporale 2014-2019 e per la lotta ai fenomeni criminali, anche attraverso l'istituzione di un organo dell'Unione che possa perseguire tali reati, con particolare riferimento a quelli che determinano una lesione agli interessi finanziari dell'Unione europea.

Contrasto forte alla frode comunitaria, attraverso una rafforzata cooperazione giudiziaria e di polizia, risorse ingenti che vengono sottratte e centinaia di milioni di euro ogni anno sottratti al Welfare, all'offerta culturale, a posti di lavoro che potrebbero dare un impatto occupazionale ai tanti talenti di cui è dotata l'Unione europea: allora un contrasto al riciclaggio, alla corruzione e ai sistemi criminali! La procura europea deve essere una struttura, signora Reding, agile e snella, e dovrà lavorare in sinergia con Eurojust, OLAF ed Europol.

La proficua collaborazione con la Commissione, così come i colleghi shadow che ringrazio, gli advisor hanno consentito l'approvazione di emendamenti di compromesso in linea con le nostre attese. Sono tutelate attraverso i rimedi giurisdizionali le persone indagate, il giudice naturale è stato individuato con chiarezza puntuale. Abbiamo espresso anche il nostro punto di vista, talvolta in maniera critica, sulle misure investigative, sull'ammissibilità delle prove, così come sulla chiusura delle indagini. Abbiamo bisogno di maggiori garanzie procedurali a tutela degli indagati e senza per questo indebolire l'architettura istituzionale del sistema, rafforzando ancora il controllo giurisdizionale affidato ai tribunali nazionali e rafforzando il ruolo della Corte di giustizia, anche con riferimento alla possibilità di impugnativa.

Adesso la metà campo è quella del Consiglio, signora Commissario, domani voteremo, riteniamo favorevolmente questa relazione interlocutoria che rappresenta il punto di vista autentico del Parlamento europeo. Vogliamo una procura europea che possa lavorare bene, possa utilizzare al meglio il mandato di arresto europeo, l'ordine europeo di indagine e il sequestro e la confisca, quando sarà a regime per rafforzare un'area comune di giustizia penale in Europa.

Il pacchetto antiriciclaggio peraltro adottato giusto oggi in plenaria, definisce ulteriori regole di trasparenza che consentiranno al procuratore di tracciare più facilmente transazioni finanziarie sospette che potrebbero rappresentare frodi comunitarie o fenomeni di corruzione. Il lavoro svolto in questa legislatura prosegue, ha portato risultati incoraggianti, fermo restando quel principio di proporzionalità e di sussidiarietà che pure dobbiamo considerare trattandosi di giustizia penale.

Concludo ritenendo che la fiducia del cittadino nei confronti delle istituzioni passi certamente da un contrasto sempre più forte nei confronti delle frodi comunitarie e perché le risorse dell'Unione europea possano essere sempre meglio utilizzate fruttuosamente per dare servizi ai cittadini dell'Unione europea.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, honourable Members, let me first say how grateful I am to Parliament, the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for making its voice known and heard at a very early stage of the process. This is a clear signal of both the importance and the urgency of developing the best tools to protect the EU budget from the hands of criminals. I want to thank all those who contributed constructively to this excellent interim report, and I will listen to Parliament with the utmost attention and will, of course, consider its recommendations very seriously in the context of the negotiations in the Council.

We have a common duty: a duty to fight crime against the Union’s financial interests. Fraud in the Member States affecting the EU budget leads to significant financial losses. Estimates point to several hundreds of millions of euros every year, but fraud also undermines the trust of European citizens in their institutions, and that is why we have to fight corruption and crime.

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office aims to strengthen and help the Member States in their fight against crime, targeting criminals who violate the Union’s financial interests. The proposal put on the table by the Commission last July, following a request from Parliament, is also part of a new framework which we have been putting in place. It includes the anti-fraud directive and the whole set of procedural rights at European level, as well as a reformed Eurojust.

We have proposed an integrated and decentralised model. Firstly, in order to avoid the creation of a new heavy, costly, complex parallel structure and to rely on the national authorities’ expertise in their respective legal systems, and secondly, to guarantee the independence and efficiency of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which are sine qua non conditions for ensuring the credibility and authority of the new office. All activities of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office must be guided by the principles enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, including the protection of a fair trial and the equality of arms principle, as well as the right not to be tried or punished twice for the same crime (n .

I would like to specifically address two aspects referred to in the interim report: procedural rights and judicial review. I concur with the report’s finding on procedural rights. The respect of EU minimum standards in the fields of the rights of the individual in criminal proceedings in all Member States is a key element for the proper functioning of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. The proposed regulation therefore aims to afford the highest standard of protection to suspects against whom criminal proceedings are instituted by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. This is essential in order to counterbalance the powers of investigation and prosecution of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, exercised at Union level. We have, therefore, included as a key element of the proposal a robust system of protection for suspects’ rights, which relies on the Union’s acquis in this area, as well as on national law. The proposed regulation confers new rights directly to suspects, which can be exercised in accordance with national law, such as the right to collect and present evidence.

Turning now to the judicial review, judicial review by national courts and the possibility of preliminary rulings by the Court of Justice, as foreseen in the proposal, will ensure a comprehensive level of judicial scrutiny and uniform application of the regulation throughout the Union. Nonetheless, the Commission is open to considering additional options to strengthen judicial review during the negotiations in the Council, including the possibility of a stronger role for the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Let me also tell you that I had a very constructive debate on the proposal with Ministers in last week’s Justice Council. The Greek Presidency had skilfully put three questions to the Ministers, covering structure, division of labour and procedural safeguards. The discussions showed strong support for the objective and led to clear guidance for the follow-up work at technical level.

I remain convinced that the more Member States participate in this European initiative, the better European taxpayers’ money will be protected in all our Member States. The recent debate in the Council indicated to me that there might be a chance to have many Member States on board for the project. I think that is good news. The Commission is therefore keeping an open mind in the ongoing negotiation process to seek a reasonable compromise. The findings and the recommendations of your interim report will be conducive to advancing the discussions in this regard.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ingeborg Gräßle, Verfasserin der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Haushaltskontrollausschusses. - Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin! Es ist beschämend, dass der Rat an dieser Debatte nicht teilnimmt. Und es ist ja vielleicht auch signifikant für das ganze Verfahren. Wir laufen Gefahr, mit viel Naivität eine ineffiziente europäische Behörde zu gründen, die vor allem überfordert sein wird, einen deutlichen Rückschritt an Standards bringt und eine Gefahr für Bürgerrechte bedeutet und für den Schutz der europäischen Gelder überhaupt nichts bringt. Und das nach zehnjähriger Debatte!

Ich muss Ihnen sagen, ich bin wirklich sehr verwundert über das, was die Kommission hier vorgelegt hat. Die Schwächen bleiben. Und die Hauptschwäche ist die ineffiziente Justiz in manchen Mitgliedstaaten, um nicht zu sagen, in vielen Mitgliedstaaten. Hier macht die Kommission gar nichts. Durch das Setup ist es so, dass es entscheidend auf das ankommt, was bis jetzt schon nicht funktioniert.

Ich habe fünf Änderungsanträge eingereicht, für die ich hier werben möchte, die die parlamentarische Mitsprache bei der Ernennung des EPPO betreffen: ein Verfahren zur Abberufung, einen Europäischen Strafgerichtshof, eine Europäische Strafprozessordnung und die Abschaffung der Immunität für EU-Beamte, damit das EPPO seine Arbeit eben auch in Brüssel erledigen kann. Denn ich finde, dass die EU-Beamten hier auch mit gutem Beispiel vorangehen sollten, was die Erleichterung der Ermittlungsarbeit des EPPO betrifft.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Evelyn Regner, Verfasserin der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Rechtsausschusses. - Frau Präsidentin! Sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin, Sie haben es gesagt: Was kostet es, keine Europäische Staatsanwaltschaft zu haben? Hunderte Millionen Euro, plus/minus 500[nbsp ]Millionen Euro – das ist ein stolzer Preis! Warum ist das so? Es gibt nur fünf Fälle, in denen wir bisher einen Schuldspruch hatten. Insofern spricht sehr, sehr vieles dafür, dass wir die Europäische Staatsanwaltschaft einführen, ein wirksames Schutzinstrument, um Betrug wirksam zu bekämpfen. Allerdings gibt es ernste Hürden, wie die gelbe Karte aus einer doch erklecklichen Anzahl von Mitgliedstaaten – also 14 insgesamt – zeigt.

Ich habe in meiner Stellungnahme für den Rechtsausschuss besonderes Augenmerk auf die Beziehungen der Europäischen Staatsanwaltschaft zu OLAF, Eurojust und Europol gelegt. Da gibt es einiges zu tun, damit wir einen kohärenten Rechtsrahmen bekommen. Insofern ein ganz klares Ja zur Europäischen Staatsanwaltschaft, aber – ein realistischer Blick zeigt es – wir haben noch einen langen Weg vor uns.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Monika Hohlmeier, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin! Ich bin grundsätzlich froh und zufrieden zu sehen, dass die Kommission ihre Kompetenz im Bereich der Kooperation in Straf- und Justizangelegenheiten nutzt, um organisiertes und schweres Verbrechen zu bekämpfen. Wir haben im Parlament schon oft, wie zum Beispiel im Besonderen auch im Bericht des Sonderausschusses für organisierte Kriminalität, Korruption und Geldwäsche, festgestellt, dass die erfolgreiche Bekämpfung dieser Kriminalitätsform einen vielfachen Effekt auf die finanziellen Interessen der Mitgliedstaaten der EU selbst hat.

Worüber ich enttäuscht bin – da kann ich die Kollegin Gräßle gut verstehen –, ist der Vorschlag, dass man eigentlich keine klaren finanziellen, aber auch zum Teil keine klaren inhaltlichen Kompetenzen festgelegt hat. Wir haben erhebliche Auswirkungen durch die organisierte Kriminalität auf den Haushalt der Europäischen Union, ob das Drogenhandel, Menschenhandel, ob das Cyberkriminalität oder vielfache andere Formen der Kriminalität sind.

Ich wünsche mir, dass wir endlich einmal bei der Personalverteilung in unwichtigeren Bereichen Stellen streichen und in wichtige Bereiche umsortieren. Dazu gehört beispielsweise Eurojust, denn bis jetzt sind für den Europäischen Staatsanwalt keine zusätzlichen Mittel und kein zusätzliches Personal vorgesehen. Eurojust soll dies alles aus der hohlen Hand heraus zu den zusätzlichen Aufgaben bewältigen. Wir haben in diesem Jahr 2[nbsp ]213[nbsp ]Personen – es waren 1[nbsp ]625[nbsp ]Fälle – unterstützt, in zehn Jahren sollen es nur 2[nbsp ]500 Fälle sein – mit 190[nbsp ]Mitarbeitern. Ich halte das, offen gestanden, für nicht sehr realistisch und mangelhaft ausgestattet. Ähnlich sieht es bei Europol aus.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Birgit Sippel, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Straftaten gegen die finanziellen Interessen der EU treffen immer auch ganz direkt den europäischen Steuerzahler. Und auch deshalb hat sich meine Fraktion grundsätzlich für die Einrichtung eines Europäischen Staatsanwalts ausgesprochen. Doch der Kommissionsvorschlag, so wie er vorliegt, ist problematisch. Denn einerseits wollen wir einen Europäischen Staatsanwalt mit weitreichenden Befugnissen und andererseits haben wir nach wie vor unsere Arbeit an Mindeststandards auf europäischer Ebene bei Verfahrensrechten nicht abgeschlossen.

Doch Vertrauen in den Rechtsstaat erfordert eben beides: Straftäter ermitteln und vor Gericht bringen UND die vollständige Achtung der Verfahrensrechte von Beschuldigten. Im Consent-Verfahren können wir nur zustimmen oder ablehnen. Und deshalb ist es wichtig, dass wir ein klares Signal setzen, wo wir noch Verbesserungsbedarf sehen.

Stichpunkte: Die Verfahrensrechte müssen weiter ausgebaut und harmonisiert werden. Der Europäische Staatsanwalt muss unabhängig sein. Gleichzeitig braucht es effektive Rechtsbehelfe für Betroffene. Wir brauchen eine klare Definition, wann der Europäische Staatsanwalt überhaupt aktiv werden darf. Und die Regeln zur Zulässigkeit von Beweismitteln dürfen nicht zu einer Harmonisierung auf dem niedrigsten Level führen. In jedem Fall ist mir wichtig, dass ein Europäischer Staatsanwalt zunächst nur für die Bekämpfung von Straftaten gegen die finanziellen Interessen der EU eingesetzt wird.

Unser Bericht beschreibt klare Eckpunkte, die für die weiteren Beratungen auch im Rat wichtig sind, denn wir wollen Straftaten gegen den Haushalt der EU effektiver bekämpfen, aber nur mit gleichzeitiger Verbesserung der rechtsstaatlichen Standards in der EU.

Und abschließend: Dazu sollten möglichst alle Mitgliedstaaten an Bord sein, sonst macht diese Maßnahme keinen Sinn!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Renate Weber, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur for his work, and all my shadow colleagues for their contribution to this important report.

I welcome the Commission proposal and am convinced that in the future the Union would benefit from an ample proposal aiming to create a European criminal justice area. Establishing a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) charged with the protection of EU financial interests is just the first step. However, this could be the ultimate test in terms of Member States’ willingness to participate and engage in a project which could become a step forward in the Europeanisation process of our legal systems. We must take note that, up to now, several Member States have indicated their reluctance to participate in this measure, even though the idea of creating the EPPO is quite old, was discussed years ago and has been included in the Treaty.

At the same time, this endeavour should equally involve both European legislators – the Council and the European Parliament. Therefore, although the legal basis for the establishment of the Office allows for a Council decision, with the EP merely giving its consent, I strongly believe that the setting-up of the Office through this procedure should not touch upon the fundamental rights of persons, where this House has co-legislative powers.

The report we will vote on tomorrow reflects precisely this view and sends a strong message to the Council. As long as we create Union bodies with investigative and prosecutorial functions, we need to create the framework for guaranteeing the procedural rights and remedies of those investigated, in accordance with our own human rights legislation and jurisprudence. I am convinced that, more than ever, mutual trust, confidence and solidarity will be the principles to capitalise on if we are to continue the work we are initiating now.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Chciałbym zapytać koleżankę, czy nie byłoby lepiej, gdyby umożliwić lepsze, efektywniejsze funkcjonowanie poszczególnych prokuratur krajowych, które mogłyby całkiem skutecznie bronić interesów finansowych Unii Europejskiej, zamiast wydawać co roku bardzo duże pieniądze na działanie nowego organu, biurokratycznej prokuratury europejskiej, która wcale nie musi być efektywna i skuteczna, bo może pojawić się też problem kompetencyjnych sporów z poszczególnymi prokuraturami krajowymi?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Renate Weber (ALDE), blue-card answer. – I would like to say that these discussions indeed took place some time ago. This is why it is possible, according to the Treaty, to set up the office. I do not think that it will be conceived as a bureaucratic institution, because it will really act through the prosecutors in the Member States. What I would very much like, instead, would be to see the co-legislative powers of the European Parliament at work.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jan Philipp Albrecht, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, first of all let me thank the rapporteur and the other shadows for this intermediate report. I think it is a very important sign, because we need to keep on working. But what is not good is that the Council is absent, and this signal that we have to send out must be perceived by the Council. We can only give our consent at the end, and if the Council does not listen to us now, perhaps we will not be able to give our consent at the end.

There are some preconditions. For example, if you want to say (a) that you want to have more cross-border cooperation, which is necessary, then you also have to say (b) that we need to have common standards in the European Union. Together, here in the House, with all the parties together, we have achieved the right to information and the letter of rights and the right to interpretation and access to a lawyer, all brought through the House here and through the Council. I think, therefore, it is really disappointing that with regard to the next step – the data protection directive – there is a huge part of this House which does not want to go ahead with these standards. It is a precondition, so let us develop these standards, because this is also a precondition for creating such an office, which we sorely need in order to better fight organised crime.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. - Mr Albrecht, since you also mentioned the absence of the Council, a point raised by Ms Gräßle, I would like to recommend discussing the issue with the political groups, because it is the political groups which fix the agenda in relation to the presence of the Council.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Rina Ronja Kari, for GUE/NGL-Gruppen. – Fru formand! Jeg har stillet forslag om, at Parlamentet skal afvise at godkende Kommissionens forslag om Den Europæiske Anklagemyndighed, og jeg ville have opfordret Rådet til at gøre det samme. 14 nationale parlamenters kamre i 11 forskellige medlemsstater har trukket det gule kort i forhold til Kommissionens forslag. De nationale parlamenter mener, at forslaget overtræder nærhedsprincippet, og at det er alt, alt for vidtgående. F.eks. peger nogle parlamenter på, at forslaget forhindrer de enkelte medlemsstater i at få indflydelse på, hvilke forbrydelser de vil lægge vægt på at retsforfølge. Andre peger på, at forslaget går ud over retssikkerheden.

Jeg bakker fuldt op om de nationale parlamenters kritik, og jeg mener ikke, at det er i orden, at Kommissionen ignorerer dem på denne måde. Kommissionens forslag skal ikke bare have det gule kort, det skal udvises helt fra banen.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, the EU intends to create a Public Prosecutor’s Office with vast legal powers across the Member States. The British Government has already announced that it will opt out of the public prosecutor scheme. However, the Government has already announced that it intends to permanently opt in to the 35 EU police and criminal justice measures. As I said here last month, those 35 measures are the most important and the most dangerous to our traditional freedoms and liberties.

As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, the Government’s decision to opt out of the Public Prosecutor’s Office is both worthless and dishonest. The Prosecutorʼs Office will have at their disposal the use of all the existing legal instruments, such as the European Arrest Warrant, and the new ones, such as the European Investigation Order. Although the Prosecutorʼs Office will have no direct authority in the UK, it will have de facto power by means of the use of these legal instruments.

The Tory-led coalition Government knows it cannot defend accepting the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the UK, so it seeks to achieve the same thing by the back door. There is still time for the Government to reverse its decision and opt out of the 35 measures. But to fully protect ourselves, we have to leave the European Union. To do that, vote UKIP on 22[nbsp ]May.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Franco Bonanini (NI). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, nel prendere la parola sulla relazione interlocutoria in esame per la quale intanto ringrazio il collega Iacolino per il suo lavoro, coadiuvato dagli altri relatori, voglio dichiararmi pienamente d'accordo sul fatto che l'istituzione di una procura europea rappresenti un valore aggiunto allo spazio di libertà, di sicurezza, di giustizia. Quindi sono più che favorevole al fatto che il Consiglio coinvolga il Parlamento in modo da approdare a un risultato condiviso.

La necessità di contrastare in modo sempre più efficace le frodi a danno dell'Unione europea, che purtroppo rappresentano una piaga foriera di gravi pregiudizi al funzionamento e allo sviluppo dell'Eurozona, giustifica infatti che si insista nell'intento di giungere a istituire una procura europea, cui tutti gli Stati membri aderiscano, sebbene gli atteggiamenti tenuti dai parlamenti nazionali facciano presumere che difficilmente potrà essere raggiunta l'unanimità in seno al Consiglio, come richiesto dal trattato al funzionamento dell'Unione europea.

La centralità degli interessi economici dell'Unione non può tuttavia far dimenticare che i poteri e la procedura della procura europea sono destinati a incidere sui diritti fondamentali del cittadino. Da questo punto di vista trovo estremamente opportuno che la relazione in esame non si fermi a raccomandare al Consiglio di assicurare alla procura europea l'indipendenza sia dei governi nazionali che delle istituzioni UE, ma faccia altresì riferimento alla necessità di predisporre regole tese ad assicurare una protezione della stessa a qualsiasi pressione politica.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jan Philipp Albrecht (Verts/ALE). - Madam President, I raise my blue card to Ms Kari and I would like to ask her a question, and you have noticed it also.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jan Philipp Albrecht (Verts/ALE), blue-card question to Ms Kari. – What I heard before him, and perhaps he can answer me, is that there is obviously no need for cross-border cooperation, and obviously no need for improvement. However, what I have heard until now from prosecutors – and I am a Green Party member who is in favour of civil liberties and subsidiarity – is that there is actually a need for better cooperation when it comes to law enforcement and among prosecutors. I would like to know how they wish to improve this situation.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. - Mr Albrecht, we understand your point, but colleague Bonanini is not in position and is not allowed to respond on behalf of another colleague.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Axel Voss (PPE). - Frau Präsidentin! Die Idee des Europäischen Staatsanwalts ist eigentlich eine sehr gute. Doch als Berichterstatter für die Eurojust-Reform möchte ich doch betonen, dass hier noch sehr viele offene Fragen existieren, die zunächst geklärt werden sollten, bevor man den Verordnungsvorschlag für beide Institute in die Praxis umsetzt. Deshalb sollten verschiedene Fragen geklärt werden.

Zum einen: Wie soll denn mit der Reform von Eurojust weiter umgegangen werden für den Fall, dass wir hier eine verstärkte Zusammenarbeit haben? Dabei halte ich nebenbei den Europäischen Staatsanwalt auf der Basis von verstärkter Zusammenarbeit auch für einen Widerspruch in sich. Eine andere Frage ist, welche Auswirkungen die Einrichtung der Europäischen Staatsanwaltschaft auf den Haushalt von Eurojust hat. Und zudem sollten hier auch diese allgemeinen strafrechtlichen Bereiche innerhalb der EU kritisch hinterfragt werden, um Verfahrensfragen zu klären und um durch Harmonisierungsmaßnahmen unter Beachtung der Verhältnismäßigkeit, des Subsidiaritätsprinzips und nationaler Rechtssysteme und Traditionen der einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten einheitliche Strukturen zu schaffen.

Wenn wir das so umsetzen, wie es im Moment ist, werden in der praktischen Arbeit enorme Probleme auftreten. Welchem abgestellten Staatsanwalt wird denn der Fall anvertraut? Ist die Unabhängigkeit eigentlich hinlänglich gewahrt, wenn wir ein Kollegialorgan haben? Es gibt in dem Vorschlag auch keine Strafprozessordnung. Was passiert mit den Beteiligungsrechten und Schutzrechten des Beschuldigten? Ist es im Hinblick auf den gesetzlichen Richter überhaupt vereinbar, dass der Staatsanwalt nachher das Gericht auswählen kann?

Mein Fazit ist: Ich bin im Grundsatz eigentlich dafür, aber er muss eben richtig aufgestellt werden. Und das scheint mir hier noch nicht so weit zu sein.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). - Señora Presidenta, tuve el honor de ser Ministro de Justicia del Gobierno de España en el momento en que se desbloqueó el Tratado de Lisboa y apoyé decididamente la inclusión de la Fiscalía Europea en su artículo 86. Y, como Presidente de la Comisión de Libertades Civiles, Justicia y Asuntos de Interior, continúo apoyando con toda energía la puesta en marcha de una Fiscalía Europea.

Por eso me parece que es una buena noticia que el Parlamento apruebe una posición favorable, que es la que se ha obtenido en el informe Iacolino y la Comisión LIBE. Es un paso gradual en la buena dirección. El primer paso es una Fiscalía que sea capaz de perseguir el fraude y defender los intereses financieros de la Unión, pero el segundo tiene que ser una Fiscalía capaz de traer justicia, de imponer justicia ante la criminalidad grave transnacional.

Y eso requiere, en primer lugar, diferenciar muy bien, claramente, las funciones de Eurojust y la OLAF de las de la futurible Fiscalía Europea; en segundo lugar, asegurar su independencia y su sujeción a reglas democráticas, establecer muy claramente la línea de demarcación entre las fiscalías nacionales y la Fiscalía Europea y, en último término, superar también las dificultades institucionales. Algunos Parlamentos nacionales han impuesto la «tarjeta amarilla» y algunos Gobiernos nacionales arrastran los pies ante la Fiscalía Europea. Será importante, en todo caso, acudir a la cooperación reforzada para ponerla en marcha.

Y, por último, se ha de mantener muy coordinada la acción legislativa de este Parlamento en la generación de un nuevo Derecho penal europeo para la puesta en marcha de una Fiscalía Europea que lo defienda y lo realice en la práctica.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Слави Бинев (EFD). - Г-жо Председател, уважаеми колеги, подкрепям създаването на Европейска прокуратура. Тя ще повиши доверието на гражданите в европейските институции, ще бъде гарант за еднакво прилагане в рамките на Европейския съюз, особено за страни със сериозни проблеми в съдебната власт, подлежащи на мониторинг, като България, където прокуратурата е смятана за една от най-корумпираните институции. Сигурен съм, че тогава политици, които стрелят по магистралите и се бият или мятат кюфтета по самолетите, ще получат заслуженото си, независимо колко са нужни на управляващите.

Проблем са също така политическите назначения. Това е запазена мярка за всички, управлявали до сега – ГЕРБ, БСП, ДПС и, разбира се, техните помагачи от АТАКА. Европейската прокуратура ще бъде гарант за професионалност и неподкупност, ще върне вярата на българските граждани в институцията. Смятам, че първите клиенти на тази прокуратура ще бъдат управляващите страната и техните помощници.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marco Scurria (PPE). - Signora Presidente, fa un passo avanti finalmente la procura europea, grazie all'iniziativa legislativa della Commissione europea e al lavoro del collega, del parlamentare europeo che ringrazio come relatore, il collega Iacolino. Il buon funzionamento della procura europea sarà garantita solo se sarà un'istituzione agile e snella e non un'istituzione ingessata dalla burocrazia.

Serve che abbia un carattere di assoluta indipendenza, serve esperienza e professionalità, servono decisioni rapide, coniugate con indagini accurate che tutelino le persone fino all'eventuale condanna. Spero che la procura europea sia uno strumento per garantire e sviluppare quello spazio di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia che il nostro trattato esprime e che rispetti i diritti umani e le libertà fondamentali, coniugando questi temi con un'incessante azione contro la criminalità che si sta strutturando sempre più in maniera transfrontaliera. Ovviamente recando danni spesso sempre più evidenti al bilancio della nostra Unione europea.

Spesso questo tipo di reati non si riescono a perseguire con efficacia per le differenze esistenti nelle legislazioni nazionali. Non esistevano e non esistono tuttora meccanismi con i quali essere efficaci perché gli organismi tuttora esistenti a livello di Unione europea non risultano dotati di effettivi poteri di indagine e di azione penale. Ben venga quindi uno strumento come la procura europea che razionalizza l'azione a livello di Unione europea garantendo i risultati che tutti ci attendiamo.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Salvatore Caronna (S&D). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la creazione di una procura europea costituirebbe un primo passo, un passo importante anche se non risolutivo in quel percorso di una più forte cooperazione tra gli Stati dell'Unione europea su un settore delicato ed essenziale come quello della giustizia penale. Importante perché in questo modo si darebbe avvio concretamente a quel processo di armonizzazione tra le varie legislazioni per arrivare a quello che il relatore Iacolino chiamava uno spazio comune di giustizia europea, in grado di contrastare più efficacemente una criminalità che ormai da tempo ha assunto una dimensione sovranazionale.

Si può dire che il crimine è stato molto più veloce degli Stati nazionali ad assumere una dimensione che prescinde dal confine nazionale. Quindi non è ancora sufficiente perché oltre alle resistenze che abbiamo visto da parte degli Stati ad andare avanti in questa direzione, c'è anche un campo di azione troppo ristretto e quindi credo che sotto questo punto di vista ci vorrebbe da parte di tutti un maggiore coraggio nel dare delle risposte comuni alle sfide comuni.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). - Madam President, cross-border mobile crime is growing in Europe, and it is crucial to increase cooperation at European level to fight cross-border crime effectively. There should not be any place where criminals can hide in any corner of Europe.

The mandate of the European Public Prosecutor should be limited to fraud against the financial interests of the European Union, and that is good. However, the Commission proposal raises serious concerns regarding the division of responsibility between the Member States and the European Union, and its added value is questionable.

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) is intrusive in national legal systems because it harmonises some of the sensitive areas of criminal law such as the admissibility of evidence or procedures for remedy against decisions taken by the Public Prosecutorʼs Office. The confusion of competences between national authorities and the European Prosecutor undermines legal certainty. The whole structure is not clear. How would it work in reality with national delegates? Investigations should continue to be carried out by national prosecutors to avoid any overlap that could undermine justice. Clear safeguards for the rights of suspects and data protection should be defined.

I therefore call on the Commission to reconsider its position and to present a new proposal that respects subsidiarity better. The fact that 14 national parliaments have issued a yellow card procedure cannot be ignored.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D). - To biuro jest powoływane, tak jak ja rozumiem, przede wszystkim dla ścigania, dochodzenia, stawiania przed organami sprawiedliwości tych, których działania dotyczą interesów finansowych Unii Europejskiej. To powinna być struktura zdecentralizowana oparta w bardzo dużym stopniu na prawach narodowych w poszczególnych państwach członkowskich. My mamy co ścigać, to są przede wszystkim nadużycia, korupcja i[nbsp ]inne nielegalne działaniadziałania, które dotyczą na przykład podatku VAT, wykorzystania Funduszu Spójności, funduszy rolnych, wszelkiego rodzaju przemytu począwszy od papierosów, a zatem jest pole do działania, na co szczególnie bym chciał uczulić: tj. jasne linie podziału kompetencji między prokuraturą, Eurojustem, także OLAF-em i ścisłą współpracą z[nbsp ]państwami narodowymi i ich systemem sprawiedliwości.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  James Nicholson (ECR). - Madam President, the main justification put forward for the creation of a European Public Prosecutors Office has been the scale of fraud against the EU budget. Indeed, some of the figures discussed are quite astonishing, with last year’s EU audit acknowledging that EUR[nbsp ]404 million had been lost to fraud. Other reports state that the actual amount was more likely to be twelve times that figure. Is the European Public Prosecutor’s Office the best way to tackle fraud? I think that is the question you have to answer.

My constituency, where I come from, perhaps knows more than most that where policing and justice powers reside remains a very sensitive issue. After many years of tumultuous changes, public and political confidence in policing in Northern Ireland had been built to devolve powers to the local level. I had my reservations then, and I think in recent months we have seen how delicate and fragile this confidence can be. The lesson I take from my own constituency is that, where concerns exist, they should be listened to.

I would also like to say that a zero-tolerance approach to fraud against the EU’s budget is needed. But disregarding the concerns of Member States in establishing new and more costly bodies is not necessarily the solution, in my opinion.

 
  
 

Διαδικασία "catch the eye"

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Davor Ivo Stier (PPE). - Gospođo predsjednice, u prvom redu želim reći da podržavam izvješće kolege Iacolina, kao što i podržavam ovu inicijativu Europske komisije. Podržao sam je čim je ona i javno objavljena.

Europska unija ima svoj proračun i po meni je prirodno da također ima Ured europskog javnog tužitelja koji će štititi financijske interese Europske unije, novac europskih poreznih obveznika te proširiti izgradnju europskog prostora kaznenog prava. Naravno, u izvješću tražimo da taj Ured europskog javnog tužitelja bude neovisan, neovisan od nacionalnih vlada, od EU institucija, od bilo kakvog oblika političkog utjecaja. Tražimo i da se poštuje princip supsidijarnosti, međutim ovdje bih isto tako rekao da taj princip supsidijarnosti ne mora biti alibi da bi se krile neke prakse političkog utjecaja na javne tužitelje koji nažalost postoje u nekim državama članicama.

I zato podržavam ovo izvješće i pozivam države članice da isto tako podrže ovu inicijativu.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). - Gospođo predsjedavajuća, iako se čvrsto zalažem za jačanje suradnje između pravosudnih tijela država članica, prije svega u provedbi europskog uhidbenog i istražnog naloga, smatram da inicijativa u pokretanju sudskog postupka mora ostati u ovlasti država članica, odnosno nacionalnih javnih tužitelja.

Umjesto osnivanja još jednog tijela na razini Unije, smatram da bi europske institucije trebale pružiti svu moguću potporu u jačanju učinkovitosti nacionalnih pravosudnih organa i njihovom kvalitetnom umrežavanju.

Pokretanje sudskog postupka s dvije razine je također vrlo rizično jer će lako stvarati konfuzije i time štetiti učinkovitosti cijelog sustava. Iako je predviđeno da ured europskog tužitelja bude uklopljen u postojeće nacionalne strukture, njegovo uvođenje predstavlja samo dodatno opterećenje cijelom sustavu, što smatram potpuno nepotrebnim i štetnim.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD). - Z całą pewnością uzasadnione jest rozgoryczenie tych wszystkich mówców, którzy wskazują, że nie wystarczająco skutecznie Unia Europejska chroni swoje finanse przed oszustwami, korupcją i różnymi innymi zjawiskami o charakterze kryminalnym. Trzeba się zastanowić, co zrobić, aby w sposób bardziej efektywny i skuteczny tego rodzaju zjawiska przynajmniej ograniczać. Ale nie wydaje się, aby dobrą drogą było powołanie „superurzędu” prokuratora europejskiego. Sądzę, że nie wykorzystano szeregu możliwości, aby w sposób elastyczny umożliwić lepszą koordynację działań poszczególnych prokuratur pomiędzy krajami członkowskimi, aby poprzez dobre praktyki i szkolenia współpraca ta przynosiła lepsze rezultaty. Jestem przekonany, że powołanie nowego urzędu prokuratora będzie niosło ze sobą wiele problemów natury prawnej związanych z kwestią właściwości, choćby rzeczowej, podmiotowej kolizji prawnej pomiędzy poszczególnymi prokuratorami. Nie jest to dobra droga, nie mówiąc już o tym, że zawsze powołanie nowego urzędu kończy się wcześniej czy później wielkimi wydatkami budżetowymi. A w dobie kryzysu Unię Europejską nie stać na tego rodzaju dodatkowe wielkie wydatki.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Димитър Стоянов (NI). - Г-жо Председател, да, на пръв поглед действително има логика в създаването на Европейска прокуратура. Има причина, има, разбира се, злоупотреби със средствата от европейските фондове. Но трябва да си отговорим дали тази прокуратура ще работи. Това е основният въпрос. Защото, ако тя не работи, тя само ще глътне още повече средства, а резултат няма да има.

А за да работи една такава прокуратура, трябва да отговорим на няколко основни въпроса: Ще имаме ли общ европейски наказателен кодекс? Ще имаме ли общ европейски наказателнопроцесуален кодекс? Ще има ли Европейски съд, пред когото тази прокуратура да изправя обвинените от нея в престъпления?

За всички тези неща има ясен отговор и той е: Не, не може да ги имаме. И това не го казвам аз. Казват го четиринадесет национални парламента - абсолютен рекорд в процедурата за жълтия картон. Затова призовавам Комисията да оттегли своето предложение – то очевидно е некачествено, за да не повтаряме сцени като от гласуването днес, когато отхвърляме с абсолютно мнозинство предложенията на Комисията.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Dubravka Šuica (PPE). - Gospodine predsjedniče, podržavam da se članak 86. Lisabonskog ugovora stavi u funkciju, odnosno da se ustroji Ured javnog tužitelja. Ured koji će moći prekogranično djelovati i nadam se da će se na taj način postići stvarno zajednički prostor europske pravde, jer smo to dugo željeli. Isto tako podržavam da se objedini, da se uspostavi bolja koordinacija između OLAF-a, Europola i ovog novoosnovanog Ureda javnog tužitelja, jer europski proračun zaista trebamo zaštititi.

Imamo zajednički cilj boriti se protiv prijevara, a prijevare kao što znamo potkopavaju povjerenje naših građana u Europsku uniju. I zato se moramo rukovoditi odredbama Povelje o temeljnim ljudskim pravima i voditi računa i da oni koji su osumnjičeni imaju pravo na pravično suđenje. U svakom slučaju treba više sredstava za kulturu, više sredstava za obrazovanje i više sredstava za sport, a na ovaj način ćemo to sigurno postići.

 
  
 

Τέλος διαδικασίας "catch the eye"

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, I would just like to underline that the Public Prosecutor’s Office is based on Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This article specifically says how this very unusual way of law-making should be handled. I would like to thank Parliament for its constructive support of this initiative and look forward to the adoption of the interim report.

I absolutely agree with Parliament that you cannot have a Public Prosecutor’s Office without having the rights of the accused being firmly anchored in a horizontal way. I absolutely agree, and that is one of the reasons why the Commission has strongly underlined these rights. I would like to thank Parliament for its continuous support in order to get the procedural rights adopted, and I call on the Council also to adopt the still outstanding procedural rights.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Salvatore Iacolino, relatore. - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, abbiamo ascoltato contributi, critiche, rilievi e considerazioni, apprezzamenti su un dossier che resta di assoluto interesse per i cittadini.

Abbiamo l'esigenza di dare attuazione a un principio e a un valore inserito nel trattato istitutivo e di funzionamento dell'Unione europea: la Corte europea. Ma nello stesso tempo dobbiamo ricordare a tutti i colleghi che si tratta di un rapporto interlocutorio, preliminare, nel quale abbiamo voluto sancire alcune critiche, alcuni rilievi precisi nei confronti della proposta della Commissione, che tuttavia registriamo nella sua complessità con favore: diritti procedurali e tutela dell'accusato, garanzie, valutare concretamente i costi eliminando quelli impropri, definizione chiara del giudice naturale, chiarezza su istituti come archiviazione e compromesso, così come sulle competenze dell'ufficio della procura.

Naturalmente dovrà accompagnarsi a questo dossier una revisione dell'OLAF quando la procura sarà costituita, attivata e funzionante. Abbiamo bisogno di una procura che contrasti al meglio le frodi comunitarie, che garantisca cooperazione e rapidità delle decisioni. Abbiamo bisogno di una struttura agile e snella che dia efficienza alla giustizia, tutelando i cittadini, tutelando e garantendo le prerogative dell'accusato, assicurando tempi rapidi nelle decisioni.

In questo modo certamente il cittadino potrà recuperare fiducia nelle istituzioni europee, assicurando alla procura europea una serie di risorse che altrimenti verrebbero, come lo sono state, sottratte all'uso comune per essere invece autorizzate a favore di sistemi criminali o di corruttori. Quindi continuo ovviamente a incoraggiare i colleghi, ricordando una sostanziale condivisione che vi è stata durante le attività della commissione LIBE e sono certo che anche domattina il sostegno non verrà a mancare e la procura europea potrà aver fatto un passo avanti deciso verso poi quella che sarà l'approvazione di un testo finale.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Πρόεδρος. - Η συζήτηση έληξε.

Η ψηφοφορία θα διεξαχθεί αύριο Τετάρτη 12 Μαρτίου 2014 στις 12 το μεσημέρι

 
Teisinė informacija - Privatumo politika