Advertisement

Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office After the Lisbon Treaty

  • Francesca Ruggieri
Chapter

Abstract

This contribution starts with the analysis of the problems caused by Article 86(1) TFEU, under which, as known, it is possible to “establish a European Public Prosecutor’s Office from Eurojust.” Studying the Eurojust ambiguities and the transformations which characterized this body during the last years, the work assumes that the history of Eurojust—and that of all the EPP proposals—can be read as the history of a progressive shift from the horizontal to the vertical cooperation paradigm. On this basis, the Author tries to trace some of the possible, future scenarios on the regulation of the new EPP, in accordance with the fundamental rights of individuals.

Keywords

Member State Mutual Recognition Green Paper Lisbon Treaty Council Decision 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Abbreviations

ECHR

European Convention on Human Rights

ECJ

European Court of Justice

ECMLACM

European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

ECtHR

European Court on Human Rights

EJN

European Judicial Network

EP

European Parliament

EPO

European Protection Order

EPP

European Public Prosecutor

JHA

Justice and Home Affairs

OLAF

European Anti Fraud Office

TFEU

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

References

  1. Campailla S (2011) La “circolazione” giudiziaria europea dopo Lisbona. Processo penale e Giustizia 1:90 ffGoogle Scholar
  2. Cretin T (2010) Les apports du traité de Lisbonne. In: Marzbahn PG (ed) Quelle perspectives pour un ministère public européen? Protéger les intérêts financiers et fondamentaux de l’Union européeene. Dalloz, Paris, p 31 ffGoogle Scholar
  3. Lopes da Mota JL (2008) Eurojust seed of the future European public prosecutor ’s Office. In: The Future European Public Prosecutor’s Office, pp 76 ffGoogle Scholar
  4. De Amicis G (2001) La costruzione di Eurojust nell’ambito del “terzo pilastro” dell’unione europea. Cassazione penale 1964 ffGoogle Scholar
  5. De Amicis G (2011) La Corte Costituzionale nega la natura giudiziaria di Eurojust: una pronuncia discutibile. Downloaded 29 July 2011: http://www.forumcostituzionale.it/site/images/stories/pdf/documenti_forum/giurisprudenza/2011/0004_nota_136_2011_de_amicis.pdf
  6. De Amicis G, Surano L (2009) Il rafforzamento dei poteri di Eurojust a seguito della nuova decisione 2009/426/GAI. Cassazione penale 4453 ffGoogle Scholar
  7. Delmas-Marty M (ed) (1997) Corpus Juris: introducing penal provisions for the purpose of the financial interests of the European Union. Bookseller Inventory, ParisGoogle Scholar
  8. Delmas-Marty M (2010) La génese du projet du procureur européen. In: Marzbahn PG (ed) Quelle perspectives pour un ministée public européen? Protéger les intérests financiers et fondamentaux de l’Union européeene. Dalloz, Paris, p 163 ffGoogle Scholar
  9. Delmas-Marty M, Vervaele JAE (eds) (2001) The implementation of the Corpus Juris in the Member States: penal provisions for the protection of European Finances, vol I–IV. Intersentia, Antwerpen-Groningen-OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Favreau B (2010) L’implication d’un minstère public européen pour le droits de la défence. In: Marzbahn PG (ed) Quelle perspectives pour un ministée public européen? Protéger les intérests financiers et fondamentaux de l’Union européeene. Dalloz, ParisGoogle Scholar
  11. Grotz M (2011) Eurojust. In: Sieber U, Brüner FH, von Satzger H, Heintschell-Heinegg B (eds) Europäisches Strafrecht. Nomos, Baden Baden, pp 716–725Google Scholar
  12. Killmann BR, Hofmann M (2011) Perspektiven für eine Europäische Staatsanwaltschaft. In: Sieber U, Brüner FH, Satzger H, von Heintschell-Heinegg B (eds) Europäisches Strafrecht. Nomos, Baden Baden, pp 757–766Google Scholar
  13. Lagodny O (2011) Traditionelles Auslieferungs- und Rechtshilferecht (horizontale Rechtshilfe). In: Sieber U, Brüner FH, von Satzger H, Heintschell-Heinegg B (eds) Europäisches Strafrecht. Nomos, Baden Baden, pp 491–503Google Scholar
  14. Manacorda S (2001) Rapport national de la France. In: Delmas Marty M, Vervaele JAE (eds) The Implementation of the Corpus Iuris in the Member States, vol IV. Intersentia, Antwerpen-Groningen-Oxford, p 291 ffGoogle Scholar
  15. Marcolini S The different versions of Articles 82–86 TFEU in relation to criminal justice cooperation: the Italian, Spanish and English versions. In: Ruggieri F (ed) VV.AA., Criminal Proceedings, Languages and the European Union - Linguistic and Legal Issues. Springer, Heidelberg (in press)Google Scholar
  16. Mauro C The different versions of Articles 82–86 TFEU in relation to criminal justice cooperation: the Italian, Spanish and English versions: the Italian, French and English versions. In: Ruggieri F (ed) VV.AA., Criminal Proceedings, Languages and the European Union - Linguistic and Legal Issues. Springer, Heidelberg (in press)Google Scholar
  17. Noltenius B (2010) Strafverfahrensrecht als Seismograph der Europäischen Integration Verfassung, Strafverfahrensrecht und der Vertrag von Lissabon. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 122:605 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nürnberger S (2009) Die zukünftige Europäische Staatsanwaltschaft – eine Einführung. Zeitschrift für das juristische Studium 5:494 ffGoogle Scholar
  19. Otto A (2008) Eurojust Die Europäische Einheit für justizielle Zusammenarbeit-Studienarbeit. Grin Verlag, NorderstedtGoogle Scholar
  20. Piattoli B (2002) Cooperazione giudiziaria e pubblico ministero europeo. Giuffrè, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  21. Ruggieri F. From Eurojust to the European public prosecutor. Analysis of art. 86 in the English, German and Italian versions. In: Ruggieri F (ed) VV.AA., Criminal Proceedings, Languages and the European Union - Linguistic and Legal Issues. Springer, Heidelberg (in press)Google Scholar
  22. Schröder J (2011) Entwicklung der vertikalen Zusammenarbeit. In: Sieber U, Brüner FH, von Satzger H, Heintschell-Heinegg B (eds) Europäisches Strafrecht. Nomos, Baden Baden, pp 515–530Google Scholar
  23. Spiezia F (2011) Il coordinamento giudiziario sovranazionale: problemi e prospettive alla luce della nuova decisione 2009/426/GAI che rafforza i poteri di Eurojust. In: Camaldo L, Bana A (eds) La circolazione della prova nell’Unione europea e la tutela degli interessi finanziari comunitari. Experta, Forlì, p 155 ffGoogle Scholar
  24. Storbeck J (2011) Koordinierung der Tätigkeit der Einrichtungen auf europäischer Ebene/Interinstitutionelle Zusammenarbeit. In: Sieber U, Brüner FH, von Satzger H, Heintschell-Heinegg B (eds) Europäisches Strafrecht. Nomos, Baden Baden, pp 739–756Google Scholar
  25. Suominen A (2008) The past, present and the future of Eurojust. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 15:217 ffGoogle Scholar
  26. Suominen A (2011) The principle of mutual recognition in cooperation in criminal matters. Universitetet Bergen, AIT Oslo ASGoogle Scholar
  27. The Future European Public Prosecutor’s Office (2008), International Seminar “The European Prosecutor’s Office,” organised by the Spanish General Prosecutor’s Office and the Centre for Legal Studies (CEJ) of the Spanish Ministry of Justice, in Cooperation with the OLAF Supervisory Committee, Imprenta Nacional del Boletín Oficial del Estado. Madrid. OLAF Supervisory Committee. Downloaded 29 July 2011: http://www.cej.justicia.es/doc_users/flash/futura_fiscalia_europea/flash_le_futura_fiscalia_europea_ing.htm#/11/
  28. Wasmeier M (2011) Entwicklung des Rechtshilferechts in der EU. In: Sieber U, Brüner FH, Satzger H, von Heintschell-Heinegg B (eds) Europäisches Strafrecht. Nomos, Baden Baden, pp 504–514Google Scholar
  29. Zöberlin R (2004) Eurojust als Keimzelle einer europäischen Staatsanwaltschaft. Logos Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Law, Economy and CultureUniversity of Insubria (Como-Varese)ComoItaly

Personalised recommendations