Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE)

Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  Slideshare

In brief
About the CCPE
A word from the Chair
Plenary meetings
Meetings of the Bureau
Working group meetings
10th anniversary of the Recommendation Rec(2000)19
In brief
  Adopted opinions
  Preliminary works
Reference documents
Press releases
Country Profiles A-Z
Coe Bodies, international organisations and research centers
Restricted access
Collaborative workspace


Strasbourg, 22 May 2012







1. The Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE) was established by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in 2005 with the task of rendering Opinions regarding the functioning of prosecution services and promoting the effective implementation of Recommendation Rec(2000)19 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the role of public prosecution in the criminal justice system.

2. The Committee of Ministers instructed the CCPE1 in 2012 to adopt an opinion for its attention on the management of the means of prosecution services.

3. The CCPE has drafted the present Opinion on the basis of 29 replies received from member States to a questionnaire2. These replies show that prosecutors, based on whether they are independent from the executive or not, do not have at their disposal the same means for managing their services. The competence for establishing a budget is almost invariably shared between the prosecution and the Ministry of Justice; often the Ministry of Finance is also involved. Approximately a half of the States indicate that the budgets of their prosecution services are governed by the system of management by results including such objectives as efficiency and productivity. All replies show that the budgets allocated to prosecution services are regarded as insufficient; this situation is bolstered by the current financial crisis.

    A. Reference texts (SECRETARIAT)

4. The CCPE underlines the importance of referring to the Convention on Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and the case-law of the European Court on Human rights (the Court)3.

5. The CCPE took into consideration the Recommendation Rec(2000)19 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the role of public prosecution in the criminal justice system, and in particular the part concerning the guarantees to the prosecution service for exercising its role. It also took into account the recommendations contained in the previous Opinions of the CCPE, especially in Opinion No. 4 (2009) on the relations between judges and prosecutors in a democratic society.

6. The CCPE also took into consideration the European Guidelines on ethics and conduct for public prosecutors – the Budapest Guidelines4, Opinion No. 2 (2001) of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) for the attention of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the funding and management of courts with reference to the efficiency of the judiciary and to article 6 of the ECHR, as well as the Report of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) entitled “European Judicial Systems: Edition 2010” and the Report of the Venice Commission on European Standards as regards the independence of the judicial system – Part II: the Prosecution Service5.

    B. Scope and purpose of the Opinion (Maria-Antonella BINO)

    1. Scope of the opinion

7. The present Opinion applies to prosecution services as regards the execution of all functions entrusted to them in accordance with the law. The prosecution assumes a key role in the criminal justice system. In particular, as the authority charged with monitoring the application of the law and prosecuting any divergent behaviour the prosecution service must respond to the common need to combat domestic and international crime.

8. At present the prosecution service is confronted with an increasing density of crime that gives rise to a growing feeling of insecurity. Expansion of organised crime, acts of terrorism and anarchy (disorder) in certain areas as well as the development of transborder cybercrime requires an increased efficiency of repressive action, due to the serious danger they represent for the society.

9. This requires significant human and technical resources. Therefore prosecution services need to have at their disposal appropriate means, particularly financial, even in time of economic crisis.

    2. Purpose of the Opinion

10. The autonomy of management represents a guarantee of independence and efficiency of the prosecution. Nevertheless the power of prosecution services to manage autonomously their own budgets and resources varies from one member State to another.

11. Therefore (a number of) common principles emerge. Among them: recognition of the need for a structural and financial independence of the prosecution and the current trend towards an increasing autonomy of management. The need to rely on management professionals is a necessary precondition of this. Thus the elaboration of common principles as regards the management of means, particularly financial, should be encouraged.

12. Taking into account the current situation in each member State, the present Opinion aims at elaborating proposals and recommendations permitting to identify the needs and employ the resources of prosecution services in an efficient manner.


13. The efficiency of prosecutorial activities depends, to some extent, on the resources allocated to the prosecution service.

14. The resources allocated for carrying out prosecutors’ activities should be commensurate with the tasks and functions imposed on prosecutors, including for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

15. Member states are responsible for allocating the necessary resources, including funds adequate to the needs of prosecution service.

16. The financial resources of any prosecution service should not depend on political changes in the parliament and the executive branch and should be a constituent part of the state budget. Despite the fact that allocation of funds to the prosecution service is deemed to be a political decision, it would be advisable to ensure that the legislative and executive authorities concerned could not unduly influence the prosecution service when making decision on its budget. The decision on the allocation of means to the prosecution service should be made in strict accordance with the principle of its independency.

17. The official procedures for submitting and examining proposals for financing the prosecution service should ensure that the allocated funds be sufficient enough in view of the important role of the prosecutors in the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as in creating a socially oriented state governed by the rule of law. Allocations from budget and other types of resources for the prosecutorial activities are needed to enable efficient execution of prosecutors’ functions and competences stipulated by the law.

18. It seems advisable for the prosecution service to take part, along with the executive branch, in the elaboration of a part of state budget on the issues of financing of the prosecution service, and participate in the parliamentary debates on relevant provisions of the draft budget.

19. The right of the prosecution office to contact the parliament directly in order to express its opinion concerning its needs may be one of the forms of its active involvement in the elaboration of its own budget. It would be also advisable for the prosecution service to take part in consideration of budgetary issues concerned in the parliament, including in its specialized committees.

20. The procedure for adopting the budget of the prosecution service should provide for taking into consideration the opinion of the prosecution service itself.

21. It should be ensured that the allocation of resources for professional training of prosecutors be in conformity with the international principles and standards concerning such training.

22. Not less important issue to be taken into consideration by member states is allocation of resources for introducing new technologies into the prosecutors’ activities.

23. The management of budgetary resources allocated to the prosecution service should be conducted by the prosecution service itself.

24. If the prosecution service is entrusted with managing its own resources, the state should arrange for appropriate training of prosecutors and provide to them necessary assistance in accomplishing such a function. In any case it is important that the responsibility for all administrative decisions related to allocation of resources which directly affect the prosecution service’s activities should be laid on the prosecution service itself.

A. Core needs of prosecution services and financial regulations (Harald RANGE)

25. The core need for the prosecution services is to be able to comply with their legal tasks. For example, in states, where prosecution offices are ruled by the principle of legality, they have to be able to investigate all crimes that as a matter of law need to be investigated. The rule of law is not to be impaired by monetary restrictions. Thus there should be no limit for the budget of the prosecution service within the field of investigative necessities.

26. To allow for the sufficient allocation of means by parliament, the estimated costs need to be calculated in advance. This requires reliable schemes of budget planning. Criminal statistics of previous years may serve as a basis to elaborate an overall minimum budget for the prosecution service in the year or time period to come.

27. Budget lines for the prosecution service must, however, under all circumstances allow for quick reactions to unforeseen developments. This includes a redistribution of funds within the prosecution service as well as the general allocation of further means by parliament to comply with the exigencies of effective law enforcement.

28. These basic conditions respected it is of no importance whether the prosecution service is run independently or on a joint budget together with the courts. What is needed is a strong advocate for the course of justice who is in an adequate position for the necessary negotiations with parliament.

29. Controlling and auditing are core elements to assure the diligent management of public funds. Yet, they have to be adapted to the specific tasks of the prosecution services. Due to its special mission the use of funds spent on investigating crimes cannot be assessed by cost performance calculation; by no means are investigations to be determined by cost effectiveness. Auditing must be restricted to the administration of the prosecution services such as investments in infrastructure. Controlling may be a useful instrument to establish best practices within the prosecution service as a means to compare the handling of cases in different units but may not be used as a means to govern the prosecution service as such.

B. Specific needs (Peter POLT/Vladimir ZIMIN)

1. Needs of the prosecutor in the criminal law field

30. Adequate allocation of resources for ensuring prosecution activities is a necessary pre-condition for implementing the principle of the prosecutors’ independence, including when they act in the criminal law area.

31. Financial independence of prosecutors is not a privilege, granted for their personal benefit, but a guarantee of fairness of criminal prosecution, protection of human rights and freedoms in criminal proceedings, and finally, of proper administration of criminal justice.

a. With regard to investigations

32. The management of financial resources of on-going investigations varies significantly in the different Member States. The same diversity is true for the role of the Prosecution Services in the course of the investigation. In some of the Member States the Prosecution Service itself has investigative power in relation to certain crimes stipulated by law and crimes committed by a special circle of defendants. In other Member States the Prosecution Service has no investigative power, but it has the right to order the investigative authorities to carry out investigative acts.

33. The costs of the given investigative act are usually advanced by the investigating authority actually executing it. In many Members States therefore prosecutors often face the problem that investigating authorities – with reference to their low budgetary means – deny to, or are reluctant to execute the prosecutorial order to carry out investigative acts. This problem is especially delicate in cases where extra costs occur (e.g. when expertise on DNA and homogenetics or the use of special investigative techniques is needed).

34. The prosecutor can be the master of the criminal case in the investigation phase of the procedure only if the financial position of the Prosecution Service enables him to be so. Therefore, the Prosecution Services of the Members States need to have at their disposal – as a separate chapter in their budget – the sufficient resources for the advancement of all the necessary investigative acts (including those of extra cost) to be executed either by the Prosecution Service itself or by the investigative authorities on the order of the prosecutor. This kind of approach would significantly contribute to carry out comprehensive investigations and avoid deviations in criminal procedures.

35. In addition to the advancement of the costs of the investigative acts, special attention should be paid to the full imposition and – if necessary - to the strict and consistent recovering of these costs. The necessary mechanisms should be set up in order to be able to recover – from the persons concerned - all possible costs advanced or borne during the criminal procedure by the different authorities. From the point of view of the Member States and their judicial bodies the consistent recovering of the costs of the criminal procedures is of special importance at the time of the global financial and economic crises hitting us today.

36. Member states wherein investigation is one of the functions entrusted in the prosecution service should:

- ensure that funds can be used immediately and without obstruction by the prosecution service for conducting any investigative and other procedural actions necessary for effective and impartial investigation;

- allocate to prosecutors material and technical resources which enable them to apply special modern technologies during investigation and supervision over observance of laws during investigations (computer search engines and search systems, equipment for conducting forensic expertise, electronic data bases, videoconferencing etc.).

37. Prosecution service should not be unduly restricted in managing the budget resources allocated for the investigation purposes. But the utilization of such resources should be rational, effective and transparent.

38. In case of necessity in order to promote efficiency of countering crime, it is necessary to organize specialization and training of prosecutors in relation to specific crimes committed with the use of modern technologies (for instance, high- tech crimes).

39. Provisions should be taken against prioritised allocation of funds for investigating particular crimes to the detriment of investigating other socially dangerous offences.

b. With regard to other functions of prosecution

40. It is necessary to ensure that the number of prosecutors is not less than the number of judges in the first, appellate and cassation instances.

41. The material and social remuneration of prosecutors should preferably not be lower than that of judges.

42. It is necessary to ensure the involvement of prosecutors in using modern techniques of criminal proceedings, including in E-justice processes.

43. While carrying out other functions related to criminal prosecution, the prosecutors (and if appropriate, members of their families) should be provided with proper working conditions related to their safety.

44. For this purpose member states also should take necessary measures to ensure that prosecutors and their families are physically protected by special state authorities when their personal safety is threatened as a result of the proper discharge of their professional duties.

45. Minimal standards should be observed concerning the security of prosecutors, provided for by the relevant documents of the United Nations Organization, Council of Europe and International Association of Prosecutors (IAP).

46. More and more expenses are caused by ever increasing participation of prosecutors in international cooperation in criminal matters which includes a wide range of issues such as extradition, assistance in criminal matters, seizure and confiscation of criminal assets.

47. To ensure that international cooperation can be carried out expeditiously and efficiently, proper funds are needed, in particular, to apply modern information technologies in sending and executing requests for legal assistance, including by videoconferencing, and in encryption; to pay for visits of prosecutors abroad to participate in international events, including consultations and negotiations, particularly with the view of drafting international conventions; to pay for interpretation and translation.

48. Certain funds are needed for organizing international conferences and seminars, and taking measures to promote the efficiency of international cooperation, including seconding liaison officers to the national embassies in foreign states, and paying the activities of joint investigation teams and relevant coordination bodies (for example, Eurojust, European Judicial Network, Consultative Council of Prosecutors General of the CIS States, and Consultative Council of European Prosecutors).

2. Needs of the prosecutor outside the criminal law field

49. The prosecutorial activities outside the criminal law field, which, to different extent, are performed in most member states of the Council of Europe, sometimes require special forensic examination and involvement of specialists from different areas of expertise (for instance, psychologists in cases related to family law, accountants and financial experts on bankruptcy, chemists and biologists in the matters related to environmental protection).

50. Depending on the variety and extent of work the need may arise to create within a prosecution service specialized units to perform activities outside the field of the criminal law in general or in particular fields (for instance, in the area of corruption or environmental protection).

51. Obviously, the specific nature of this activity may require special training of the personnel.


A. Human resources (Antonio VERCHER)

52. It goes without saying that crime itself is increasingly an international phenomenon. This explains the growing number of Prosecutors in the different European legal systems, which is the logical reaction from the States to counteract the increase of criminality and to prevent crime.

53. It is important to underline, however, that growing criminality is due to increasing international integration and globalisation, expanding international trade and increasing international data flow. This reality means new ways and possibilities to commit crimes, which, consequently, implies the need to co-operate in its detection and the apprehension and prosecution of criminals, as well as to receive a special training to be able to face the threats posed by the above mentioned phenomena. This approach was openly expressed in the Explanatory Memorandum of Recommendation Rec (2000) 19 of the Council of Europe and it is implied in the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, which took place in Milan in 1985.

54. Moreover, since Prosecutors have to be objective and fair in the performance of their professional tasks, there is a certain trend in the European legal systems to provide them with a higher degree of autonomy.

55. As a result, there is an expanding demand for human resources in the Public Prosecutors Offices, as well as the necessary material and budgetary means to carry out the prosecutorial tasks. If one also takes into account the fact that in a number of countries Prosecutors also perform their tasks outside the criminal law field, this demand certainly becomes much more evident.

56. In fact, the new Public Prosecutors Offices, in the vast majority of European countries, are perceived as much more complex and sophisticated than the traditional Offices.

57. Generally speaking, there are three different professional levels which may integrate the staff of the modern Public Prosecutors Office:

- The legal level is normally integrated by the Public Prosecutors themselves, with their assistants. Occasionally, it may also be convenient to hire or to recruit lawyers, whenever they may be needed as a way to complete the legal unit in the Public Prosecutor Office. In that case, recruited lawyers may be used to reinforce the legal staff, either to deal with specific complex cases, or to support any specialized area -criminal or not-, in which the Public Prosecutor may be competent.

- There is an open list of different experts which may integrate the technical units which are part, or are under the control, of the Public Prosecutors Office. For instance, psychologists or psychiatrists may be essential to deal with cases of juvenile delinquency, of mentally ill criminals, or to assist victims. Sociologists and experts in statistics may be of great use when there is a need to supply with statistical data. It may also be convenient to resort to computer engineers to research anything which has to do with cybercrimes, or biologists or chemists to investigate environmental crimes, etc., etc.

58. Finally, the administrative staff is an essential part of the Public Prosecutors Office. Their members are the better trained people to cope with the bureaucratic workload of cases which inevitably increases in parallel with the specialization or complexity of matters dealt by the Prosecutor.

59. Needless to say that a system to calculate the workload of Prosecutors must be designed in order to identify their evolving needs. This system should be also able to measure those factors that influence or affect the professional tasks of the Prosecutor, so that those legal areas in which the Public Prosecutor is competent are properly treated and no legal loopholes exist.

B. Financial resources (Gabriela SCUTEA)

60. The main source of funding for the Prosecution Services is the state budget, which is generally endorsed by the Parliament. In some legal systems, the Prosecution Service is directly involved in defining the budgetary needs and is responsible for the budget management whereas in others the executive intermediates such tasks on behalf of the public prosecution. The state budget basically covers the immediate needs to safeguard the primary tasks of the Prosecution Services such as personnel costs, goods, services and investment costs. Most of the time, the funds allotted from the state budget are not enough to cover more complex tasks.

61. Prosecution Services may also access external public funds mainly originating from the EU, World Bank or donor developed states. Yet, such funds only target specific aspects for the activity of the prosecution such as specialized training for the staff, implementation of modern management or investigation techniques or promote the international cooperation. The EU Member States have access to Union grants, on a competitive basis, with a view to develop a European judicial culture and strengthen the relationship among prosecutor’s offices, including via funding of joint investigation teams. Usually, the states have to provide further funding to ensure the sustainability of such tasks and sometimes this becomes an extra-burden for the state budget.

62. Although on short term the impact of such funding seems low, on long term it proves its benefits and Prosecution Services are strongly encouraged to access extra funds.

63. Generally, the management of the funds granted by international organizations is regulated by the donor organization/state through clear and strict procedures the beneficiary has to comply with. The use of external funds are limited to the purpose they were allocated. The process is very transparent making from this tool a legitimate source of funding activities meant to fine-tune specialized tasks of the public prosecution.

64. However, Prosecution Services should be reluctant to accessing funds provided by non-governmental organizations where the aim and the criteria for their accessing are not clear and transparent and could be interpreted as means to corrupt officials.

65. The general principles of using the public resources, both from state allocations and extra funding should be observed: the principle of opportunity, the principle of efficiency and effectiveness and the principle of legality. When in the use of such resources are involved more than one body, their observance must be doubled by a careful coordination to ensure the duplication of efforts is avoided and financial means are channeled to the achievement of the final goal.

66. As such, for cases when other bodies are involved in investigations, the Prosecution Services are advised to apply policies meant to ensure complementarity and value for money for the overall inputs, avoiding overlapping of resources.

67. Prosecution Services should enjoy as much autonomy in budgetary matters as possible, as an effect of the application of the principles that govern the planning and use of public funds.

68. It should be the task of the Prosecution Service to define its own budget, based on its own needs analysis and workload, cost and performance indicators specific for the prosecution activity. Crime occurrence is evolving all the time and as such the need of the prosecution to intervene and make use of resources. If the financial means of the prosecution are allotted only based on historical figures and macroeconomic indicators, countering crimes could be seriously hampered.

69. It is not necessary that the prosecutor him/herself be directly involved and specialized in the process of planning and managing the financial means. Prosecution Services should, where appropriate, include specialized personnel with background on finance and management to carry out such function and ensure the accountability for the use of resources. However, prosecutors should be aware that they could link with such specialized personnel and highlight their needs which are to be transposed in resources.

70. Prosecution Services should be permitted to access more resources. Member States are encouraged to explore developing of confiscation polices that enable the capitalization of the confiscated goods and their use to fund the activity of the prosecution and judiciary in general.

71. Prosecution Services are encouraged to conclude agreements with other state authorities with a view to share facilities and administrative services or participate to joint actions.

72. As an effect of the principle of legality of the use of public resources, the financial management performed by the Prosecution Services independently should be subject, when appropriate, to supervision from the state authorities with control and audit attributions, similar to other public institutions.

73. Member States should take appropriate measures to give full effect to the Recommendation (2000)19 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the role of public prosecution in the criminal justice system and in particular to ensure that public prosecutors are able to perform their professional duties and responsibilities without unjustified interference or unjustified exposure to civil liability.

74. In this respect, Member States should consider having the liability of the public prosecutors for judicial errors only subsidiary to the state liability. In legal systems providing for professional insurance for prosecutor’s judicial errors, the implementation of such regulations must be doubled by effective implementation measures and Member States should closely monitor the functionality of the process.

C. Equipment and material resources (Gabriela SCUTEA)

75. Prosecution Services are urged to implement and use centralized IT systems for planning, monitoring and comparing the expenditure of prosecution services, as a practical and efficient method to balance the use of resources versus the workload of the territorial services, generating benchmarks for using resources at the level of different offices, enabling the quick reallocation of resources when needed and finally ensuring accountability of the expenditures.

76. Member States are encouraged to supply prosecution services with the necessary means to implement the use of IT equipment in their daily work. Prosecution Services should consider implementing and using E-justice tools, common IT systems with the judiciary, electronic case management permitting to reduce the length of the proceedings and secured electronic tools to ensure the data protection.

77. Member States are also required to support the need of the prosecution services to have available adequate premises where the public can be received, as a further means to support and facilitate access to justice.

D. The means of prosecution services and government austerity plans (Peter POLT/Olivier DE BAYNAST)

78. Although the total nominal volume of appropriations for the Prosecution Services in most of the countries increased between 2008 and 2011, in the questionnaire answered by the Member State prosecutions during the preparation of this Opinion the vast majority pointed out that the recent economic crisis affected their financial situation to some extent. The magnitude of this effect seems to vary from the introduction of a general policy towards making savings and redistributing resources to core activities at the expense of e.g. capital investment, on the one hand, to radical cuts in the salaries of prosecutors, on the other. Most respondents assessed the resources currently at the disposal of the Prosecution Services of their countries as insufficient and obtaining additional human and financial resources is seen as a priority in a number of the Member States.

79. As an effect of the global financial and economic crises Member State Prosecution Services have to face new challenges. In many countries criminality increased or its structure has changed significantly. As austerity may have contra productive effect, in the present situation Member States should endeavour to provide for the Prosecution Services better technical equipment, better access to training for the staff and better access to technical expertise that is required in support of evidence used in courts.

80. The Prosecution Services themselves have their own tasks in annulling or at least minimising the negative effect of the economic crises on their everyday work. By better cooperation and coordination between the European and domestic actors of fight against crime the current situation can improve considerably. On European level the different possibilities for cooperation in criminal matters (e.g. through Eurojust or by conducting joint investigations) should be used much more extensively. On domestic level agreements with other local, regional and national authorities permitting to share administrative services, office facilities and support staff, or improved cooperation with other controlling authorities (such as tax inspectorates) may help in overcoming the present problems.

81. The economic crises shall not influence the quality of prosecutorial work in a negative way. The introduction of new structures within the Prosecution Services (e.g. establishment of specialised units for fight against economic criminality and corruption) or in the system of financing the prosecution (e.g. providing budgetary autonomy in countries where Prosecution Services do not have it) can contribute on a large scale to keep up professional quality.

E. Management by results (Raija TOIVIAINEN/Alessandra GIRALDI)

82. In some Member States, activities of the prosecution service are managed according to the principle of management by results. This concept covers an interactive, agreement-based steering model, where resources are allocated based on agreed and expected activity. The principal idea in management by results is for the parties to establish an appropriate balance between the resources available and the results to be attained. The purpose of management by results in the Prosecution Service is to ensure that the resources of local prosecution offices are balanced with objectives and that operating efficiency is balanced with operating quality to the best possible extent. Another purpose is to ensure that desired results are attained cost-effectively. Furthermore, management by results creates transparency with regard to justifying how resources are used which may be an effective tool when negotiation further resources.

83. A performance agreement is a steering instrument established on the basis of performance negotiations, between a fiscal government body (i.e. the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Justice or Parliament) and the Prosecution Service. Prosecution Services should themselves participate in these negotiations as they know best how to set the objectives for its outputs in order to guide prosecutors in their actual work. The Prosecution Service should have sufficient liberty for setting its objectives so as to achieve the best possible results.

84. The basic criteria for evaluating performance and allocating resources are a definition of core outcomes and outputs. The outcomes of the Prosecution Service consist of how well social objectives set for the service (e.g. enforcement of criminal liability) have been attained. Outputs, on the other hand, concern objectives which the Prosecution Service can itself influence through its own activities and how they are managed, i.e. operating efficiency, quality control and management of human resources. In order to apply an activity based allocation of resources, a clear definition of output must be in place.

85. Outputs should be closely linked to the Prosecution Service’s core activities and available resources, so that attainment of the objectives depends solely on what the agency does and how it is managed. Objectives should be realistic yet challenging, and also clear and measurable. Attention should be paid to the fact that definition of outputs will impact on the activities carried out by prosecutors.

86. Performance negotiations should produce a written agreement detailing the objectives set and the resources allocated to their attainment, and also the criteria by which the operations of the Prosecution Service are monitored and evaluated. Prosecution authorities should actively be involved in negotiating the agreement.

87. The Prosecution Service is responsible for attaining the set objectives and for its outputs. Management by results requires the agency to report on the attainment of objectives. Typically, local prosecution offices report to the Office of the Prosecutor General, which in turn reports to the government body allocating the resources. How well the objectives are attained will influence the objectives set and the resources allocated for the next operating period. Evaluation and measurement of results in a clear and reliable way is vital, but may pose a challenge. Good performance indicators show what has been achieved, not what actions have been taken. Evaluation of whether the objectives of the Prosecution Service have been attained or not should always be followed by decisions on concrete measures. These may concern not only the Prosecution Service itself but also the government body responsible for steering, if it transpires that the central government has through its actions substantially undermined the performance capacity of the Prosecution Service.


To be completed

1. Prosecution services must have sufficient means in order to fulfil their various mission (cf CEPEJ report)

2. Prosecutors should estimate their needs, negotiate their budget and decide how to use the resources allocated

3. Prosecution services have final responsibility for the budgets allocated to them. Links with results of the services

4. Modern management methods should be used. Necessary transparency

5. Need for a flexibility in the management of budgets

6. Management training for prosecutors to be ensured

7. Resources to be adapted to the new challenges related to the globalisation.

8. The situation of economic crisis currently requires additional efforts from prosecutors. Justice needs to be done, even if the situation is difficult

9. Prosecutors must be consulted on the savings to be made

10. Is the management by results the solution?

11. Necessary coordination between the prosecutor and the manager of the prosecution services

12. The accountability principle requires the body whose performance is being evaluated (the Prosecution Service) to be separate from the body evaluating that performance

13. The Prosecution Service should have a clearly defined strategic and operative responsibility for the results of its own operations and sufficient freedom to choose which actions to pursue to achieve the desired results

14. Agreeing on performance objectives should be based on genuine negotiation with room for discussing alternatives

15. A fact-finding mission to investigate management by results practices in other countries is recommended


To be decided: whether an explanatory report setting out various models of competencies with regard to establishing and managing the budgets of prosecution services should be attached to the Opinion.

1 1127th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (23 November 2011).

2 See the replies of member States to the questionnaire on the CCPE website:

3 See in particular….

4 Adopted at the 6th Conference of Prosecutors General of Europe in May 2006.

5 Adopted at the 85th plenary session of the Venice Commission (17-18 December 2010).