What changed between the plenary report and the adopted text

Removed:2. PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECISION

Added:2. European Parliament decision of 11 April 2024 on the closure of the accounts of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for the financial year 2022 (2023/2139(DEC))

Removed:on the closure of the accounts of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for the financial year 2022

Removed:3. MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

Added:3. European Parliament resolution of 11 April 2024 with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for the financial year 2022 (2023/2139(DEC))

Removed:with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for the financial year 2022

Changed:K. whereas the Office started its operational activities on the 1st of1 June 2021 and it operates autonomously in the implementation of its budget only since 24 June 2021, and that this short timeframe allows a limited comparative analysis and trend identification;

Changed:9. Acknowledges that the EPPO clearly contributes to European added value in terms of coordination and cooperation with the Member States in investigating and prosecuting crimes against the financial interests of the Union and that the EPPO has been achieving the goals set out in Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 in that regard; expects Member States to comply with legal obligations and to report all relevant cases to the EPPO; notes with concern that in several instances Member States have been declaring criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the Union as national cases, which are within the competence of the EPPO; notes that questions of competence between the national authorities and the European Delegated Prosecutors have come up in several cases across several countries; is aware that, according to Article 25(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, cases of disagreement about the EPPO’s competences are to be decided by the same national judicial authority who is responsible for determining the competent body for prosecution at national level; regrets that in many participating Member States the procedures in force and the national authorities entrusted with the decisions on such cases regarding conflicts of competence are not set in compliance with Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, stresses that in cases of conflicts of competence between the EPPO and a national prosecution authority, the national authority competent to decide on the attribution of competence could come to a conclusion without requesting a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice but rather making a decision that is binding on the EPPO and points out that this is against the spirit of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, which states that the Court of Justice, in accordance with Article 267 of the TFEU, has jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the provision on conflicts of competence between the EPPO and national authorities; believes that the current situation lacks legal clarity; encourages all Member States to work more closely with the EPPO; emphasises that the competence of the EPPO is clearly outlined in Article 22(1) and (2), and in Article 23, and that all Member States should respect Regulation (EU) 2017/1939; notes that when Member States have doubts about the competence of the EPPO in a particular a case, there is the possibility of submitting a preliminary question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling following Article 267 of the TFEU and Article 42(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 ; urges the Commission, where there is a case breach of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, to submit the case to the Court of Justice; notes with concern that the question of competence can cause a halt of the investigation; is concerned about potential loss of evidence when cases are paused; calls on the Commission to collect information regradingon cases regarding conflicts of competence for the evaluation report that will be submitted in 2026;