| Popis: |
One may wonder whether it is not because the Lisbon Treaty, through its abolition of the EU’s pillar structure, has solved the institutional problems resulting therefrom that it may have created a new one. More particularly, has the new treaty, by abolishing in particular the Justice, Liberty and Security (JLS) pillar, which was so respectful of Member States’ sovereignty in the area of criminal law, whilst at the same time introducing Articles 85 and 86 TFEU with their far reaching scope, not triggered the question whether we will be facing a reversal of the constitutional perspective if the European Commission’s proposal for an EPPO were to be adopted? The answer should be negative. Where that may be true as a result of the creation of its legal basis, i.e. Article 86 TFEU, it would be exaggerated to claim that the limited use the Commission has made thereof in connection with the EPPO proposal amounts to a reversal of the constitutional paradigm prevailing today in some of the EU Member States as regards criminal justice. Against a background of increasing and widespread Euro scepticism and mindful of the limits of the EU Treaty, the Commission proposal should rather be considered as an attempt to find an effective and proportionate European solution to an urgent financial problem of a certain magnitude resulting from a suboptimal enforcement of EU rules at national level. Following an extensive impact assessment of its proposal, the Commission reached the conclusion that simply strengthening Eurojust’s role is not an option in this respect given the limits of its Treaty mandate. |
