Choosing the National Forum in Proceedings Conducted by the EPPO: Who Is to Decide?

Panzavolta, Michele

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-93916-2_4

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the CJEU cannot decide what the correct forum is or should be, it is unclear how expansive its review of the validity of the decision would be. 84 We see that much of the criticism raised against the proposal of the EPPO Regulation still holds, and that it remains curious why the judicial review of the EU decision on forum choice has been awarded to the national courts in the first place. In defense of placing the judicial review with the national courts, the Commission has brought forward arguments related to limiting the potential increase of workload of the CJEU.…”

Section: Judicial Review Under the Eppo Regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who’s Afraid of EU Primary Law? Judicial Review of the EPPO’s Decision on Forum Choice

Zivic

Zandstra

Pit

et al. 2022

New Journal of European Criminal Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The proposal for Regulation 2017/1939 establishing the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (The EPPO Regulation) was criticized for completely excluding the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) from judicial review of decisions on forum of prosecution by the EPPO, an EU body. The system of judicial review under the EPPO Regulation has improved significantly relative to its initial proposal, by enabling national courts to refer preliminary questions to the CJEU. Despite this, several issues remain. This article examines whether the limitations imposed by the EPPO Regulation on the use of the action for annulment procedure laid down in Article 263 TFEU comply with EU primary law. More specifically, whether it complies with effective judicial protection as protected under Article 47 CFR, and the legal basis for the EPPO’s system of judicial review, Article 86(3) TFEU. We argue that the preliminary reference procedure is not effective enough in remedying the limited access to the action for annulment procedure to reliably safeguard the defendants’ right to effective judicial protection. To the extent that the current system for judicial review under the EPPO Regulation is at odds with the Article 47 CFR, the EU legislator did not have the competence to enact it under Article 86(3) TFEU. This article proposes that in order to circumvent the unlawful restrictions imposed by the EPPO Regulation, defendants could and should make use of the action for annulment procedure to contest the EPPO’s choice of forum.

show abstract

Section: Judicial Review Under the Eppo Regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who’s Afraid of EU Primary Law? Judicial Review of the EPPO’s Decision on Forum Choice

Zivic

Zandstra

Pit

et al. 2022

New Journal of European Criminal Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…76 Moreover, decisions are to be taken on the basis of criteria which are broad and vague. Commentators have raised the issue of the potential lack of clarity of concepts such as 'the focus of criminal activity' 77 or 'the bulk' of the offences being committed, 78 and what constitutes a decision 'in the general interest of justice'. 79 Concerns have been raised that the concept of 'general interest of justice' will be interpreted as synonymous with prosecutorial efficiency, leaving little space for the interests of the defence, 80 with the Regulation not really providing for meaningful defence participation in the process leading to choice of forum decisions.…”

Section: Cross-border Cases and Choice Of Forummentioning

confidence: 99%

European prosecution between cooperation and integration: The European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the rule of law

Mitsilegas

2021

Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article will examine the challenges that the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office poses for the rule of law – a question which has been underexplored in the policy and academic debate on the establishment of the EPPO, which focused largely on questions of structure and powers of the EPPO and the battle between intergovernmental and supranational visions of European prosecution. The implications of the finally adopted legal framework on the EPPO on the rule of law will be analysed primarily from the perspective of the rule of law as related to EPPO investigations and prosecutions and their consequences for affected individuals – in terms of legal certainty and foreseeability, protection from executive arbitrariness, effective judicial protection and defence rights. The article will undertake a rule of law audit of the EPPO by focusing on three key elements of its legal architecture – the competence of the EPPO, applicable law and judicial review – and the interaction between EU and national levels of investigation and prosecution that the EPPO Regulation envisages. The analysis will aim to cast light on the current rule of law deficit in a hybrid system of European prosecution located somewhere between co-operation and integration.

show abstract

Towards a New Model of Settlement of Conflicts: Background and Methodology

López

2022

Comparative, European and International Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Choosing the National Forum in Proceedings Conducted by the EPPO: Who Is to Decide?

Cited by 4 publications

References 13 publications

Who’s Afraid of EU Primary Law? Judicial Review of the EPPO’s Decision on Forum Choice

Who’s Afraid of EU Primary Law? Judicial Review of the EPPO’s Decision on Forum Choice

European prosecution between cooperation and integration: The European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the rule of law

Towards a New Model of Settlement of Conflicts: Background and Methodology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About