CCPE-BU(2019)1

Strasbourg, 3 May 2019

BUREAU of the CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL

OF EUROPEAN PROSECUTORS

(CCpE-BU)

Report of the 30th meeting

Paris, 5 February 2019

Document prepared by the Secretariat

Directorate General I – Human Rights and Rule of Law

I.                 INTRODUCTION

1.               The Bureau of the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE) held its 30th meeting in Paris on 5 February 2019. The meeting was chaired by Mr José Manuel SANTOS PAIS (Portugal), President of the CCPE.

2.              The following Bureau members were also present:   

-        Mr Antonio VERCHER NOGUERA (Spain), Vice-President of the CCPE

-        Mr Robert GELLI (France)

-        Ms Alessandra GIRALDI (Denmark)

3.               The agenda is set out in Appendix I.

II.               COMMUNICATION by the President, members OF THE BUREAU AND THE SECRETARIAT

4.               The President informed that he was invited by the Secretary General to the annual meeting of the heads of all advisory and monitoring bodies of the Council of Europe (4 February 2019). The President highlighted the role of the CCPE as a prosecutorial arm of the Council of Europe, developing norms and standards for the prosecutorial profession. He also referred in particular to the CCPE Opinion No. 13(2018) just adopted on independence, accountability and ethics of prosecutors, as well as to the future Opinion No. 14(2019) on the role of the prosecutor in fighting corruption and economic and financial crime. The President also suggested reinforcing further the co-operation between the CCPE and other bodies of the Council of Europe.

5.               Ms GIRALDI welcomed such intensification of co-operation and mentioned that there was always a balance between the CCPE and other advisory bodies, and that the point was to develop synergy and make sure that the relevant instruments and documents complement each other. At the same time, there have always been practical limitations and the caution not to be overwhelmed by information, but to focus on the contributions of the CCPE members based on relevant Recommendations of the Committee of Ministers and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

6.               Mr GELLI also supported intensive co-operation with the Council of Europe bodies and emphasised importance of coordination and having a unified vision by the Council of Europe of the key concepts such as, for example, High Judicial Council. He mentioned that the prosecutors in France must get acquainted in-depth with the Opinions of the CCPE.

7.               Mr GELLI took a particular initiative to establish the Union of Prosecutors General of the Mediterranean countries, and their position was to transfer the theory into practice of their work and to have very practical and operational approach to implementing international standards. The prosecutors are those who must process, deal with and advance concrete cases.

III.              PREPARATION OF the Opinion No. 14 on the role of the prosecutor in the fight against corruption and economic and financial crime

8.               The members of the Bureau discussed the forthcoming meeting of the Working Group which would further develop the draft structure of the Opinion (document CCPE-GT(2019)1Prov1), prepared by Dr Rainer HORNUNG[1], CCPE Expert.  

9.               The members of the Bureau highly commended this draft and underlined that it would serve as a good basis for the preparation of the final version of the structure, and then for the text of the Opinion. They underlined in particular that the Opinion should concentrate on what is special in the role of prosecutors in their fight against corruption and economic and financial crime; what are characteristics of this type of crime compared to their fight against other types of crime; what will be the main essence of the Opinion; what kind of competences and powers should prosecutors have to fight against corruption and economic and financial crime.

10.             In addition, there would be important issues to be highlighted in the Opinion, for example, the particularities of fighting different types of corruption and focusing on those aspects of corruption which are developing. The Opinion must draw a comprehensive picture for all members of the prosecutorial profession, as well as legal professionals at large.

11.             The Bureau also discussed whether to include in the Opinion a narrower sub-section on fighting corruption among prosecutors themselves. The CCPE Expert had earlier pointed out that this would broaden considerably the focus of the Opinion and it would not be meaningful since fighting corruption among prosecutors is a separate topic in itself, with its own significant modalities like the prevention aspects etc.

IV.             OTHER WORKS OF THE CCPE

Follow-up to the Report of the CCPE Bureau on the independence and impartiality of the prosecution services in the Council of Europe member States in 2017, prepared following the proposal of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and contributing to the implementation of the Council of Europe Plan of Action on strengthening judicial independence and impartiality

12.             The Bureau members discussed the preparation of the second edition of the Report on the independence and impartiality of the prosecution services in the Council of Europe member States.

13.             The first edition[2] was prepared in 2017 as a follow-up to the report of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe – 2016 on the “State of democracy, human rights and the rule of law - a security imperative for Europe” which proposed to “develop the methodology and establish a regular in-house evaluation mechanism on the independence and impartiality of the judiciaries of the Council of Europe member States”[3].

14.             The Bureau members agreed on a timetable and modalities of the upcoming process of preparation of the second edition of the report, in line with the above-mentioned proposal of the Secretary General, focusing on the independence and impartiality of prosecutors. In order to identify issues of concern in the member States, request of relevant information would have to be sent, like in 2017, to all members and observers of the CCPE, and their responses would then be integrated in the report, along with relevant references to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, opinions of the Venice Commission, reports of the Human Rights Commissioner and of the Parliamentary Assembly.

15.             The members of the Bureau also emphasised that the preparation of this report would constitute, like it already did in 2017, follow-up to the Council of Europe Plan of Action on strengthening judicial independence and impartiality in member States[4].

Question from the Working Group on Evaluation of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL) as regards performance and quality indicators concerning prosecutors to be included in the modified Evaluation Scheme of the CEPEJ

16.             The Secretariat distributed to the Bureau members the extract from the questionnaire for the preparation of the regular CEPEJ Reports on European Judicial Systems with    performance and quality indicators for prosecution services. The Bureau members were requested to share their views on these indicators vis-à-vis the national experience in their respective countries.

17.             The Bureau members fully approved these indicators having noted their utilisation at national level including, in particular, number of incoming, resolved and pending cases, length of proceedings, backlogs, productivity, user satisfaction, costs of the procedure, clearance rate and disposition time. 

Situation in Romania

18.             The Bureau members discussed the letter from two professional organisations in Romania addressed to the CCPE (and to the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) as well): from the “Romanian Judges Forum” and the “Movement for Defending the Status of Prosecutors”. The letter (of 35 page volume) referred to the long history of tense battle in Romania, since 2017, for the preservation of independence of prosecutors and judges, and it also referred in-depth to the fight against corruption and other problems in the country. Among issues of direct relevance to the CCPE mandate, the letter emphasised the Amendments to the Law on the Statute of Judges and Prosecutors which entered into force in October 2018, the Amendments to the Law on Judicial Organization which entered into force in July 2018, and the Amendments to the Law on the Superior Council for Magistracy which entered into force in October 2018. 

19.             In particular, the letter described how these Amendments were elaborated and proposed, without any meaningful dialogue and involvement of the judiciary and prosecution. The letter also referred in-depth to the interventions of the Venice Commission. The CCPE was requested to answer a long list of questions such as, for example, the role and powers of the Superior Council for Magistracy, material liability of judges and prosecutors, their freedom of expression, structural issues, appointing/dismissing high-ranking prosecutors, repeated and unprecedented attacks against judges and prosecutors directed by political actors etc.

20.             The Bureau members shared the concerns expressed in the letter and decided to proceed to the elaboration of the Bureau’s Opinion on this subject on the basis of the CCPE standards for independence and impartiality of prosecution services and individual prosecutors.

Situation in Serbia

21.             The CCPE Bureau received, in April 2018, the letter of the Prosecutors Association of Serbia and published, in June 2018, its Opinion assessing the compatibility with European standards of the proposed Amendments to the Constitution of Serbia.

22.             In January 2019, the Prosecutors Association of Serbia addressed another letter to the CCPE having underlined that, on 15 October 2018, the Ministry of Justice of Serbia announced a new version of the Amendments to the Constitution of Serbia which also raised serious concerns in particular as regards the composition and election of the High Prosecutorial Council, its autonomy, jurisdiction, work and decision-making, election of the Supreme Public Prosecutor and public prosecutors, their tenure and termination of the term of office, termination of the term of office of deputy public prosecutors, mandatory instructions for actions of public prosecutors and deputy public prosecutors and other aspects.

23.             The Bureau members discussed the preparation of an Opinion on this new version of the Amendments. They shared the concerns expressed in the letter and agreed that the Opinion should strongly advocate the application of the CCPE standards in the above-mentioned areas.

V.               OTHER ITEMS

24.             The next meeting of the Bureau will take place in Paris on 6 June 2019.

Appendix I

AGENDA

1.      Opening of the meeting / Ouverture de la réunion

2.      Adoption of the agenda / Adoption de l’ordre du jour

3.      Communication by the President, members of the Bureau and the Secretariat / Communication du Président, des membres du Bureau et du Secrétariat

4.      Preparation of the draft Opinion No. 14 on “the role of the prosecutor in the fight against corruption and economic and financial crime” / Préparation du projet d’Avis No. 14 sur « le rôle du procureur dans la lutte contre la corruption et la criminalité économique et financière »

5.      Follow-up to the Report of the CCPE Bureau on the independence and impartiality of the prosecution services in the Council of Europe member States in 2017, prepared following the proposal of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and contributing to the implementation of the Council of Europe Plan of Action on strengthening judicial independence and impartiality / Suivi du Rapport du Bureau du CCPE sur l’indépendance et l’impartialité des Ministères publics dans les États membres du Conseil de l’Europe en 2017, établi sur la proposition du Secrétaire Général du Conseil de l’Europe et contribuant à la mise en œuvre du Plan d'Action du Conseil de l'Europe pour renforcer l’indépendance et l’impartialité du pouvoir judiciaire

6.      Other work of the CCPE / Autres travaux du CCPE

·           Question from the Working Group on Evaluation (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL) to the prosecutors of the CCPE-BU and CCPE-GT as regards performance and quality indicators concerning prosecutors to be included in the modified Evaluation Scheme of the CEPEJ / Question du Groupe de travail Evaluation de la CEPEJ (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL) aux procureurs du CCPE-BU et CCPE-GT concernant les indicateurs de performance et de qualité concernant les procureurs à inscrire dans la Grille d’évaluation modifiée de la CEPEJ

·           Situation in Romania / Situation en Romanie

·           Situation in Serbia / Situation en Serbie

·           Participation of the CCPE in other meetings in and outside the Council of Europe / Participation du CCPE à d’autres réunions au sein et à l’extérieur du Conseil de l’Europe

7.      Any other business / Divers


[1] Dr Rainer HORNUNG is the Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the Lörrach Prosecution Office (Germany), and former Director of the German Judicial Academy.

[2] Document CCPE-BU(2017)6 published on 7 February 2018.

[3] See the Report’s Executive Summary, proposed actions and recommendations, judicial independence: 3rd bullet point (page 7).

[4] Adopted at the 1253rd meeting of the Committee of Ministers on 13 April 2016 (document CM(2016)36final).