DOCSLIB.ORG

The European Criminal Law Associations' Forum 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The European Criminal Law Associations' Forum 2013 eucrim 2013 / 4 THE EUROPEAN CRIMINAL LAW ASSOCIATIONS‘ FORUM Focus: Protection of Financial Interests of the European Union Dossier particulier: Protection des intérêts financiers de l'Union européenne Schwerpunktthema: Schutz der finanziellen Interessen der Europäischen Union Guest Editorial Viviane Reding/Algirdas Šemeta An Overall Analysis of the Proposal for a Regulation on Eurojust Prof. Dr. Anne Weyembergh The Dutch Judge of Instruction and the Public Prosecutor in International Judicial Cooperation Mr.Dr. Jaap van der Hulst The Use of Inside Information Anna Blachnio-Parzych, Ph.D. 2013 / 4 ISSUE / ÉDITION / AUSGABE The Associations for European Criminal Law and the Protection of Financial Interests of the EU is a network of academics and practitioners. The aim of this cooperation is to develop a European criminal law which both respects civil liberties and at the same time protects European citizens and the European institutions effectively. Joint seminars, joint research projects and annual meetings of the associations’ presidents are organised to achieve this aim. Contents News* Articles European Union Protection of Financial Interests of the European Union Foundations Procedural Criminal Law 127 An Overall Analysis of the Proposal 111 The Stockholm Programme 120 Procedural Safeguards for a Regulation on Eurojust 111 Schengen 121 Data Protection Prof. Dr. Anne Weyemberg 111 Enlargement Cooperation 131 The Dutch Judge of Instruction and the Institutions 122 Law Enforcement Cooperation Public Prosecutor in International Judicial 112 Commission Cooperation 113 OLAF Mr.Dr. Jaap van der Hulst 113 Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) 136 The Use of Inside Information 113 European Court of Justice (ECJ) Judgment of the European Court of Justice 114 Europol of 23 December 2009 116 Eurojust Council of Europe Anna Blachnio-Parzych, Ph.D. 116 Frontex Specific Areas of Crime / Foundations Substantive Criminal Law 123 Reform of the European Court 117 Protection of Financial Interests of Human Rights 118 Counterfeiting & Piracy 123 Other Human Rights Issues Imprint 118 Organised Crime 120 Cybercrime Specific Areas of Crime * News contain internet links referring to more detailed information. These links can be easily accessed either by clicking on the respective ID-number of the desired link in the online-journal or – for print version readers – by accessing our webpage www.mpicc.de/eucrim/search.php and then entering the ID-number of the link in the search form. Guest Editorial Dear Readers, EU money must not be pocketed by criminals. We have a fed- eral budget – with money coming from the 28 EU Member States – and, as a consequence, we also need federal laws to protect this budget. This is why the European Commission proposed a Directive on the protection of the EU’s financial interests in July 2012. The new EU-wide rules aim to achieve two objectives: First, to introduce common definitions of fraud throughout the EU, making sure that fraud against the EU budget is considered a crime everywhere in the EU. Second, to set a minimum level of sanctions for fraud against the EU budget, including im- prisonment, in order to deter fraudsters. We are also creating a level playing field for periods within which it is possible to investigate and prosecute offences – the so-called statutes of limitation. Viviane Reding Algirdas Šemeta With the creation of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, We opted for a solution that is respectful of the justice systems we are delivering on a commitment. A commitment that we first and legal traditions of the Member States without compromis- made at our hearing before the Parliament in January 2010: to ing on our aim to better protect the Union’s financial interests. make full use of the Treaty of Lisbon to fight fraud against the The groundwork (gathering evidence, prosecuting, bringing to EU budget and to uphold the rule of law across the Union. court) will be carried out by so-called “European delegated prosecutors” who are fully integrated into the national justice Member States report an average of about €500 million in systems. They will wear a “double hat:” they will be national suspected fraud each year. But the real amount with regard prosecutors and part of the European Public Prosecutor’s Of- to fraud is likely to be significantly higher. Member States’ fice. They will use national staff, apply national rules, and ad- response to fraud is inconsistent because of divergent rules, dress national courts. lack of resources, and the difficulty of gathering evidence in cross-border cases. As a result, the conviction rate for fraud The European Public Prosecutor’s Office will go hand in hand offences against EU resources varies greatly across Member with a comprehensive set of procedural safeguards. These States, with an EU average of just 42.3%. rules offer an additional layer of protection compared to na- tional law so that suspects can benefit directly from protection We know that our proposal of establishing a European Public at the Union level. Prosecutor’s Office is ambitious. But we need to be ambitious to ensure effective and uniform protection of the EU budget across Negotiations on the proposal started under the Lithuanian the EU. At the same time, we are determined to set up an of- Presidency and will continue under the Greek Presidency in fice that is fully embedded in national systems, relying to a large the Council. We were pleased to note that a vast majority of extent on national structures and national law. Independence, ac- Member States agreed to the need for a European Public Pros- countability, and decentralisation are the keywords. ecutor’s Office at the Justice Council in October. We are also eucrim 4 / 2013 | 109 GUEST EDITORIAL receiving strong encouraging signals from the European Par- against the EU budget, the European Commission is deliver- liament; the October plenary clearly endorsed the project. ing on its promise. We now call on Member States and the European Parliament to rally behind this important project so Finally, national parliaments have also contributed and made that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office can assume its use of their possibilities under the Treaty to contribute rea- function as of 1 January 2015. soned opinions on the compatibility of the EPPO with the principle of subsidiarity. Having carefully analysed these rea- soned opinions, the Commission has decided to maintain the Viviane Reding proposal, in line with Article 7(2) of Protocol No 2 to the Trea- Vice-President of the European Commission, ties, as we are confident that it complies with the subsidiarity EU Commissioner responsible for Justice, Fundamental principle. Of course, the opinions of the national parliaments Rights and Citizenship will be taken into account in the ongoing legislative process. Algirdas Šemeta With the proposal for the establishment of a European Pros- EU Commissioner responsible for Taxation and Customs ecutor’s Office that will show zero tolerance towards fraud Union, Audit and Anti-Fraud 110 | eucrim 4 / 2013 News Actualités / Kurzmeldungen the Schengen acquis and an amendment to the Schengen Borders Code (Regula- tion (EC) No. 562/2006) regarding the rules for the temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal borders in ex- ceptional circumstances. Both regulations are binding in their European Union* entirety and directly applicable in the Member States. They entered into force Reported by Dr. Els De Busser (EDB), Cornelia Riehle (CR), and Mika Kremer (MK) on 26 November 2013. (EDB) eucrim ID=1304003 Foundations Citizens were invited to feed the de- Enlargement bate by submitting written contributions or participating in the conference. Enlargement Package 2013 The Stockholm Programme Commissioner for Justice Viviane On 16 October 2013, the Commissioner Reding concluded the event by focus- for Enlargement and European Neigh- Discussion Papers on the Successor to ing on the vision for EU justice policy bourhood Policy, Štefan Füle, presented the Stockholm Programme by 2020. This vision is founded on a the so-called Enlargement Package. This On 21-22 November 2013, the Com- European area of justice at the service set of documents consists of the progress mission hosted a conference in Brussels of citizens that is built on mutual trust reports on the achievements made by entitled “Assises de la Justice” to dis- as well as on growth. She envisions one the candidate and potential candidate cuss and shape the future of EU justice voice representing Europe at the global countries in 2013 as well as the Com- policy. Before the conference, the Com- level as a key element for the future, mission’s enlargement strategy and main mission published five papers to initiate especially regarding the “external rela- challenges for 2013-2014. debate on EU civil law, EU criminal law, tions of justice policies” once the transi- The accession process today is more EU administrative law and national ad- tional phase of the Lisbon Treaty ends in comprehensive than in the past and re- ministrations, the rule of law, and fun- 2014. (EDB) flects the evolution of EU policies as well damental rights. These papers were in eucrim ID=1304002 as lessons learned from previous enlarge- preparation for the debate at the Assises ments. With the rule of law at the heart of de la Justice event, their purpose being the enlargement process, countries need to reflect on the justice policy of the EU. Schengen to focus on improvements in their justice The discussion paper on EU criminal systems and their fight against specific law lists the main achievements and the Schengen Governance Package types of crime earlier in the accession challenges that lie ahead. The latter are: Adopted process. The need for stronger economic Ensuring fundamental rights to On 7 October 2013, the Council adopt- governance and for reinforcing demo- strengthen mutual trust; ed the so-called Schengen Governance cratic institutions has been highlighted by Ensuring the effectiveness of EU Package that had been proposed in 2011 recent events in many countries.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • College Decision 2018-09 of 26 June 2018 Adopting the Opinion of the College on the Eurojust Final Annual Accounts 2017
    College Decision 2018-09 of 26 June 2018 adopting the opinion of the College on the Eurojust Final Annual Accounts 2017 THE COLLEGE OF EUROJUST, Having regard to the Council Decision of 28 February 2002 (2002/187/JHA) setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime, as amended by the Council Decision of 18 June 2003 (2003/659/JHA), and by Council Decision of 16 December 2008 (2009/426/JHA) (hereinafter referred to as “the Eurojust Council Decision”), and in particular Article 36 thereof, Having regard to the Financial Regulation applicable to Eurojust and adopted by the College on 14 January 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the Eurojust Financial Regulation”), and in particular Article 99 (2) thereof, Having regard to the preliminary observations of the European Court of Auditors with a view to report on the annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2017, Having regard to the final annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2017 signed off by the Accounting Officer on 11 June 2018 and drawn up by the Administrative Director on 13 June 2018 and sent to the College on 20 June 2018. Whereas: (1) The final annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2017 are attached as Annex I to this opinion; (2) The Preliminary observations of the European Court of Auditors with a view to a report on the annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2017 are included in Annex II to this opinion; (3) PKF Littlejohn LLP Independent Auditors Report on the provisional annual accounts 2017 is attached as Annex III to this opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • Archbold Review 5-6, and the News Pieces of EU Legislation in the Area of Justice and Home Item, [2016] 2 Archbold Review 9
    Issue 5 June 22, 2016 Issue 5 June 22, 2016 Archbold Review Cases in Brief Appeal—inconsistent verdicts—development of case law— the clear law set out in Devlin J’s test and apply it rather than reassertion of proper test—undesirability of elaboration of test the reformulation in Dhillon. The Stone test did not need in judgments; Court of Appeal—proper approach of Court to elaboration, but rather careful application to the circum- development of case law stances of each case. In particular (the contrary having been FANNING AND OTHERS [2016] EWCA Crim 550; suggested), different tests did not apply to multiple counts April 28, 2016 arising out of a single sexual episode, and those arising over (1) Giving judgment in four conjoined appeals, the Lord a long period of time; and it was unnecessary and inappropri- Chief Justice reviewed the authorities on the role of the jury ate to compare the circumstances of one case with another and the approach of the court to applications to appeal based as was urged on the court in R v S [2014] EWCA Crim 927. on what were said to be inconsistent verdicts by the jury. The (3) Although the approach the Court set out needed no fur- starting point was the adoption of the approach set out by ther elaboration, it was necessary to mention three matters: Devlin J in Stone [1955] Crim LR 120, quoted in Hunt [1968] 2 (a) the burden to show that verdicts could not stand was with QB 433 and formally adopted in Durante (1972) 56 Cr.App.R the applicant; (b) a jury may logically find a witness credible 708, that the burden was on the applicant to show that the on one count but not another (contra an interpretation of Griz- verdicts could not stand together, that is, that no reasonable zle [1991] Crim LR 553 and Cilgram [1994] Crim LR 861); and jury could have arrived at that conclusion, which was fact- (c) in the overwhelming generality of cases it would be appro- specific.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing the Protocol 36 Opt
    September 2012 Opting out of EU Criminal law: What is actually involved? Alicia Hinarejos, J.R. Spencer and Steve Peers CELS Working Paper, New Series, No.1 http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/publications/working_papers.php Centre for European Legal Studies • 10 West Road • Cambridge CB3 9DZ Telephone: 01223 330093 • Fax: 01223 330055 • http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Protocol 36 to the Lisbon Treaty gives the UK the right to opt out en bloc of all the police and criminal justice measures adopted under the Treaty of Maastricht ahead of the date when the Court of Justice of the EU at Luxembourg will acquire jurisdiction in relation to them. The government is under pressure to use this opt-out in order to “repatriate criminal justice”. It is rumoured that this opt-out might be offered as a less troublesome alternative to those are calling for a referendum on “pulling out of Europe”. Those who advocate the Protocol 36 opt-out appear to assume that it would completely remove the UK from the sphere of EU influence in matters of criminal justice and that the opt-out could be exercised cost-free. In this Report, both of these assumptions are challenged. It concludes that if the opt-out were exercised the UK would still be bound by a range of new police and criminal justice measures which the UK has opted into after Lisbon. And it also concludes that the measures opted out of would include some – notably the European Arrest Warrant – the loss of which could pose a risk to law and order.
    [Show full text]
  • The Police Foundation's Response
    Select Committee on the European Union (Sub-Committee E - Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection & Sub-Committee F - Home Affairs, Health and Education) Joint inquiry into the UK’s 2014 Opt-out Decision (Protocol 36) The Police Foundation’s response About the Police Foundation The Police Foundation is the only independent charity focused entirely on developing people's knowledge and understanding of policing and challenging the police service and the government to improve policing for the benefit of the public. The Police Foundation acts as a bridge between the public, the police and the government, while being owned by none of them. Founded in 1979 by the late Lord Harris of Greenwich, the Police Foundation has been highly successful in influencing policing policy and practice, through research, policy analysis, training and consultancy. Introduction 1. Under Protocol 36 to the EU Treaties, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, the UK is entitled to withdraw from approximately 130 EU policing and criminal justice measures. The Government has until 31 May 2014 to decide whether to continue to be bound by the measures, or whether to use its right to opt out. The right to opt out is exercised en bloc, i.e. all pre-Lisbon measures must be opted out of in one go. Application could then be made to opt back into specific measures. 2. The Home Secretary has announced that the government is currently minded to use its right to opt out of all the pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures and then negotiate with the European Commission and other member states to opt back into those individual measures which are judged to be in the national interest.1 At this stage it is not clear which measures the Home Office would plan to opt back in to, which it would like to opt out of completely, and the reasons for this approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit and EU Agencies What the Agencies’ Existing Third Country Relations Can Teach Us About the Future EU- UK Relationship Nicolai Von Ondarza / Camille Borrett
    Working Paper SWP Working Papers are online publications within the purview of the respective Research Division. Unlike SWP Research Papers and SWP Comments they are not reviewed by the Institute. RESEARCH DIVISION EU / EUROPE | WP NR. 02, APRIL 2018 Brexit and EU agencies What the agencies’ existing third country relations can teach us about the future EU- UK relationship Nicolai von Ondarza / Camille Borrett Contents Introduction 3 I. The EU’s defined interest 4 II. EU agencies and their relevance to Brexit 5 The integrity of the single market 7 Relevance for Northern Ireland 8 Internal and external European security 11 III. EU agencies relationships with third countries 12 Full participation (EEA model) 12 Bilateral cooperation agreements 14 Fringe cases 20 IV. The UK and EU agencies during transition 23 Conclusions 25 List of Abbreviations 28 Overview: EU Agencies and their third country relationships 29 2 Introduction The Brexit negotiations are amongst the most complex the European Union has conducted. After more than 45 years of membership the UK’s exit from the EU is about more than leav- ing the Union’s institutions and its major policy areas. It is also, crucially, about its disen- tanglement from the EU legal order as well as the rules and regulations governing the single market and beyond. One crucial example in order to understand how this disentanglement of the legal order will affect the future relationship, are the 36 agencies the EU has set up to help regulate its single market and support coordination between its members states across many different policy areas.1 Almost two years after the UK’s population voted to leave the EU and less than a year until its formal exit, legally set for 29 March 2019, the Brexit talks are entering the next crucial stage.
    [Show full text]
  • A One-Stop Shop for Fighting Serious Cross-Border Crime in the European Union and Beyond
    Eurojust: a one-stop shop for fighting serious cross-border crime in the European Union and beyond In recent years, organised crime groups have gone increasingly global. The European Union is strongly committed to fighting such crime based on the principles of justice and rule of law that define our democratic systems. Judicial and law enforcement authorities in the European Union, however, work within national legal systems, which govern what acts are considered to be crimes, which sanctions apply and how investigations and trials are conducted. To detect, investigate and effectively prosecute cross-border crimes, judicial and law enforcement authorities from different countries therefore need to work closely together. Eurojust is the European Union's Judicial Cooperation Unit, an EU agency located in The Hague, Netherlands. Eurojust was started in 2002 and is fully focused on providing practical support to investigators, prosecutors and judges from different countries. Judicial practitioners come to Eurojust for support in a wide range of criminal investigations, including investigations of fraud, money laundering, corruption, trafficking in human beings, drug trafficking, migrant smuggling, cybercrime and terrorism. In 2018, Eurojust provided support in 6 500 cases, an increase of almost 19 % compared to 2017. Practical support and services to prosecutors and joint investigation teams Eurojust offers a range of practical tools and services especially designed for prosecutors and investigators of serious crime, including: On-call coordination for urgent requests, for example when a European Arrest Warrant needs to be quickly arranged to arrest a suspect in another country. On-call coordination is available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
    [Show full text]
  • The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice Ten Years On
    THE AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE TEN YEARS ON SUCCESSES AND FUTURE CHALLENGES UNDER THE STOCKHOLM PROGRAMME THE AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE TEN YEARS ON SUCCESSES AND FUTURE CHALLENGES UNDER THE STOCKHOLM PROGRAMME EDITORS ELSPETH GUILD SERGIO CARRERA AND ALEJANDRO EGGENSCHWILER CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES BRUSSELS The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) is an independent policy research institute based in Brussels. Its mission is to produce sound analytical research leading to constructive solutions to the challenges facing Europe today. This paperback is published in the context of IN:EX, a three-year project on converging and conflicting ethical values in the internal/external security continuum in Europe, funded by the Security Programme of DG Enterprise of the European Commission’s 7th Framework Research Programme. The opinions expressed in this publication and the analysis and arguments given are the sole responsibility of the authors writing in a personal capacity and do not necessarily reflect those of CEPS or any other institution with which the authors are associated. ISBN 978-94-6138-034-0 © Copyright 2010, European Union and Centre for European Policy Studies All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise – without the prior permission of the Centre for European Policy Studies and the European Union. Centre for European Policy Studies Place du Congrès 1, B-1000 Brussels Tel: 32 (0) 2 229.39.11 Fax: 32 (0) 2 219.41.51 e-mail: [email protected] internet: http://www.ceps.eu CONTENTS 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex I -An EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights
    An EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights Annex I -An EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights AN EU MECHANISM ON DEMOCRACY, THE RULE OF LAW AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS Annex I - An EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights Abstract This Research Paper provides an overview of the existing EU mechanisms which aim to guarantee democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights within the EU itself, as set in Article 2 TEU. It analyses the scope of these mechanisms, the role of EU institutions and other relevant actors, and identifies gaps and shortcomings in the current framework. The Research Paper also includes illustrative case-studies on several key challenges, including the limits of infringement actions in addressing the threats to judicial independence in Hungary; the shortcomings of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism in Bulgaria; and the consequences of a weak fundamental rights proofing of the Data Retention Directive. The Research Paper briefly examines the monitoring mechanisms existing at international level, including the UN and the Council of Europe before considering how the EU institutions interact to protect and promote Article 2 TEU values and the role of national authorities and individuals in fulfilling this objective. An analysis of the impact of the gaps and shortcomings identified in this Research Paper is also offered, with a particular focus on the principle of mutual trust, socio-economic development and fundamental rights protection. The impact on mutual trust is discussed in an illustrative case-study on the consequences of the unequal enforcement of the European Arrest Warrant framework decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Eurojust Report on Trafficking in Human Beings Best Practice and Issues in Judicial Cooperation
    Eurojust Report on Trafficking in Human Beings Best practice and issues in judicial cooperation February 2021 Criminal justice across borders Eurojust Report Trafficking in Human Beings Executive summary Cross-border cases of trafficking in human beings (THB) are complex and difficult to investigate and prosecute. They reveal the prominent role of organised criminal groups. When gaps in judicial cooperation appear it is the victims of THB who suffer. In October 2020, the European Commission noted in its progress report on THB that judicial authorities in the Member States had raised serious concerns about difficulties in judicial cooperation. This report was prepared by the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), with the aim of responding to these concerns. It presents solutions used by the agency when assisting in complex THB cases requiring judicial coordination. The report also aims to inform the forthcoming EU strategy against THB. It expresses Eurojust’s readiness to play a central role in the future strategy, by bringing substantial added value to the operational dimension of combating THB. The final aim of the report is to assist in successfully bringing human traffickers to justice, while protecting the victims. The report is divided into two main parts. The first part relates to the coordination of investigations and the second to victims’ rights. The report draws on the practical experience gained from Eurojust’s support of human trafficking investigations between 2017 and 2020. In total, 91 cases of THB were selected for analysis by Eurojust’s anti-trafficking team, of which 31 are illustrated in this report.
    [Show full text]
  • EUABC.Com Szótár Az Európai Unióban Használt Fogalmakról És
    1 EUABC.com Szótár Az Európai Unióban használt fogalmakról és kifejezésekről 1000 szócikk, 3000 internetes kapcsolat Az Európai Unióba belépő új tagországok szakemberei, politikusai, vagy egyszerűen csak az Unió politikája iránt érdeklődők számos új fogalommal fognak találkozni az Unióhoz kapcsolódó munkájuk során. Az Európai parlament EDD csoportja (Europe of Democracies and Diversities – „Sokszínű és Demokratikus Európáért” Csoport) a jelen internetes szótár segítségével, magyar nyelven szeretné segíteni azokat, akiket munkájuk vagy érdeklődésük az Unióhoz köt. Magyarázat a szótár használatához Aláhúzott szavak Az egyes szócikkek szövegében időnként aláhúzott szavakkal fog találkozni, ha ezekre a szavakra ráklikkel, akkor bővebb magyarázatot fog róluk kapni. De ezeket a kapcsoaltokat csak akkor adjuk meg, ha úgy gondoljuk, az éppen olvasottakat célszerű lehet kiegészíteni. Az olyan gyakran használt szavakhoz, mint a „Tanács” vagy „Bizottság” általában nem adunk meg további magyarázatokat, hiszen azok a megfelelő szócikkeknél úgyis megtalálhatók. További információk és korrekciós javaslatok Néhány szócikk végén „További információk”-ra klikkelhet és ez esetben az adott szócikkel kapcsolatos különböző dokumentumokat (például lexikonokat, újság- és folyóiratcikkeket, ábrákat, képeket és egyéb hasznos internet címeket) érhet el. Ugyanakkor Ön is segíthet abban, hogy ez az interneters szótár még jobban szolgálja a célját, azzal, hogy megírja észrevételeit, felhyvja a figyelmet a szótárban lévő esetleges hibákra, tévedésekre és új szócikkeket
    [Show full text]
  • 124394/EU XXIV. GP Eingelangt Am 11/09/13
    124394/EU XXIV. GP Eingelangt am 11/09/13 COUNCIL OF Brussels, 10 September 2013 THE EUROPEAN UNION (OR. en) 13497/13 COMPET 638 MI 744 COVER NOTE From: Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director date of receipt: 1 August 2013 To: Mr Uwe CORSEPIUS, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union No. Cion doc.: SWD(2013) 401 final Subject: COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT): Initial Results of the Mapping of the Acquis Delegations will find attached document SWD(2013) 401 final. Encl.: SWD(2013) 401 final 13497/13 MS/ll DG G 3A EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 1.8.2013 SWD(2013) 401 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT): Initial Results of the Mapping of the Acquis EN EN Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 4 1. Agriculture and Rural Development ............................................................................................... 5 2. Budget ........................................................................................................................................... 14 3. Climate Action .............................................................................................................................. 17 4. Communications Networks, Content and Technology .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Procedure File
    Procedure file Basic information CNS - Consultation procedure 1994/0911(CNS) Procedure completed Regulation Convention for the protection of the Communities' financial interests Repealed by 2012/0193(COD) See also 2015/0210(NLE) Subject 8.70.04 Protecting financial interests of the EU against fraud Key players European Parliament Committee responsible Rapporteur Appointed LIBE Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs 16/09/1994 PSE BONTEMPI Rinaldo Committee for opinion Rapporteur for opinion Appointed JURI Legal Affairs, Citizens' Rights 07/09/1994 PSE ODDY Christine Margaret CONT Budgetary Control 27/07/1994 PPE THEATO Diemut R. Council of the European Union Council configuration Meeting Date Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) 1859 20/06/1995 Economic and Financial Affairs ECOFIN 1835 20/03/1995 Social Affairs 1813 06/12/1994 Economic and Financial Affairs ECOFIN 1812 05/12/1994 Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) 1808 01/12/1994 Key events 15/06/1994 Legislative proposal published COM(1994)0214 Summary 24/10/1994 Committee referral announced in Parliament 05/12/1994 Debate in Council 1812 06/12/1994 Debate in Council 1813 02/03/1995 Vote in committee Summary 02/03/1995 Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st A4-0039/1995 reading/single reading 15/03/1995 Debate in Parliament Summary 15/03/1995 Decision by Parliament T4-0092/1995 Summary 20/03/1995 Debate in Council 1835 20/06/1995 Debate in Council 1859 26/07/1995 Act adopted by Council after consultation of Parliament 26/07/1995 End of procedure in Parliament 27/11/1995 Final act published in
    [Show full text]