Übersetzung für "Investigation by the public prosecutor " (Englisch → Deutsch) :

For reasons of workload linked to the high number of investigations and prosecutions in a given Member State, a European Prosecutor should be able to request that, exceptionally, the supervision of certain investigations and prosecutions in his/her Member State of origin may be assigned to other European Prosecutors.

Is a national law compatible with the obligation of a Member State to provide for the effective prosecution of criminal offences by customs officials if that law provides for criminal proceedings brought against customs officials — for participation in a conspiracy to commit corruption offences while performing their professional duties (accepting bribes for non-performance of customs inspections), and for specific bribery offences and concealment of bribes received — to be terminated, without the court having examined the charges brought, under the following conditions: (a) two years have elapsed since the accused was charged; (b) the accused has lodged a request for the pre-trial investigation ...[+++] to be concluded; (c) the court has given the prosecutor a period of three months to conclude the pre-trial investigation; (d) during that period, the prosecutor has committed ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’ (failure properly to notify a supplementary charge, failure to disclose the investigation file, contradictory indictment); (e) the court has given the prosecutor a further period of one month to remedy those ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’; ([f]) the prosecutor has failed to remedy the ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’ within that time-limit — albeit that the infringements committed within the first three-month period and the failure to remedy them within the subsequent one-month period are attributable both to the prosecutor (failure to remove contradictions in the indictment; failure to take real action for most of those periods) and also to the defence (breach of the duty to cooperate with respect to notification of the charge and inspection of the investigation file due to the hospitalisation of the accused and claims regarding the lawyers’ other professional commitments); ([g]) the accused has acquired a subjective right to the termination of the criminal proceedings on account of the failure to reme ...

An important test case is coming now with the nomination of a new Chief Prosecutor for the Directorate for Investigation of Organised Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT), following the resignation of the Chief Prosecutor in November.[6] The procedure includes a strong political element in terms of the role it gives to the Minister of Justice.[7] The Superior Council of the Magistracy (SCM) is working on an amendment to the law to change this, and to align appointment of prosecutors on the procedures used for judges, in line with the guidance ...[+++] of the European Commission for Democracy through Law of the Council of Europe (Venice Commission):[8] if this were to be pursued, the next step would be for the government to propose this to Parliament.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to ensure the relevance and validity of the evidence underlying the listing of the applicant: it failed to consider whether the current Acting General Prosecutor of Ukraine had authority under the Constitution of Ukraine to commence any investigation against the applicant and the Council failed to appreciate that the applicant was not in fact subject to the alleged ‘investigation’.

The General Prosecutor has asked local prosecution offices to develop local anti-corruption strategies, issued guidelines for the investigation of corruption cases and created a network of specialised prosecutors.

While it considers that the final solution to the problem of efficiency in criminal proceedings depends on establishing uniform definitions of offences and proper rules of criminal procedure (European Prosecutor), the Commission considers that for the time being it must continue using the resources available to strengthen cooperation between the Office and the Member States' judicial authorities, both for external investigations and for the judicial follow-up to internal investigations.