CONCLUSIONS OF THE OPINION: The European Public Prosecutor The Evocation. Stagnation against Revolution. The opinion deals with the new and innovative tools at his disposal. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office, such as the case of the “Evocation”, i.e. the power to halt the investigation in one State in order to continue the proceedings in another.
FIRST. – n a European Regulation such as the one analysed, we are surprised by the excessive attention paid to a side aspect such as the protection of personal data, which occupies approximately one third of the text of the Regulation and which regulates, once again, how personal data will be treated by the Public Administrations.
SECOND. – In this SINGLE JURISDICTION established by the latest norms of the UNION, an EVOCATION action is established for the EPPO and the Institutions of the Union, coherent with the principles of prevalence and primacy, to which we would have to add that of Hierarchy.
THIRD. – The criminal law rule must be changed absolutely, since the existence of a judge to direct the investigation is hardly compatible with some basic principles of the EPPO, starting with its own definition, contained in Article 4 of the Regulation, which states that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is “responsible for investigating crimes that damage the financial interests of the Union (…). To that end, the EPPO shall conduct the investigations (…)”. In the same vein, recital 58 of the Regulation assigns to the EPPO the task of “guiding and ensuring consistency in investigations (…) at Union level”, something which is repeated in several articles of the Regulation and which the European Public Prosecutor’s Office will find difficult to do if it is not the body conducting the investigation. And Article 13.1 of the Regulation reiterates in its second paragraph that “European Public Prosecutors Delegate shall be responsible for investigations and prosecutions undertaken by them, assigned to them or taken over by them by virtue of their right of referral”.
FOURTH. – That the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is given sufficient hierarchy to give direct orders to the police and prosecutors of the states and that these are at their service.
FIFTH. – Express mention is made of Article 17(2) of the Regulation, which provides that European Public Prosecutors by delegation may, from the time of their appointment until their removal from office, be members of the judiciary of the Member States concerned, being an allusion to the fact that investigating judges can become European Delegated Prosecutors , and for their knowledge, Guarantee Judges when they do not act as European Public Prosecutors Delegate.
SIXTH. – That by virtue of these principles of Prevalence, Primacy and Hierarchy, Article 5.3 states “The investigations and prosecutions on behalf of the EPPO shall be governed by this Regulation. National law shall apply to the extent that a matter is not regulated by this Regulation. (…) Where a matter is governed by both national law and this Regulation, the latter shall prevail”.
SEVENTH.- The Spanish Deputy European Public Prosecutor will be responsible for the entire investigation (including directing the police), and will apply to the competent judicial body, which would act as a judge of guarantees, for judicial authorization to carry out those measures that require such authorization because they affect fundamental rights or are required by the Law of Criminal Procedure.
