Sweden's participation in the European Public Prosecutor's Office
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
Mikael Damsgaard (M) argues that Sweden should join EPPO to combat extensive organized crime and corruption that threaten the EU's economic interests and trust 1. He emphasizes that participation gives Sweden the opportunity to influence the cooperation and the priorities 1. Gudrun Nordborg (V) votes in favor but warns against the transfer of power to the EU and the loss of Swedish control over the prosecution system, as EPPO prosecutors are not covered by national supervision or the principle of public access 2. She also points out that individuals may receive poorer legal protection since the Tort Liability Act does not apply against EPPO 2. Ulrika Liljeberg (C) welcomes the proposal and sees EPPO as an important piece of the puzzle against serious organized crime in order to strengthen trust in the EU 3.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Mikael Damsgaard (M)
Madam Speaker! Organized crime in Europe is extensive and a major problem. The criminal networks earn money from drug crimes, weapons smuggling, and human smuggling. They also earn large sums of money from fraud and corruption.
Corruption and misuse of EU funds is a widespread problem within the EU. This means that large amounts of tax revenue are lost, but it also means that trust in the EU risks being eroded. EU countries also, it is estimated, lose 50 billion euros in VAT revenue every year due to fraud.
To better protect the EU's economic interests, the European Public Prosecutor's Office (Eppo) has been established. The legal basis for establishing Eppo was introduced in the Treaty of Lisbon, and the Eppo Regulation was adopted in 2017. Following that, work was undertaken to make the authority operational, and on 1 July 2021, Eppo began its operations.
Today, 22 of the EU's 27 member states participate in EPPO. With the exception of Denmark and Ireland, which do not participate in the EU's criminal justice cooperation at all, it is today only Hungary, Poland and Sweden that do not participate in EPPO. It is in Sweden's interest that EPPO becomes an authority as effective as possible in order to be able to combat crimes against the EU's economic interests. Through a Swedish participation, Sweden can also influence the cooperation and the priorities in the area.
EPPO investigates and prosecutes the crimes covered by the authority's powers, primarily through the so-called SEFI directive, which contains criminal provisions on fraud targeting the Union's financial interests.
When Sweden joins EPPO, it means that we waive our primary jurisdiction regarding the investigation and prosecution of crimes covered by the authority's competence. It means that EPPO gets the right to initiate, take over, and conduct preliminary investigations for the crimes covered by EPPO's competence. Swedish prosecutors may also initiate preliminary investigations regarding these crimes but must then inform EPPO, which then has the right to take over the preliminary investigation. This concerns crimes such as fraud, money laundering, corruption, and bribery. VAT fraud with a damage exceeding 10 million euro may also be investigated by EPPO.
We are now considering a government bill regarding Swedish participation in the European Public Prosecutor's Office. When Sweden declares that we wish to participate in the cooperation, the EPPO Regulation becomes directly applicable in Swedish law. However, for this to work in practice, certain adjustments need to be made in Swedish legislation. Therefore, it is proposed that the Riksdag decide on a new law on Sweden's participation in the European Public Prosecutor's Office, where the majority of the supplementary provisions are gathered. In addition, certain new provisions are introduced in existing laws in cases where this is more expedient.
Sweden chose not to participate in Eppo from the start in 2017. It was assessed from Sweden's side that there was a great uncertainty regarding the added value of the new authority and that there could be a risk of duplication of work in relation to Swedish authorities.
The Moderates as a party took a position in the spring of 2019 that Sweden should join EPPO. When the government at the time referred the matter of Sweden's accession to EPPO to the Committee on Justice in December 2019, Vänsterpartiet, Sverigedemokraterna, and Centerpartiet still opposed Sweden's participation in EPPO, citing that the issue should be regulated nationally. Therefore, it is now, four years later, pleasing that a unanimous Riksdag stands behind Sweden's participation in the European Public Prosecutor's Office.
With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.
Gudrun Nordborg (V)
Madam Speaker! I want to begin by saying that Vänsterpartiet moves for approval of the bill to join the European Public Prosecutor's Office, EPPO.
There are several reasons why we want to do it. It is, among other things, about combating the corruption that unfortunately is ongoing and which attacks the funds that we have delivered to the EU project with common tax revenues from the member countries.
Eppo is, as was just stated, relatively new – the authority started the operation as recently as June 2021. We also realize that the risk of corruption and losses of EU funds can be reduced for all member states, and the more of us that join, the more efficient the system could be. Other countries have made exceptions. You could just hear that there are few who now do not join Eppo.
The concept itself for EPPO is that there is a central level in Luxembourg, which consists of a number of European prosecutors. Each member state in EPPO shall send prosecutors to Luxembourg, to the core. Sweden shall also do so in light of the decision. Everything indicates that there will be an approval of the proposal. Furthermore, there shall be European delegated prosecutors placed in Sweden, just as in the other member states.
The crimes that may fall within the EPPO's competence are major fraud, money laundering, corruption and bribery. Certain cross-border tax crimes concerning value-added tax are also covered by the EPPO's competence.
The reason we wanted to develop a specific statement on the matter is that there are both advantages and disadvantages to the decision. We believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, but there are also points of concern that make it somewhat problematic. When Sweden joins EPPO, it involves a transfer of power from Sweden to the EU. It concerns the types of crimes where EPPO is granted exclusive competence to handle them. We from the Vänsterpartiet side – and I have also seen it in the arguments from other parties – want to emphasize that it is important that the scope is not widened and that Sweden sticks to the core of EPPO's mandate.
What is somewhat problematic, worrying, is that when Sweden joins EPPO, we lose part of what we take for granted regarding Swedish control over the prosecution service. The oversight that we normally see from the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, i.e., JO, the Chief Prosecutor, the Security and Integrity Protection Authority, etc., will not cover EPPO's activities and their prosecutors. There, we have to rely on the control bodies that the European Data Protection Supervisor provides.
This will lead to some legislative and principled difficulties within the system because the EPPO prosecutors operating here in Sweden will be subject to the rules from the EPPO, which implies a duty of confidentiality. We also cannot conduct any supervision in the EPPO's buildings or premises. They may not be searched, and nothing may be seized or confiscated. It will become a bubble that the Swedish control system cannot access. Therefore, rules were needed to exempt the Swedish prosecutors at EPPO from the national supervision that we normally have in Sweden.
Another fundamental issue that often arises in connection with Sweden entering into an international cooperation is that certain rules that we take for granted should function here will not be applicable. For example, the Swedish provisions on public access to documents, secrecy, and freedom of the press will not apply to documents and information within EPPO, even if it is such that is stored in Sweden.
The principle of public access is fundamental for us but not within the EU and its institutions, and this issue applies not only to EPPO but also more generally. There, we want to act for a more transparent EU, and I hope that we can do it together and in the long run.
There is another aspect that I also want to highlight and which I hope many are aware of. It is a bit more difficult to handle. Individuals may fare worse in this system than if the legal order had been handled in a traditionally Swedish way and solely within the Swedish system. This means, for example, that the Tort Liability Act is not applied against Eppo if the authority or employees were to cause damage to someone. The liability for compensation for the Swedish state according to the Act on Compensation for Deprivation of Liberty and Other Coercive Measures also does not apply when the Eppo prosecutor has made a decision on arrest, travel ban, or reporting obligation, which may also be relevant.
These notes regarding deteriorations for individuals mean that there is a risk of application difficulties. These are issues that we must also return to and try to manage and solve in a good way as they emerge, even though they have been flagged as early as in the legislative project.
Just as I said initially, despite the remarks that we consider important to make public, we do not wish to move for a rejection, but instead we move for approval of the proposition to join Sweden to Eppo.
Ulrika Liljeberg (C)
Madam Speaker! There are times that define us, times we will read about in the history books, times when it matters to stand on the right side, on the right side of history.
Such are the times now in Europe. A full-scale invasion of a country in Europe is underway, a war that primarily concerns Ukraine's independence but which ultimately threatens us open, liberal democracies gathered in the EU. It is the EU that was formed after the Second World War and then expanded after the fall of Eastern Europe and thereafter – and where we now are 27 member states.
Democratic forces will always be threatened, always questioned by more totalitarian forces that want otherwise, that want to polarize and destabilize, that want to spread lies and disinformation, that use violence, terror and threats and that do not want to see all people, everyone's equal right and value.
In these times, we need even more cooperation like the EU where fundamental rights are highlighted and established. In addition to war and terror, serious organized crime is one of our Europe's great threats. Serious organized crime consists of several parts, namely drugs, weapons smuggling, human trafficking both for labor and for prostitution, fraud, welfare crime and environmental crime.
Sweden has already been a member of Europol and Eurojust, which are cooperation organizations where police and prosecutors work together against cross-border crime. These collaborations take place based on the national authority one has in their respective country.
What we now have to take a position on is participation in the European Public Prosecutor's Office, EPPO, which means that Swedish prosecutors will be given new powers and work for the EU. This primarily concerns fraud against the EU's financial interests, namely money laundering, corruption, and bribery.
Eppo is a very important piece of the puzzle in the work against serious organized and cross-border crime, in the work to strengthen trust in the EU, to ensure that the money we allocate to the EU is used in the right way and that the EU's institutions work for the best interests of the citizens and the member states and nothing else.
Madam Speaker! The Centre Party welcomes today's proposal, and I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.