The proposed European Public
Prosecutor (EPP)
137. Those of our witnesses who commented on the
matter were critical of the provisions of Article III-274 on the
European Public Prosecutor's Office, which provides that such
an Office may be established by unanimity. JUSTICE was concerned
about 'the possibility of "forum shopping" between Member
States in order to take advantage of varying standards in [the]
burden of proof, mode of trial, sentencing and admissibility of
evidence across the EU'. JUSTICE also considered that specific
rules of procedure and judicial review applicable only to the
EPP 'would not only be unworkable but could also entail a reduction
in existing procedural safeguards', and maintained that 'the need
for an EPP has not yet been sufficiently demonstrated'.[201]
138. Statewatch commented that, given the other measures
adopted or under consideration, and the absence of any evidence
that there is a fundamental problem in this area, 'there is no
remotely convincing case for the establishment of a European Public
Prosecutor'. It commented that 'Ideally, Article III-274 should
... not have appeared in the Constitution at all' and that we
should press the Government to 'clarify that it will seek either
to veto the establishment of the Prosecutor or not to participate
in the legislation establishing it, leaving those Member States
who believe that there is a need for the Prosecutor to go ahead
by themselves'.[202]
The 'Vote No' campaign said it was surprised that the Government
had allowed the provision for an EPP to be included 'as part of
the overall deal on the Constitution'.[203]
Conclusion on the criminal justice
provisions
139. We welcome the requirement for there to be
a cross-border dimension before EU action is possible, and the
limits on the scope for action in relation to substantive criminal
law. In these respects the Treaty's provisions would be better
than the existing situation. We also accept that a number of
safeguards have been included in the Treaty. We have reservations
about the voting arrangements for the adoption of criminal justice
measures under the Treaty. Nevertheless, we accept that
the emergency brake procedure can provide an effective mechanism
to protect Member States which are initially outvoted.
140. We continue to have concerns about the establishment
of a European Public Prosecutor, but we note that it can be established
only by a unanimous decision.
181 HC 63-xxvi (2002-03), paras 83-4. Back
182
Ibid., para 84. Back
183
Cm 5934, para 83. See also First Special Report from the European
Scrutiny Committee (2002-03), The Convention's proposals on
criminal justice: Government Observations on the Committee's
Report, HC 1118, pp. 5-6. Back
184
Justice and Home Affairs. Back
185
Cm 6309, para 67. Back
186
HC 63-xxvi (2002-03), paras 49, 58. Back
187
Cm 6309, para 70. Back
188
Cm 6429, pp. 398-401. Back
189
HC Deb, 7 March 2005, col. 1596W. Back
190
Ev 16. Back
191
HC 42-xxviii (2003-04), para 42. Back
192
Ev 8. Back
193
Ev 7. Back
194
Ibid. Back
195
Ibid. Back
196
The 1968 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and recognition and
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. Back
197
Ev 11. Back
198
Ev 95, 98. Back
199
Ev 99. Back
200
Ev 115, citing SEC(04) 693. Back
201
Ev 99. Back
202
Ev 124. Back
203
Ev 113. Back