Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 41kWORD 9k
11 September 2020
Priority question for written answer
to the Council
Rule 138
Paulo Rangel (PPE), Lídia Pereira (PPE), José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), Maria da Graça Carvalho (PPE), Álvaro Amaro (PPE), Cláudia Monteiro de Aguiar (PPE)
 Subject: European Public Prosecutor's Office

On 27 July, the Council appointed the 22 European prosecutors of the newly established European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

According to Regulation 2017/1939, each Member State had to nominate three candidates, and a selection panel would choose the most suitable.

However, the Council decided not to endorse the panel’s selection in the case of Belgium, Bulgaria and Portugal, thus calling into question its legitimacy and independence. At no time did it give its reasons for this.

Can the Council say:

1. What were the reasons for its decision?

2. Why were these reasons not disclosed, as required by Community law and the principles of good administration?

3. In the case of Portugal, was the decision taken by the Portuguese Government, via the Minister of Justice, as it would appear from statements made by the Minister to the press?

Original language of question: PT
Last updated: 15 September 2020Legal notice - Privacy policy