What changed

1. PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECISION

P9_TA(2024)0237

on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for the financial year 2022

Discharge 2022: European Public Prosecutors Office (the ‘EPPO’)

(2023/2139(DEC))

Committee on Budgetary Control

PE753.489

1. European Parliament decision of 11 April 2024 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for the financial year 2022 (2023/2139(DEC))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2022, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

– having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 22 February 2024 on discharge to be given to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2022 (00000/2024(06179/2024 – C90000/2024),C90077/2024),

– having regard to Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

3. Instructs its President to forward this decision, and the resolution forming an integral part of it, to the Administrative Director of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, the European Council, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

2. PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECISION

2. European Parliament decision of 11 April 2024 on the closure of the accounts of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for the financial year 2022 (2023/2139(DEC))

on the closure of the accounts of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for the financial year 2022

(2023/2139(DEC))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2022, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

– having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 22 February 2024 on discharge to be given to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2022 (00000/2024(06179/2024 – C90000/2024),C90077/2024),

– having regard to Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Administrative Director of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, the European Council, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

3. MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

3. European Parliament resolution of 11 April 2024 with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for the financial year 2022 (2023/2139(DEC))

with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for the financial year 2022

(2023/2139(DEC))

The European Parliament,

J. whereas, under the current framework, the final annual accounts are scrutinised by the Court and it is with the Council to recommend and to the European Parliament to decide whether to grant discharge to the Administrative Director of the Office in respect of the implementation of the budget for a given financial year;

K. whereas the Office started its operational activities on the 1st of1 June 2021 and it operates autonomously in the implementation of its budget only since 24 June 2021, and that this short timeframe allows a limited comparative analysis and trend identification;

L. whereas the rules governing the management of the EPPO resources and related expenditure need to be adjusted to the peculiarities of prosecution and investigative actions and the relevant provisions of the Financial Regulation are being discussed within the recast of that regulation and, in a wider context, between the EPPO and the Commission;

8. Reiterates its call to factor in the impact of the deployment of the RRF in the forecast that the EPPO is to communicate to the Commission in the framework of the budgetary procedure; shares the view that the workload of the EPPO, initially underestimated, has gone through a significant growth and will continue to increase in the coming years, in particular with regard to the number of RRF cases (only 15 cases were opened in 2022, but more will be opened in 2023 as it reaches its’ implementation peak) and that a larger number of cases in the trial phase will require a different focus than those in the investigation phase;

9. Acknowledges that the EPPO clearly contributes to European added value in terms of coordination and cooperation with the Member States in investigating and prosecuting crimes against the financial interests of the Union and that the EPPO has been achieving the goals set out in Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 in that regard; expects Member States to comply with legal obligations and to report all relevant cases to the EPPO; notes with concern that in several instances Member States have been declaring criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the Union as national cases, which are within the competence of the EPPO; notes that questions of competence between the national authorities and the European Delegated Prosecutors have come up in several cases across several countries; is aware that, according to Article 25(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, cases of disagreement about the EPPO’s competences are to be decided by the same national judicial authority who is responsible for determining the competent body for prosecution at national level; regrets that in many participating Member States the procedures in force and the national authorities entrusted with the decisions on such cases regarding conflicts of competence are not set in compliance with Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, stresses that in cases of conflicts of competence between the EPPO and a national prosecution authority, the national authority competent to decide on the attribution of competence could come to a conclusion without requesting a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice but rather making a decision that is binding on the EPPO and points out that this is against the spirit of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, which states that the Court of Justice, in accordance with Article 267 of the TFEU, has jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the provision on conflicts of competence between the EPPO and national authorities; believes that the current situation lacks legal clarity; encourages all Member States to work more closely with the EPPO; emphasises that the competence of the EPPO is clearly outlined in Article 22(1) and (2), and in Article 23, and that all Member States should respect Regulation (EU) 2017/1939; notes that when Member States have doubts about the competence of the EPPO in a particular a case, there is the possibility of submitting a preliminary question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling following Article 267 of the TFEU and Article 42(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 ; urges the Commission, where there is a case breach of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, to submit the case to the Court of Justice; notes with concern that the question of competence can cause a halt of the investigation; is concerned about potential loss of evidence when cases are paused; calls on the Commission to collect information regradingon cases regarding conflicts of competence for the evaluation report that will be submitted in 2026;

10. Observes that, in 2022, of the 15 active RRF cases listed in the EPPO Annual Report, 9 cases occurred in Italy, 2 in Portugal, 3 in Romania, and 1 case in Croatia; strongly encourages the EPPO to look for fraud patterns in countries were more than one RRF case occurred, and to inform both OLAF and the Recovery and Resilience Task Force of these patterns with the goal of reducing the instances of fraud occurring in the first place;

41. Welcomes that staff well-being will represent a key dimension of the broader deployment of the HR Framework and the EPPO will devote increasing resources to staff well-being; strongly encourages the EPPO to harmonise its current and future policies on inclusion, harassment and equality and to periodically launch surveys among its staff, by promoting, where possible peer-review with other components of the anti-fraud architecture (Eurojust, OLAF, etc) and in general encouraging diversity to make the workplace more attractive to candidates with specific needs;

42. Observes that no trainees were recruited in 2022, but preparatory work to establish the conditions for future HR management components included traineeships; endorses the proposal and the execution of a traineeship pilot programme in early 2023, the results of which are currently being examined with a view to implementing a traineeship programme as from 2024; stresses that the challenges imposed by the cost of living in Luxembourg represent a significant obstacle for potential trainees; asserts that the traineeship should be remunerated in order to be aligned with the European Parliament’s resolution of 14 June 2023 on Quality Traineeships in the Union (2020/2005 INL)(2020/2005(INL)) which advocates that all interns in Europe should be paid;

Ethical framework and transparency

84. Takes note, nevertheless, of the high rate of corruption and fraud present in Ukraine, both before the current war and at present, cautions that extra precautions should be taken when cooperating on investigations, in order to protect staff and witnesses, notes, for example, that the EU Anti-Corruption Initiative financed by the Union which was founded in 2017 was found to be ineffective in fighting corruption by the Court of Auditors in 2021; recognises the efforts of the Ukrainian Parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, in cooperating with the European Union, and notes that further anti-corruption efforts are needed in order to successfully reach transparency goals;

ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that he has received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the report, until the adoption thereof in committee:

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.

05.11.2023

OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS

for the Committee on Budgetary Control

on the 2022 discharge: EU general budget - European Public Prosecutor's Office

(2023/2139(DEC))

Rapporteur for opinion: Gilles Lebreton

SUGGESTIONS

The Committee on Legal Affairs calls on the Committee on Budgetary Control, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution:

1. Encourages the services of the European Public Prosecutor and the European Delegated Prosecutors to continue their work in a coordinated fashion and to ensure the effective supervision of processing of the data they gather , at the same time guaranteeing respect for individuals’ rights with regard to data protection ;

2. Regrets the insufficient appreciation shown by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in the handling of waiver-of-immunity requests made to the European Parliament for waivers of immunity in 2022;

3. Stresses the independence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the particular responsibility that that imposes on it towards the other institutions and the public at large in areas falling with the remit of the legal system;

4. Recalls EP's strong support for the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor Office (EPPO); acknowledges the important roleof EPPO as an independent European Union body in investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union;highlights that since starting its operations on 1 June 2021, EPPO has registered more than 4000 crime reports from participating EU Member States and private parties and over 929 investigations have been opened (as of June 2022);

5. Points out that it was set up recently, but nonetheless invites it, in the official relations it is called upon to develop with national and European institutions, to gain an insight into the various procedures they implement and to comply with them , taking care not to undermine its status and tasks.

ANNEX: LIST OF ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR FOR THE OPINION HAS RECEIVED INPUT

The rapporteur declares under his exclusive responsibility that he did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

23.1.2024

SUGGESTIONS

The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs calls on the Committee on Budgetary Control, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution:

1. Notes that the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’) declared the transactions underlying the annual accounts of the European Public Prosecutor Office (EPPO) for the financial year 2022 to be legal and regular in all material respects and that its financial position at 31 December 2022 is fairly presented;

2. Welcomes that most of the observations from the Court from last year are closed, and that EPPO managed to decrease the proportion of late payments from 21 % in 2021 to 5 % in 2022;

3. Notes the significant growth of the EPPO’s workload; acknowledges with satisfaction that the EPPO received 3 318 reports and 58% out of them were sent by private parties which also shows that EPPO is widely know judicial body; appreciates that EPPO opened 865 investigations including into the acquisition of COVID-19 vaccines; in 2022 with the damage estimated at EUR 9.9 billion; notes that the EPPO’s caseload was significantly underestimated;

4. Welcomes that EPPO was granted additional human resources with highly specialised and qualified profiles, including, for the first time in 2022, with Seconded National Experts (SNE); notes that 34 selection procedures for statutory staff were launched and completed, as well as three selection procedures for SNEs; welcomes the total number of statutory staff members and SNEs reaching 221, which translates to an occupancy rate of 89% of the Establishment Plan;

5. Is concerned about the high-risk environment in physical an information security in which EPPO operates and about the current level of recourses; stresses the importance to adapt human and financial resources to the growing workload and to reflect them accordingly in the future budget planning, including through increasing EPPO's budget, if necessary;

6. Recalls that EPPO is an independent body of the EU, established through the concept of enhanced cooperation in criminal matters responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment crimes against the financial interests of the Union; notes that only 22 EU Member States participate in EPPO whereas Hungary, Poland and Sweden did not join; calls on the Commission to engage in an active dialogue with non-participating Member States to effectively facilitate the execution of the EPPO’s activities;

7. Highlights the effective cooperation with relevant stakeholders; welcomes the conclusion of several working arrangements with authorities from third countries notably the Ukraine, Albania, Moldova, Montenegro, Georgia and North Macedonia; recalls the importance of cooperation with non-participating states authorities; acknowledges differences in legal regimes and difficulties arising in negotiations of working arrangement, which in Ireland led to refusal several years in a row to execute EPPO’s requests for judicial cooperation, as pointed out in a letter sent by the European Chief Prosecutor to the Commission; welcomes the commitment by the Irish authorities and calls on Ireland to review their working arrangement with the EPPO;

8. Is concerned that the work of the EPPO, in particular the evidence gathering, has been affected by a lack of cooperation from Poland in 2021-2022 which had a direct negative impact on the EPPO’s capacity to protect the EU budget by means of criminal investigations and prosecutions; welcomes finalisation of the negotiations on a working arrangement at the technical level, the amendments to the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure and that EPPO was recognised by Poland as a competent authority for the relevant EU instruments on judicial cooperation in criminal matters, including the EIO Directive; further appreciates the recent decision by a new government to launch the process to join EPPO; calls on both parties to enage in further dialogue and cooperation to facilitate the execution of EPPO activities;

9. Notes that the appointment of European delegated prosecutors is a shared responsibility of EPPO and member states; stresses that the appointment procedure must always be in compliance with Article 17 of the Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 and principle of national procedural autonomy; encourages Member States to contribute to the full independence of EPPO in their exercise of the appointment procedure; notes that 114 European Delegated Prosecutors were in employment at the end of 2022; welcomes that during the reporting period, 15 European Delegated Prosecutors were appointed and none were dismissed by the EPPO College;

10. Recalls the utmost importance to ensure the full independence of the European Delegated Prosecutors, who are exposed to external pressure, as they directly carry out the proceedings in their respective Member States; notes that the external independence of the EPPO is also linked to the allocation of financial resources that are sufficient to fulfil its mandate and to the necessary budgetary autonomy to manage them; stresses that adequate financing of the EPPO lies with both the EU and with each participating Member State;

11. Welcomes the continuous cooperation with authorities of participating and non-participating Member States and third countries, European Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies notably Eurojust, Europol and OLAF, welcomes that EPPO engaged in negotiations for working arrangements with the European Parliament and the Executive Agencies, as well as with the European External Action Service;

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT

The rapporteur declares under his exclusive responsibility that he did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

+:in favour

-:against

0:abstention

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE