Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 14 June 2023 - Strasbourg

18. Extension of the mandate of the EPPO with regard to the criminal offence of violation of Union restrictive measures (debate)

  Przewodnicząca. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest debata nad:

– pytaniem wymagającym odpowiedzi ustnej skierowanym do Rady przez Juana Fernando Lópeza Aguilara w imieniu Komisji Wolności Obywatelskich, Sprawiedliwości i Spraw Wewnętrznych w sprawie rozszerzenia mandatu Prokuratury Europejskiej w odniesieniu do przestępstwa naruszenia unijnych środków ograniczających (O-000022/2023 – B9-0023/23) (2023/2671(RSP)),

– pytaniem wymagającym odpowiedzi ustnej skierowanym do Komisji przez Juana Fernando Lópeza Aguilara w imieniu Komisji Wolności Obywatelskich, Sprawiedliwości i Spraw Wewnętrznych w sprawie rozszerzenia mandatu Prokuratury Europejskiej w odniesieniu do przestępstwa naruszenia unijnych środków ograniczających (O-000023/2023 – B9-0024/23) (2023/2671(RSP)).

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar, author. – Madam President, Commissioner Reynders, yet again it is my honour to submit on behalf of the Committee for Justice and Home Affairs this oral question to the Council and the Commission as to the extension of the mandate of the European Public Prosecutor regarding the criminal offence of the violation of EU restrictive measures.

You know how it’s like: ever since Putin’s regime – Russian President Vladimir Putin – launched his war of aggression against neighbouring Ukraine, we from the European Parliament, the European Union, have done everything in our hands in order to show not only solidarity but also active support to Ukraine and Ukrainians. As to the military dimension, which is beyond our jurisdiction, there is little to say, but as to the humanitarian dimension, of course, we’ve supported all the way the final activation of Temporary Protection Directive, we’ve supported the solidarity effort, we’ve called for action, for the European Commission to coordinate that solidarity in order to prevent human trafficking on the borders of the neighbouring countries. We have supported, under the legal and criminal dimension of the conflict, every effort to put in place joint investigating teams to cooperate with the public prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Finally, we agreed to set in motion an urgent procedure as to a new piece of legislation initiated by yourself, Commissioner Reynders, to put in place the extension, within the ambit of Article 83 of the Treaty of Functioning of European Union, defining the so—called ‘EU crimes’, the crimes which are listed as relevant EU crimes, the violation of EU restrictive measures, that is to add that violation to the list of EU crimes.

The first step allowed the Commission to draw on the directive’s proposal to harmonise across the European Union the definition – that is the purpose – and the common penalties, definition and penalties regarding this new EU crime. We are currently working on this proposal in the European Parliament, and we are going to adopt swiftly, that’s for sure, a mandate in order to allow as soon as possible that the prosecution and conviction of the violation of restrictive measures is finally set forth throughout the EU.

Nevertheless, we are also aware that investigation and prosecution of such crimes will mostly remain the responsibility of Member States and their national laws. Very few violators of EU restrictive measures are actually held accountable. The reason is that many Member States do not show sufficient priority to list those crimes. That inconsistent enforcement of restrictive measures undermines its effectiveness. It is really regretful, actually, a shame that the European Public Prosecutor cannot prosecute such crimes so far.

Indeed, they are related to the protection of financial interests of the EU. That is the jurisdiction of the European Public Prosecutor. By now, under the so—called PIF, the Protection of Financial Interests of the European Union Directive, of which I was rapporteur and for which the European Public Prosecutor is competent, the European Public Prosecutor has already proven its efficacy in investigating and prosecuting crimes falling under its mandate. It’s there. It’s in action. It’s been there for almost two years now. This new so—called Union Agency for Law Enforcement. A great success! We are proud of its delivery. So it is time for the European Union to act in this regard. That is why this European Parliament is resolved to act, but the institutional set—up so far has limited that role of the European Public Prosecutor in this field of action. We therefore ask the Commission and the Council the following questions.

First, do you agree that extending the competence of the European Public Prosecutor to include the crime of violation of Union restrictive measures would help ensure that crimes are investigated and prosecuted in a homogeneous and more efficient way across the European Union?

Second, do the Council and the Commission support the initiative of several Member States, numbering nine by now, to this effect?

Third, what actions will the Commission and the Council take to this end?

I am looking forward to your responses and reactions – Council, the Swedish Presidency, the Commission and Commissioner Reynders.

  Jessika Roswall, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, honourable Members, Commissioner, the Presidency’s top priority is security and Ukraine. The sanctions against Russia are proving effective as they are weakening Russia’s economic base, depriving its critical technologies and markets, and impeding its ability to wage war.

The Council rapidly agreed in November 2022 to add the violation of the Union restrictive measures to the list of EU crimes laid down in Article 83(1) of the Treaty on the Function of the European Union. This rapid agreement reflects the Council’s commitment to counter the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine.

Last week, the Justice and Home Affairs Council reached a position on two key legislative proposals which will greatly enhance the effectiveness of actions at both EU and national level on this matter. The first one concerns the criminalisation of violation of sanctions. The second one concerns extended powers of confiscation, including violation of EU sanctions.

We look forward to the interinstitutional negotiations with Parliament to finalise these instruments as soon as possible. Your support for these files is of utmost importance to ensuring a robust prosecution of violations of EU sanctions. The Council welcomes the activities developed by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office during the first two years of operation, which reflects the investigation and prosecution capacities of EPPO.

The Council attaches great importance to the fact that EPPO will be able to further develop its activities and perform its important tasks in the most efficient way. Having a strong and well-functioning office is important to protect the financial interests of the EU, which currently constitutes the scope of EPPO’s activities.

The idea of idea of extending EPPO’s competence to violation of restrictive measures has been mentioned during several ministerial debates on the response to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine last week. The proposal to extend EPPO’s competence was raised by several Member States during the discussion on investigation and prosecution of EU restrictive measures in the Justice and Home Affairs Council. Several Member States have also sent a joint paper to the Commission raising the issue mentioned just now.

At this stage, it is too early to indicate whether there is a sufficient support for such a proposal amongst Member States. As you are already aware, a decision to extend EPPO’s competence would require a unanimous decision by the European Council.

In order to get a clearer view of the situation, the Presidency will put this issue on the agenda of a meeting at a technical level before the end of this month. After that meeting, we will consider possible next steps. Irrespective of any developments on this issue, it is pertinent to point out that the Council, in any case, is very committed to ensuring compliance with EU sanctions together with a robust criminal law approach.

At the same Council meeting last week, Ministers of Justice held a discussion and shared experience and best practices on measures taken on a national level to ensure efficient and investigations and prosecutions. Eurojust and Europol also participated in the debate. This was a very useful discussion and one I hope that will contribute to further strengthening of the efforts of investigation and prosecution of EU restrictive measures.

I am looking forward to the debate and thank you for your attention.

  Didier Reynders, membre de la Commission. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Ministre, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, je vous remercie pour ce débat sur l’extension des compétences du Parquet européen aux violations des sanctions européennes. Dans le contexte de l’agression de la Russie contre l’Ukraine, ces sanctions constituent l’un des outils les plus essentiels dont nous disposions. Comme vous le savez, des mesures restrictives sont également adoptées par l’Union dans une série d’autres contextes. À ce jour, l’Union a adopté dix paquets de sanctions à l’encontre de la Russie. La Commission et le Haut Représentant ont présenté une proposition de onzième paquet, actuellement en discussion.

La mise en œuvre efficace de ces sanctions est une priorité, y compris avec le concours de la justice pénale. À cet effet, la Commission a déjà pris plusieurs initiatives pour soutenir les États membres dans cette mission cruciale. Il s’agit notamment de la mise en place, dès mars 2022, du groupe de travail «Gel et saisie».

Par ailleurs, je me réjouis d’entamer bientôt avec le Parlement et le Conseil des négociations interinstitutionnelles sur la proposition de directive relative à la violation des sanctions de l’Union. Cette proposition contribuera de manière cruciale à renforcer la mise en œuvre des sanctions européennes et à assurer une harmonisation des définitions des infractions et des niveaux de sanctions dans l’ensemble de l’Union. Le Conseil a adopté une orientation générale la semaine dernière, et je remercie votre Parlement, notamment la commission LIBE et la rapporteure Sophia in ’t Veld, pour leur engagement dans ce dossier.

La question que nous sommes appelés à discuter aujourd’hui concerne le rôle que le Parquet européen pourrait jouer dans ce contexte. Nous venons de célébrer les deux années d’activité opérationnelle du Parquet européen, marquées par des résultats impressionnants, en particulier le nombre d’enquêtes ouvertes et le montant des saisies.

First, let me stress that the Commission is fully committed to ensuring that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) can perform its current tasks effectively. To some extent, this task already concerns the enforcement of EU sanctions.

As recalled by the European Chief Prosecutor on various occasions, the EPPO is already competent to investigate and prosecute certain cases of violations of sanctions when they are inextricably linked to crimes affecting the EU budget. For example, customs fraud concerning the import of certain goods prohibited under EU sanctions. This role is acknowledged by the proposed directive on sanctions violations. The proposal, in fact, provides that Member States’ competent authorities, the Commission, Eurojust, Europol and the EPPO should cooperate with each other within their respective mandates.

A possible extension of the EPPO’s competence to the violation of EU sanctions would make its role much more prominent. We are open to supporting such an evolution. In accordance with Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the competence of the EPPO can be extended to areas of serious crime with a cross-border dimension other than those areas already listed in this article.

In terms of procedure, such a possible extension of the EPPO’s competence would require a decision of the European Council by unanimity of all the 27 Member States, after having obtained the consent of the European Parliament and having consulted the Commission. The feasibility of this avenue depends, therefore, on the position of the Member States.

I am aware that at least 10 Member States would support a limited extension of the EPPO’s mandate to the violations of sanctions. We have discussed this issue again recently in the Justice Council last Friday. As I explained, a clear position of all the Member States is very important, because we need to have the support of all, including the Member States that are not participating in the enhanced cooperation on which the EPPO relies. That is needed in order to extend the competence.

From the Commission’s side, we are open to work on it and to assess the feasibility of extending the EPPO’s competence to these offences in the context and within the timelines of existing reporting activities. In April 2022, the Commission launched an in-depth study to assess the implementation of the EPPO Regulation by the Member States, as well as additional issues on the effectiveness and efficiency of the EPPO and its working practices. The study will be concluded in the summer. It could provide the right context subsequently to have a first substantial discussion on a possible extension of the EPPO’s competence to violation of sanctions and the potential financial, technical and human resource implications for the EPPO.

It is therefore very important to continue to work urgently on the proposal for a directive on the violation of sanctions. Through such discussions, it will be possible to continue the preparation of a possible extension of the competence of the EPPO, if we have the capacity to convince the Member States to support such an extension.

I said last Friday that we have seen that at least 10 Member States would support such an extension. We will continue to work to see if it is possible to reach to reach unanimity. I thank you for your questions. I thank you for your attention and of course, I am looking forward to further debate.

  Leopoldo López Gil, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señora presidenta, como ponente alternativo del Grupo PPE del informe relativo a la propuesta de Directiva por la que se definen las infracciones y sanciones penales por la vulneración de las medidas restrictivas de la Unión, acojo de manera favorable esta pregunta sobre la extensión del mandato de la Fiscalía Europea.

Las medidas restrictivas de la Unión Europea que se imponen a los violadores de derechos humanos y a aquellos que socavan la democracia en sus países son una herramienta fundamental de la política exterior y de seguridad de la Unión para castigar a los criminales. Pero, de todas formas, la potestad de imponer y asegurarse de que estas sanciones se cumplan es de los Estados miembros.

Desde el Parlamento Europeo, consideramos lamentable la falta de voluntad de algunos a la hora de aplicarlas. La extensión de las competencias de la Fiscalía Europea al nuevo delito al que se refiere esta Directiva, el de la violación de las medidas restrictivas en la Unión, es una buena propuesta debido al carácter transnacional de estos delitos, ya que supondría una mejora significativa en el enjuiciamiento y en la aplicación efectiva de las sanciones penales a los criminales.

Por último, termino pidiendo también mucha cautela. No queremos sobrecargar a una institución que acaba de entrar en funcionamiento y todavía no cuenta con plena participación de los veintisiete Estados miembros. Lo pedimos.

  Thijs Reuten, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, dear Minister, sometimes I wonder how a Russian oligarch or a human rights violator experiences being under sanctions, under restrictive measures – as a mere nuisance, I guess, and as something to work around.

With 27 Member States implementing EU sanctions at their own discretion we facilitate circumvention in a way, and criminals on our sanction list eagerly take advantage of it. In addition, they hire the best lawyers and the best advisors. I think expanding EPPOs competencies can be an important building block to increase the effectiveness of our restrictive measures.

But as you explained, Minister, we need the political will. My question is not to elaborate on the details of alternative routes, but do you see alternatives besides muddling through and accepting that the sanctions remain ineffective? We need to establish at least, first and foremost, that we need a solution. If we want our restrictive measures to hit their target then we only have one option: to show unity in adopting them, but also in enforcing them.

  Sophia in 't Veld, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, as the rapporteur for the Directive on ‘VURM’, as we call it – the violation of Union restrictive measures – I am very committed to working fast and concluding the file as quickly as possible, and I am glad to say that all the groups have committed to that because everybody understands the importance of this piece of legislation. But we also know that in practice European law tends to be applied very unevenly, and in this case that would be of benefit for the perpetrators, for the persons who have been put under sanctions, and we do not, of course, want to give them any opportunity to go shopping around for places where they can escape the sanctions.

Therefore, in addition to the national competence for the application, we call – and you can hear that there is broad consensus here – for the extension of the mandate of EPPO to include all types of violations of Union restrictive measures in order to really strongly enhance the uniform enforcement of the directive.

Finally, I would like to say that eventually EPPO will be subject to an evaluation, but I think that even before doing the evaluation we can say that EPPO is doing a fantastic job. I’m already convinced that if they are put in charge of this, then they would really greatly contribute to the effective application of this measure.

  Saskia Bricmont, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, ces derniers mois, l’Union européenne a adopté de nombreux régimes de sanctions à l’encontre de personnes, mais aussi d’entités, dans le contexte notamment de la guerre menée par la Russie en Ukraine.

Deux dimensions préoccupent mon groupe. D’abord, les conséquences de ces sanctions pour les acteurs humanitaires et les droits fondamentaux. Ce sont des priorités dans le cadre de nos travaux en cours sur la directive relative aux sanctions.

Une deuxième dimension concerne l’efficacité de ces régimes de sanctions. Ils sont devenus un outil privilégié de la politique étrangère européenne, mais, avec leur multiplication, le contournement de ces mesures s’est également intensifié, au profit d’intermédiaires peu scrupuleux, d’autocrates et de criminels financiers qui sévissent sans devoir répondre de leurs actes. Pourquoi? Eh bien, parce que nos États n’accordent pas la priorité à ce sujet et ne mettent pas les moyens nécessaires pour assurer les enquêtes et la mise en œuvre effective de ces sanctions. Cette absence de priorisation se reflète d’ailleurs dans l’attitude du Conseil.

Face à ces constats, nous demandons un mécanisme de mise en œuvre européen. Cette mission revient pour nous au Parquet européen, dont le bilan dans la lutte contre les crimes financiers est, vous l’avez dit, Monsieur le Commissaire, impressionnant. Le Parquet européen a non seulement les compétences requises, mais certaines des infractions concernées sont déjà couvertes par les infractions douanières qu’il traite. Nous estimons que le savoir-faire du Parquet européen représente une grande valeur ajoutée dans ce contexte, de nature à pallier ces contournements de sanctions.

Vous l’avez aussi dit, dix États membres se sont déjà positionnés en faveur de l’extension du mandat du Parquet européen, et je m’en réjouis. Nous comptons donc réellement sur la présidence du Conseil pour embarquer les 17 autres dans leur sillage. Je suis aussi contente d’entendre que la Commission européenne est disposée à poursuivre les travaux. Seriez-vous aussi prêts à déposer une proposition sur la table du Parlement?

  Clare Daly, on behalf of The Left Group. – Madam President, I think the real question here isn’t who should enforce the directive, but whether we should be passing it at all. What we’re doing here is creating a new EU crime – violation of sanctions – rushed through without an impact assessment, with almost zero opportunity for stakeholders or rights bodies to have an impulse. But we’re on a crusade and to hell with the consequences!

And there will be consequences. Recently, the UN Special Rapporteur on sanctions published a letter about this directive. She raised a laundry list of rights concerns: due process rights; access to justice; freedom of expression; arbitrariness; fair trials rights; the privilege against self-incrimination. It’s all there.

Not to mention the devastating impact that the directive will have on humanitarian work and the people who rely on it. There are 361 million people in need of humanitarian aid right now – 60% of them in countries under sanction. We’re killing people with sanctions, but nobody seems to care. But mass murder, even if you think you’re doing it for the right reasons, is still mass murder. We shouldn’t be passing this directive at all!

  Ivan Vilibor Sinčić (NI). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, protiv sam trenda prebacivanja ovlasti sa zemalja članica na Uniju i miješanja Bruxellesa u sve i svašta. Sustavu Ureda europskog javnog tužitelja pristupile su tek 22 od 27 zemalja članica, a njegov mandat ograničen je na kaznena djela koja utječu na financijske interese Unije.

Tužna je istina da postoje zemlje koje se sporo obračunavaju s korupcijom, čije je pravosuđe paralizirano i čiji tužitelji nemaju hrabrosti podignuti optužnice protiv svojih moćnika. Kad hrvatski EPPO i podigne neku optužnicu, čekaju ga opet hrvatski sudovi, sudovi hrvatskog pravosuđa, poslovično neučinkoviti i spori. To u kompletu nije ozbiljna borba protiv korupcije.

Tužna je također istina da je i Bruxelles mnogo godina ignorirao zloupotrebu novca iz fondova jer se time kupovala poslušnost vlasti i s njima povezanih ljudi u državama članicama. Građani žele vidjeti ozbiljnu borbu protiv korupcije u Europi, a posebno u Hrvatskoj. Dajmo tom EPPO-u u šansu da pokaže koliko je ozbiljan. EPPO u Hrvatskoj mora optužiti još mnogo kriminalaca i mora se dokazati, dokazati prije nego bi mu se možda dale neke šire ovlasti. Proširenje ovlasti o kojem se ovdje govori, nekakva kaznena djela uslijed kršenja međunarodnih sankcija je kontraproduktivno, kao i same sankcije, a dodatne ovlasti i dodatan posao samo bi preopteretili ionako skromne ljudske i financijske resurse i maknuli fokus s pljačke sredstava iz europskih fondova.

  Andrzej Halicki (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Bardzo ważna rzecz rozszerzenie tego mandatu o ściganie przestępstw, które związane są z naruszaniem sankcji, bo mamy dziesięć pakietów sankcyjnych. Musimy być skuteczni i oczywistym jest, że europejska prokuratura musi mieć te narzędzia jak najszybciej.

Ale w tym momencie chciałem przypomnieć, że żeby być skutecznym, muszą być jednolite standardy, które wszyscy honorujemy i wszyscy wdrażamy. Ciągle mamy pięć krajów poza formalnym uczestnictwem w europejskiej prokuraturze. Rząd pani premier Kopacz w 2015 roku podjął taką decyzję i Polska formalnie przystąpiła, ale dzisiejszy rząd nie realizuje tej współpracy. Liczę, że szwedzka prezydencja formalnie zakończy się uczestnictwem – to będzie dobry przykład dla innych. A polski rząd po zmianie jesienią również ten błąd naprawi.

Trzeba ścigać przestępców VAT-owskich, trzeba ścigać przestępców, którzy próbują robić majątki na budżecie europejskim, niezgodnie z prawem. Silna europejska prokuratura jest w interesie naszych obywateli i naszych gospodarek.

  Isabel García Muñoz (S&D). – Señora presidenta, la Fiscalía Europea ha supuesto un antes y un después en la persecución de los delitos de fraude, corrupción y blanqueo de dinero que afectan al presupuesto europeo.

Las cifras de 2022 son contundentes: 1 117 investigaciones y 359 millones de euros incautados, siete veces el presupuesto de la propia Fiscalía Europea. Su éxito se basa en que sus competencias no se detienen en las fronteras nacionales, sino que actúa en un espacio europeo en el que todos estos delitos son investigados y perseguidos de forma eficaz e independiente.

Pero las organizaciones criminales buscan cualquier oportunidad para desviar fondos europeos o para introducir mercancías ilegales que no cumplen con la normativa de consumo o medioambiental y que afectan a la competitividad de nuestras empresas europeas. Por eso, es importante que, tanto la violación de las medidas restrictivas que impone la Unión como el fraude medioambiental, sean también competencia de la Fiscalía Europea.

Y, para terminar, hago un llamamiento al Consejo, porque no puede ser que todavía haya cinco países que no participan en la Fiscalía Europea: debe tomar medidas para incorporarlos y conseguir así que se pueda proteger de forma más eficaz el dinero de los contribuyentes.

  Vlad Gheorghe (Renew). – Doamnă președintă, observ că Putin are în continuare tovarăși, și pe aici pe la Bruxelles, mai știm pe unii pe la Budapesta, câteodată și pe aici, prin Parlamentul European. După ce că am dat sancțiunile cu țârâita, după ce că ne-a luat foarte mult timp să decidem în legătură cu ele, acum mai vrem să-i mai și lăsăm să scape?

Bineînțeles că trebuie să facem astfel încât Parchetul European să se ocupe de chestia asta, astfel încât Parchetul European să sancționeze și să cerceteze încercarea de a scăpa de sancțiuni. De ce ne mai punem întrebarea asta? Trebuia să facem de mult încă. De ce mai avem această dezbatere? Trebuia să fi votat de mult. Cui îi e frică de procurorii europeni? Cui îi e frică de Laura Codruța Kovesi?

Eu știu pe câțiva pe la București, cărora le era frică. Dar acum văd că există unii și pe aici, știm că există unul pe la Budapesta, bineînțeles, dar tot descoperim oameni cărora le e frică de procurori, care vor să lucreze în continuare cu oligarhii, ca până acum. Nu se mai poate! Ăsta este mesajul pe care noi trebuie să îl dăm. DNA-ul a băgat spaima în corupți la București, în penali. Asta face și Parchetul European în Uniunea Europeană.

  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Paní předsedající, vážený pane komisaři, myslím si, že to musíme říct naprosto jasně. Ten, kdo toleruje porušování určitých principů, je spolupachatel, a proto my nesmíme v současné době tolerovat to, že někdo v Rusku obchází sankce nebo s Ruskem obchoduje na území Evropské unie a podporuje tak válku. Ten, kdo podporuje válku, je spolupachatel této obludné války a podílí se na tom, co se na Ukrajině v současné době děje. Je potřeba vyzvat Radu a členské státy, policii, státní zástupce, ať se nebojí proti těmto lidem razantně zakročit. Nesouhlasím s rozšířením mandátu evropského veřejného žalobce. Podle mě už ten mandát je dostatečně veliký. Musíme jenom ten mandát umět naplnit a musíme být důslední v tom, co vlastně je zájmem Evropské unie, a v tom, jakým způsobem ho budeme naplňovat.

Zgłoszenia z sali

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señora presidenta, las medidas restrictivas se han convertido en uno de los instrumentos más relevantes de la política exterior de la Unión. Lo vemos ahora en el caso de Rusia y Bielorrusia. Lo vemos también con Irán, Nicaragua y Venezuela.

Las sanciones, desde luego, no están solo para ser adoptadas, sino también —y sobre todo— para ser implementadas. Los Estados miembros tienen que monitorear más de cerca el cumplimiento de las sanciones y reforzar los servicios encargados de ello. La Comisión también debería hacerlo.

Yo quiero recordar los lamentables hechos ocurridos en mi país, en enero de 2020, cuando el Gobierno español ignoró la prohibición de entrada y tránsito en territorio europeo que pesaba —y que pesa— sobre Delcy Rodríguez, vicepresidenta del régimen de Nicolás Maduro. También se ignoró el deber de inmovilizar cualquier activo o bien en su poder. Estos hechos no han sido suficientemente aclarados, ni se han depurado responsabilidades.

Por todo ello, yo celebro que tengamos hoy este debate y que se estén dando pasos para reforzar el cumplimiento de las sanciones como, por ejemplo, añadir la vulneración de medidas restrictivas a la lista de delitos de la Unión.

Para terminar, creo que es conveniente también que se amplíe el papel que pueda desempeñar la Fiscalía Europea.

  Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, (start of speech off mic) ... EU Council when they decide to inflict sanctions on an entity does not adhere to basic standards of due process. No evidence is presented. The accused body does not get a defence and it all happens in secret. At least Ireland had its show trials in public.

There’s nothing in customary international law that allows for a legal basis for the way our EU sanctions mechanism functions, our unilateral coercive measures regime. High Representative Josep Borrell is clear on this: he said our sanctions are a means of coercive capacity. The illegal nature of unilateral coercive measures has been repeatedly affirmed in numerous resolutions of the UN Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly. The rule of law has been thrown out the window and is being replaced with the law of the jungle. What is more, sanctions are a weapon of mass murder.

The Council should not be extending the mandate of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to enforce their illegitimate pronouncements.

  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Paní předsedající, otázce evropského veřejného žalobce se věnuji léta. Považuji to za důležité téma. Ve chvíli, kdy jsme zřídili tento úřad, aniž by měl působnost pro celou sedmadvacítku, si myslím, že bychom primárně měli tlačit na to, aby tento úřad nepracoval pouze pro 22 států Evropské unie, ale aby pracoval pro celou Evropskou unii. To by obrovsky posílilo efektivitu. Protože vymáhání sankcí a obcházení sankcí je velkým problémem ve vztahu k Rusku, tak bych se nebránil variantě, abychom v tuto chvíli uvažovali, že i pro 22 států by tento úřad měl působnost v oblasti vyhledávání a vyšetřování této trestné činnosti. Ale opakuji, primární problém evropského prokurátora či evropského veřejného žalobce je to, že se nevztahuje na celou Evropskou unii, ale pouze na čtyři pětiny členských států. Prosím, pane komisaři, toto projednávejme. Tlačme na to, abychom efektivitu úřadu zvýšili tím, že pod něj bude spadat celá Evropská unie.

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)

  Didier Reynders, membre de la Commission. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Ministre, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, je vous remercie pour ce débat. La Commission continuera à soutenir le Parquet européen et à s’assurer qu’il peut mener à bien ses activités, afin de continuer à protéger les intérêts financiers de l’Union. En outre, permettez-moi de rappeler une nouvelle fois l’engagement sans faille de la Commission à garantir que les sanctions de l’Union sont correctement mises en œuvre et que la poursuite pénale de leur violation est effectivement assurée. La proposition de directive sur la violation des sanctions est dès lors prioritaire et urgente.

En parallèle des discussions sur cette proposition de directive, il est évidemment possible de poursuivre le débat sur l’extension des compétences du Parquet européen. Je rappelle que, pour ce qui est de la procédure, cette extension nécessite une décision du Conseil européen à l’unanimité des 27 États membres, après avoir obtenu l’accord du Parlement et après avoir consulté la Commission. La Commission est évidemment prête à accompagner les échanges entre États membres pour envisager le rôle accru que le Parquet européen pourrait jouer en matière de lutte contre la violation des sanctions.

Je prends bonne note des diverses positions exprimées lors de ce débat. En fonction du soutien exprimé par les États membres en faveur d’une possible extension du mandat du Parquet européen, je le répète, la Commission continuera à jouer son rôle. Elle se tient notamment prête à présenter des implications juridiques et budgétaires à prendre en compte pour faire aboutir une telle réforme.

  Przewodnicząca. – Zanim udzielę głosu pani minister, która wystąpi w imieniu Rady, chciałabym zwrócić uwagę, że jest to ostatnie wystąpienie szwedzkiej prezydencji i na ręce pani minister chciałabym złożyć podziękowania za pracę w ciągu ostatnich 6 miesięcy.

  Jessika Roswall, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, honourable Members, Commissioner, thank you for the debate and interesting arguments put forward. This debate proves that there is a strong commitment in both the Council and Parliament to weakening Russia’s economic base and impeding its ability to wage war.

In the short perspective, reaching an interinstitutional agreement on the Directive on criminalisation of violation of sanctions and on extended powers of confiscation should be our first priority. Let me also mention that in combination with the work we are doing with Russian frozen assets, this provides for a forceful economic response to the Russian aggression.

As regards the debate tonight, I believe that you have raised a very important question or questions on how to further develop EPPO’s means to also cover violations of sanctions. As I said in my first intervention, the Presidency intends to provide appropriate follow—up within the Council on the issue of a possible extension of competence.

Madam President, let me also say that this is my last intervention in this House representing the Council. It’s been an honour and a pleasure to engage with you in Parliament on all the very important EU issues: Ukraine; migration; the rule of law – I cannot mention all of them that we have discussed in this plenary! Thank you for having me and thank you for all the good support and the dialogue that we have had.

  Przewodnicząca. – Zamykam debatę.