Inhoudsopgave van deze pagina:
Delen
13396/02 DROIPEN 72 FIN 414 CODEC 1316 (COM(2002) 577 final)
Subject : Draft Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the criminal-law protection of the Community's financial interests
I INTRODUCTION
The Commission submitted on 30 May 2001 a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament
1
and of the Council on the criminal-law protection of the Community's financial interests.
2
The Court of Auditors gave its opinion on the proposal on 8 November 2001.
1
11322/01 DROIPEN 74 FIN 271 (COM(2001)272 final. OJ C 240E, 28.8.2001, p. 125. 2
OJ C 14, 17.1.2002, p. 1.
1
The European Parliament gave its opinion (first reading) on the proposal on 29 November 2001.
2
The Commission submitted an amended proposal on 17 October 2002.
II PROCEEDINGS IN THE WORKING PARTY
The Working Party on substantive criminal law examined the proposal for the second time on
12 May 2003.
3
The background for this initiative is reflected in the outcome of proceedings relating to the first examination of the draft, on 5 February 2003 .
It should be noted that when the proposal for a Directive was submitted, none of the instruments on
protection of the EU's financial interests (PFI) had entered into force. In the meantime, the 1995
Convention, the 1996 First Protocol to the Convention, and the 1996 Protocol on the interpretation
of the PFI Convention and its Protocols by the Court of Justice have entered into force on
17 October 2002.
One of the reasons why the Commission was of the view that the proposal was still appropriate was
the fact that the 1997 Second Protocol to the Convention had not entered into force as five Member
States had not ratified that Protocol on 5 February 2003.
1
OJ C 153E, 27.6.2002, p. 247. 2
13396/02 DROIPEN 72 FIN 414 CODEC 1316. 3
Document 6271/03 DROIPEN 7 FIN 61 CODEC 148.
The situation has changed as two of those five Member States have in the meantime ratified the
Second Protocol to the Convention.
The other reasons raised by the Commission for adopting its proposal were (a) that it would ensure
faster implementation of the PFI provisions by the applicant countries, and (b) it would make it
1
possible to use the monitoring mechanisms of the EC Treaty .
The Commission invited the Council to adopt a Common Position on its proposal.
Fourteen delegations did not favour the adoption of the proposal. Many of these delegations stated
that they did not favour the adoption of criminal law measures on the basis of Article 280(4) of the
EC Treaty. One delegation reserved its position on the subject.
Regarding the substance of the proposal, several delegations thought that there was no need for the
proposal. Of the PFI instruments, only the Second Protocol had not entered into force, and the 3
2
Member States , which had not yet ratified it, were in the process of doing so.
COREPER is invited to examine in the light of the above whether it is opportune to further
examine, at the present stage, the draft Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on
the criminal-law protection of the Community's financial interests.
_______________
1
For further details on the proposal, reference is made to 11322/01 DROIPEN 74 FIN 271 and 13396/02 DROIPEN 72 FIN 414 CODEC 1316. See also the Opinion of the Legal Service of the Council set out in 11221/01 JUR 254 FIN 267 DROIPEN 71. 2
Austria, Italy and Luxembourg.
