A Permanent Chamber may also, either at the request of a European Prosecutor or a European Delegated Prosecutor or on its own initiative, invite other European Prosecutors or European Delegated Prosecutors who are concerned by a case to attend its meetings without a right to vote.

24. Takes good note of the adoption of constitutional amendments establishing Specialist Chambers and a Specialist Prosecution Office; welcomes the finalisation of the negotiations between Kosovo and the Netherlands on the host state agreement, and expects the Specialist Chambers to be fully operational as soon as possible, and the Specialist Prosecution Office to have sufficient staff to carry out its tasks; calls on the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecution Office to draw on the experience and the best practices of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), in accordance with the relevant const ...[+++]itutional provisions on their establishment; calls on the Kosovo authorities to cooperate fully with the new court; calls for the EU and its Member States to provide sufficient funds for the functioning of the Chambers;

– having regard to the judgment of the International Court of Justice of 26 February 2007 on the Case concerning application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), the judgment of 2 August 2001 issued by the Trial Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Former Yugoslavia since 1991 (Prosecutor v Radislav Krstic), and the judgment of 19 April 2004 issued by its Appeals Chamber in the same case,

– having regard to: the judgment of the International Court of Justice of 26 February 2007 on the Case concerning application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), the judgment of 2 August 2001 issued by the Trial Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Former Yugoslavia since 1991 (Prosecutor v Radislav Krstic), and the judgment of 19 April 2004 issued by its Appeals Chamber in the same case,

Such authorisation shall be deemed to be refused if Parliament has not ruled on it within three months from the submission to the Speaker of Parliament of the Public Prosecutor’s application for a prosecution.

as regards reviewing the Prosecutor’s activities, either in the case of investigations carried out under the Prosecutor’s authority (judge of freedoms) or with regard to committals for trial (national judge), any practical advantages to be derived from recourse to the national system (swifter procedure) must be set against the need for a uniform approach in the application and interpretation of Community law, for fairness in determining which court has jurisdiction and for fundamental rights (which could be guaranteed by means of a Preliminary Chamber within th ...[+++]e Court of Justice) to be upheld; believes that it is necessary for the future European Prosecutor to be placed under a judicial control which would make it possible to lodge subsequent appeals against his decisions and better monitor his work; considers that it must be clearly established that any acts of the European Prosecutor which relate to people's fundamental rights must be subject to judicial review;