Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Unione Europea. Eppo, una polpetta avvelenata.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-10-14.

Biancaneve e la Strega

Eppo è una sigla sconosciuta ai più: se la gente sapesse che sia correrebbe a bruciare il palazzo.

*

European Public Prosecutor’s Office

«Fraud and criminal misapplication of EU money affects all EU citizens. In times of economic crisis and budgetary restriction, it is more important than ever to investigate, prosecute and bring to justice those who commit criminal offences affecting the Union’s financial interests. The Commission proposed a regulation on the establishment of a European Prosecutor’s office based on Art. 86 TFEU.

What is the EPPO?

The EPPO will be an independent Union body with the authority to investigate and prosecute EU-fraud and other crimes affecting the Union’s financial interests. The establishment of the EPPO will bring about substantial change in the way the Union’s financial interests are protected. It will combine European and national law-enforcement efforts in a unified, seamless and efficient approach to counter EU-fraud.

Currently, only national authorities can investigate and prosecute EU-fraud. Their competences stop at their national borders. Existing  Union-bodies (such as OLAF, Eurojust and Europol) do not have and cannot be given the mandate to conduct criminal investigations.

The EPPO will fill this institutional gap. It will have exclusive and EU-wide jurisdiction to deal with suspicions of criminal behaviour falling within its remit.

The structure of the EPPO 

The EPPO will be a body of the Union with a decentralised structure. The decentralised structure aims at involving and integrating the national law enforcement authorities. 

The EPPO will be headed by a European Public Prosecutor. Its investigations will in principle be carried out by European Delegated Prosecutors located in each Member State. The number of these Delegated Prosecutors will be left for Member States, but they should have at least one. The European Delegated Prosecutors will be an integral part of the EPPO but also continue to exercise their functions as national prosecutors. When acting for the EPPO, they will be fully independent from the national prosecution bodies.

This structure will lead to synergies between European and national decision making. It will ensure best chances of the EPPO being effective.

The main characteristics of the EPPO

The EPPO will be an efficient Union body pooling investigative and prosecutorial resources of the Member States with clear hierarchical lines to ensure swift decision making. It will have uniform investigation powers throughout the Union based on and integrated into the national law systems of the Member States. There will be strong safeguards to guarantee the rights of the persons involved in the EPPO’s investigations as laid down in national law, Union law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Investigation measures that touch mostly on fundamental rights as e.g. telephone interception, will need a prior authorisation by a national Court. The EPPO´s investigations will be subject to judicial review by the national courts. The EPPO will enable Member States and the Union to work hand-in-hand for the protection of European taxpayers’ money.»

*

Olaf. Qui il link per la definizione giuridica dell’Olaf.

«L’OLAF indaga sui casi di frode ai danni del bilancio dell’UE e sui casi di corruzione e grave inadempimento degli obblighi professionali all’interno delle istituzioni europee; elabora inoltre la politica antifrode per la Commissione europea.»

* * * * * * *

Siamo debitori agli Stati Uniti della prima costituzione scritta e scritta in modo consistente ed organico.

Tale termine denomina la legge fondamentale di uno Stato, ovvero il vertice nella gerarchia delle fonti di diritto. Proprio per il fatto che la costituzione è legge fondamentale cui deve improntarsi il successivo corpo legislativo, essa prevede esplicitamente un meccanismo qualificato per ogni suo qualsiasi cambiamento. In alcuni casi sono anche previste norme rigide, per esempio, l’art 139 della nostra costituzione recita che «La forma repubblicana non può essere oggetto di revisione costituzionale.». Quasi di norma, le costituzioni sono sottoposte alla vidimazione di un referendum popolare.

L’Unione Europea non ha una sua costituzione: il tentativo fatto nel 2003 fu bocciato nei referendum in Francia ed in Olanda. Nel 2009 entrò in vigore il Trattato di Lisbona, ritenuto essere punto di riferimento da parte di molti, ma non certamente tutti i giuristi. Si noti in ogni caso come il Trattato di Lisbona non sia una costituzione.

Nell’Unione Europea si è assistito ad un proliferare di Corti di Giustizia, nonché di un elevato numero di enti propagati dall’unione assimilati a corti specializzate su specifiche tematiche.

I nodi sono sicuramente le competenze ed i poteri, ma anche la nomina dei magistrati.

Ufficialmente l’Eppo è “an independent Union body with the authority to investigate and prosecute EU-fraud and other crimes affecting the Union’s financial interests“.

Molti hanno espresso seri dubbi che un’agenzia possa vicariare o addirittura surrogare una corte di giustizia. Inoltre, virtualmente ogni umano agire ha per riscontro una qualche operazione di transazione di denaro, ricadendo così nelle competenze dell’Eppo.

Perplessità ancora maggiori derivano dal fatto che usualmente l’individuazione con poteri di indagine e la repressione dei reati dovrebbero essere condotti da dai magistrati.

La perplessità sovrana resta però quale legge debba essere applicata, non avendo l’Unione Europea un costituzione.

*

Uno strumento che sarebbe stato concepito per reprimere abusi si troverebbe così quasi per ‘diritto di nascita‘ ad essere un potenziale generatore di abusi.

«The Netherlands, Sweden and Malta also ruled out supporting the project, as they are wary of the negative impact it may have on their national judiciary systems. Meanwhile, Denmark, the UK and Ireland have an opt-out on judiciary matters.»

*

«Hungary and Poland are two of the countries that, to date, have refused to join enhanced cooperation to set up the public prosecutor’s office»

*

Staremo a vedere come potranno evolvere gli eventi.

Dal nostro sommesso punto di vista, se l’idea in oggetto è di per sé in teoria ragionevole, in questo guazzabuglio legislativo e normativo avrebbe la quasi certezza di tramutarsi da elemento di giustizia in elemento di iniquità.

Qui non è problema di natura politica, ma solo la constatazione di un chaos organizzativo semplicemente ingestibile.


Portfolio. 2017-10-12. EU offers carrot instead of stick to Hungary and Poland.

EU Commissioner of Justice Vìra Jourová said on Friday that she is ready to simplify rules controlling cohesion expenditure if Hungary and Poland join the new European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). This is a major departure in the Commissioner’s approach compared to her threat a few months ago that member states refusing to join EPPO risk losing access to EU funds beyond 2020.

*

Eyeing Budapest and Warsaw, Jourová said that she would propose for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) to “simplify” and “soften” cohesion rules if countries agree to come under the new EU prosecutor’s oversight, she told a group of journalists today, EurActiv reported.

“I truly believe that EPPO could enable us to simplify the rules”, she insisted.

She argued that in the current system there are “too many actors” and rules to ensure a better spending of EU funds. But instead of improving the quality of EU budget management, they overheat the system.

“I always want to keep control and order, but I don’t want to enable duplicity of controlling bodies in member states,” she said.

In her view, once the EPPO is fully operational in 2020, the new body would act as a deterrent. As a result, less preventive rules would be needed to avoid mismanagement or fraud committed using EU funds.

Countries that still turn down the option to be under the EPPO’s supervision will have to comply with the existing preventive rules and more scrutiny from OLAF, the EU’s anti-fraud agency.

The new EU prosecutor will investigate fraud and corruption cases involving cohesion and agricultural funds. It will also prosecute VAT fraud, as this tax is used to finance the EU budget.

According to some conservative estimates, every year EUR 500 million is lost in EU projects. In the case of VAT, the Commission believes that criminal networks are causing a EUR 50 billion hole in member state public finances using the so-called carousel scheme.

But for Jourová it is not only a question of money. “There is too much trust at stake,” she stressed. If money allocated for roads and wind farms ends up in the Bahamas or Cartier watches, the bloc’s common pot would lose support from member states.

Hungary and Poland are two of the countries that, to date, have refused to join enhanced cooperation to set up the public prosecutor’s office.

The Netherlands, Sweden and Malta also ruled out supporting the project, as they are wary of the negative impact it may have on their national judiciary systems. Meanwhile, Denmark, the UK and Ireland have an opt-out on judiciary matters.
This week, the European Parliament gave its approval to the EPPO. The Council is expected to give its final blessing next week.

Annunci