A Visegrádi Négyek legfőbb ügyészeinek közös nyilatkozata az Európai Ügyész intézményéről

The Pro­se­cu­tors Gene­ral of the Viseg­rad Group exp­ress their attach­ment to thest­rengt­he­ning of the pro­tec­ti­on of finan­cial inte­rests of the EU by means of cri­mi­nal law in the long term. The same objec­tive accom­pa­ni­es the idea of est­ab­lish­ing the Euro­pe­an Pub­lic Prosecutor’s Offi­ce. Howe­ver, this goal can be achi­eved under the con­di­ti­on that the EPPO will bring sig­ni­fi­cant added value and will prove to be more effec­tive than the pre­sent sys­tem. Aga­inst this backg­round, it is essen­ti­al that the est­ab­lish­ment of the EPPO shall not cause a dec­line of effi­ci­ency in rela­ti­on to dom­es­tic cri­mi­nal pro­ce­e­dings, delays, extra costs, nor a down­turn of the stan­dards of human rights pro­tec­ti­on as ensh­ri­ned in the Char­ter of Fun­da­men­tal Rights of the Euro­pe­an Union, the Euro­pe­an Con­vent­ion on Human Rights and the cons­ti­tu­ti­o­nal­tra­di­tions of the Mem­ber States.

The Pro­se­cu­tors Gene­ral of the Viseg­rad Group under­line that the est­ab­lish­ment of the EPPO is a poli­ti­cal quest­ion, the role of pro­se­cu­tors in this pro­cess is to pro­vi­de the pro­fes­si­o­nal backg­round and argu­ments for the deci­si­on makers. The Pro­se­cu­tors Gene­ral of the Viseg­rad Group took note of the revi­sed text of the Commission’s pro­pos­al on the est­ab­lish­ment of the EPPO pre­pa­red by the Greek Pres­idency, which is based on a college-type model.

At the same time the Pro­se­cu­tors Gene­ral of the Viseg­rad Group raise their con­cerns about the fact that the struc­tu­re of the EPPO is under dis­cus­si­on in the Coun­cil wit­ho­ut kno­wing its futu­re com­pe­ten­ci­es. A step by step app­ro­ach of defi­ning com­pe­ten­ci­es, est­imat­ing the num­ber of cases and fin­ally deter­mi­ning the struc­tu­re of the EPPO would seem more proper. Attent­ion sho­uld be drawn to the impor­tance of clear divi­si­on of com­pe­ten­ci­es bet­ween the EPPO and nati­o­nal aut­ho­ri­ti­es. The revi­sed tex­tof the Greek Pres­idency tends to be in line with this con­cept by pro­vi­ding non-exclusive com­pe­ten­ces for the EPPO. The quest­ion whet­her VAT fraud would fall wit­hin the com­pe­ten­ce of the EPPO or of the nati­o­nal aut­ho­ri­ti­es is still to be decided.

The Pro­se­cu­tors Gene­ral of the Viseg­rad Group are of the opin­ion that the struc­tu­re and the deci­si­on mak­ing pro­cess of the EPPO sho­uld be as simp­le as pos­sib­le in order to gua­ran­tee prompt actions of Euro­pe­an Dele­ga­ted Pro­se­cu­tors wor­king in the firs­t­line. The invol­ve­ment of Euro­pe­an Pro­se­cu­tors in all cases con­cer­ning their Mem­ber Sta­tes is warmly welcome.

By all means, the EPPO regu­la­ti­on sho­uld be in line with Artic­le 67 TFEU pro­vi­ding that wit­hin the area of fre­e­dom, secu­rity and jus­ti­ce dif­fe­rent legal sys­tems and tra­di­tions of the Mem­ber Sta­tes are respec­ted. In this con­text the Pro­se­cu­tors Gener­alof the Viseg­rad Group would like to stress the impor­tance of maxi­mum pro­ce­dural auto­nomy of Euro­pe­an Dele­ga­ted Pro­se­cu­tors as Artic­le 86 TFEU does not pro­vi­de for the est­ab­lish­ment of a uni­fi­ed cri­mi­nal juris­dic­ti­on of the EU and – as a con­se­qu­en­ce – all the EPPO cases are to be tried by nati­o­nal courts. The pos­si­bi­lity of forum shop­ping is one of the main risks in this respect. The­re­fo­re, clear cri­te­ria of the cho­i­ce of the juris­dic­ti­on of trial shall be set up and deci­sions taken by the Euro­pe­an Pub­lic Pro­se­cu­tor sho­uld be sub­ject to judi­ci­al review.

The Pro­se­cu­tors Gene­ral of the Viseg­rad Group ent­rust Péter Polt, the host of this­mee­ting, with pre­sent­ing this docu­ment at the Con­sul­ta­tive Forum of Pro­se­cu­tors Gene­ral and Direc­tors of Pub­lic Pro­se­cu­tions of the Mem­ber Sta­tes of the Euro­pe­an Union as rapporteur.

The Pro­se­cu­tors Gene­ral of the Viseg­rad Group have accep­ted the invi­ta­ti­on of Mr.Andrzej Sere­met, Pro­se­cu­tor Gene­ral of the Repub­lic of Poland, to con­ve­ne the fort­han­nu­al mee­ting in Poland in 2015.

The Pro­se­cu­tors Gene­ral of the Viseg­rad Group wel­co­me the pre­pa­ra­ti­on and theadopt­ion of a CCPE opin­ion on issues which rela­te to the dif­fi­cul­ti­es con­cer­ning the imp­le­men­ta­ti­on of Rec(2000)19 on the role of pub­lic pro­se­cu­ti­on in the cri­mi­nal jus­ti­ce sys­tem when dea­ling with the imp­ro­ve­ment of the pro­se­cu­ti­on ser­vi­ces of the Coun­cil of Euro­pe Mem­ber Sta­tes. The adap­ta­ti­on of the prin­cip­les of Rec(2000)19 to the actu­al state of play is a must in order to main­ta­in its posit­i­on and to keep on ser­ving as a com­mon sour­ce of refe­ren­ce in democ­ra­tic states.

In our opin­ion, the main values of Rec(2000)19, first of all inde­pen­den­ce and­im­par­ti­a­lity, are to be in the focus of the new opin­ion too, as their impor­tance has­de­fi­ni­tely inc­re­as­ed in the past years. The inde­pen­den­ce of pro­se­cu­ti­on ser­vi­ces, the clear stan­dards of their rela­ti­onship to other ins­ti­tu­tions and sta­ke­hold­ers are even more impor­tant today than they were at the time of the accept­ance of the Recommendation.

We refer here to the cons­ide­rab­le effect of the eco­no­mic cri­ses on the work of the pro­se­cu­ti­on ser­vi­ces and to the Final Docu­ment of the 5th Ple­nary Mee­ting of the­Net­work of Pub­lic Pro­se­cu­tors or Equ­i­va­lent Ins­ti­tu­tions at Sup­re­me Judi­ci­al Courts of the Mem­ber Sta­tes of the Euro­pe­an Union (2012) which sta­tes: “The cur­rent dif­fi­cult eco­no­mic and finan­cial envi­ron­ment evokes pro­fes­si­o­nal chal­len­ges which emp­has­i­ze the need of good gover­nance. The inde­pen­den­ce, impar­ti­a­lity, finan­cial auto­nomy and effi­ci­ency of pub­lic pro­se­cu­tors are values that have to be assu­red and gua­ran­te­ed under the pre­sent circumstances.”

The role of the pro­se­cu­ti­on ser­vi­ces of the EU Mem­ber Sta­tes in the judi­ci­al sys­tems is con­ti­nu­o­usly inc­re­a­sing and not only at the nati­o­nal, but also at the Euro­pe­an level. Thus, the sta­tus of the pro­se­cu­ti­on ser­vi­ces in a modern state gover­ned by the rule of law, and the cur­rent achi­eve­ments of Euro­pe­an inte­gra­ti­on with spe­ci­al attent­ion to the­fast deve­lop­ment of judi­ci­al coope­ra­ti­on in cri­mi­nal mat­ters are sugg­es­ted to be taken into account when draft­ing the new opinion.

We attach great impor­tance to a uni­form code of con­duct for Euro­pe­an pro­se­cu­tors. The Buda­pest Guide­li­nes on ethics and con­duct for pro­se­cu­tors (2005) may serve as a start­ing point for this new document.

We under­line the impor­tance of the invol­ve­ment of Mem­ber State pro­se­cu­ti­on ser­vi­ces and dif­fe­rent orga­ni­sa­tions of Euro­pe­an pro­se­cu­tors (such as nati­o­nal asso­ci­a­tions of pro­se­cu­tors, the Inter­na­ti­o­nal Asso­ci­a­ti­on of Pro­se­cu­tors, the Net­work of Pub­lic Pro­se­cu­tors or Equ­i­va­lent Ins­ti­tu­tions at Sup­re­me Judi­ci­al Courts of the Mem­ber Sta­tes of the Euro­pe­an Union, the Con­sul­ta­tive Forum of Pro­se­cu­tors Gene­ral and Direc­tors of Pub­lic Pro­se­cu­tions of the Mem­ber Sta­tes of the Euro­pe­an Union, and­re­gi­o­nal net­works like the one of the Pro­se­cu­tors Gene­ral of the Viseg­rad Group) in the draft­ing process.

The Pro­se­cu­tors Gene­ral of the Viseg­rad Group will fol­low, and wish to acti­vely cont­ri­bu­te to the pre­pa­ra­ti­on of a cons­o­li­da­ted text of all rele­vant prin­cip­les in an updated man­ner, refer­r­ing to the evo­lu­tions which have taken place after the adopt­ion of Rec(2000)19. The­re­fo­re, The Pro­se­cu­tors Gene­ral of the Viseg­rad Group ent­rust Péter Polt, the host of this mee­ting, with pre­sent­ing this docu­ment at the ses­si­on of the CCPE as rapporteur.