European Public Prosecutor Research Articles

EPPO and a common sense of justice

This article discusses the Union’s general inspirational idea of creating a ‘common sense of justice’ and its implications with reference to the development of the European Public Prosecutor. When the Commission presented its vision of an area of justice, it declared that the ‘ambition is to give citizens a common sense of justice throughout the Union’. Although a sense of justice seems to be something psychological and emotional, it also seems almost inevitably to promote EU integration. The article discusses the various roles that the EPPO may have in contributing to a common sense of justice and in particular the EPPO’s objective of achieving a Union-wide coherent practice on prosecution and penalty levels. It analyses critically whether this practice – by mediating between the different ‘common’ senses of justice in each Member State – is capable of contributing to a common sense of justice.

The journey of EU criminal law on the ship of fools – what are the implications for supranational governance of EU criminal justice agencies?

This article addresses supranational governance of EU criminal justice agencies from the perspective of the various agencies of policy and rulemaking who have contributed to the impressive developments in the field of EU criminal law. Taking as a working hypothesis the happenstance and haphazard character of this field of policy and law, it suggests that there is an absence of design. In the discussion the article proposes the Platonic analogy of the ‘ship of fools’ (Plato, Republic, Book VI) as an explanatory tool. The ship's captain is the guiding spirit of criminal law, but the crew of the ship, who have the power to take control, have diverse interests and ideas about how the ship should be taken to sea and navigated. The article addresses thematically and chronologically the development of EU criminal policy by means of this framework. Subsequently it discusses the extent to which the ‘ship of fools’ analogy is relevant to the development of EU criminal justice agencies, and to the emergence of a European Public Prosecutor. Underlying all this discussion is the uneasy sense that the true pilot of EU criminal law and policy has been displaced, in particular by ‘instrumental’ pilots of securitisation and effectiveness.

European prosecution between cooperation and integration: The European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the rule of law

The article will examine the challenges that the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office poses for the rule of law – a question which has been underexplored in the policy and academic debate on the establishment of the EPPO, which focused largely on questions of structure and powers of the EPPO and the battle between intergovernmental and supranational visions of European prosecution. The implications of the finally adopted legal framework on the EPPO on the rule of law will be analysed primarily from the perspective of the rule of law as related to EPPO investigations and prosecutions and their consequences for affected individuals – in terms of legal certainty and foreseeability, protection from executive arbitrariness, effective judicial protection and defence rights. The article will undertake a rule of law audit of the EPPO by focusing on three key elements of its legal architecture – the competence of the EPPO, applicable law and judicial review – and the interaction between EU and national levels of investigation and prosecution that the EPPO Regulation envisages. The analysis will aim to cast light on the current rule of law deficit in a hybrid system of European prosecution located somewhere between co-operation and integration.

Cooperation with EU agencies and bodies under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement: Eurojust, OLAF and the EPPO

This article will examine the provisions of Part III, Title VI of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) on Eurojust. While the agreement in the TCA with regard to Eurojust allows cooperation to continue, the new arrangements amount to a significant change. The article also looks at cooperation between the UK and other EU agencies, specifically the European Anti-Fraud Office and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, concluding that the practical impact of the UK’s departure from the EU is unlikely to be significant.

Criminal Law in Federal States: a Lesson for the EU

The article discusses the issue of federalization of criminal law in the UE. The models of federal criminal law legislation are presented with a focus on the US and Australia. Then the author looks at the competences of the EU in the area of criminal law. Recent establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is given due attention as a step towards federalization of investigation and prosecution. Advantages and disadvantages of having federal system of criminal law are presented. The author is of the opinion that federalization of European criminal law is inevitable, however there are also numerous problems related to the process. Therefore the experience of federal states should be taken into consideration while creating the EU federal or quasi-federal system.

The European Anti-Fraud Office and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office : A Work in Progress

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) are the two investigative bodies at the EU level that together will effectively detect, investigate, and protect the EU’s financial interests by combining the strengths of an administrative investigation with those of a criminal investigative approach. This article outlines in concrete terms how this cooperation is being organised. It illustrates how both offices have been equipped to follow the trail of money irregularly spent on criminal organisations, fraudsters, and corrupt individuals. It also explains the links between the two offices, the new legal framework at the basis of their cooperation, and their operational relationship. Lastly, the authors give a preview of future challenges and opportunities, with a view to outlining improvements that will contribute to the common goal of both bodies: the protection of the EU’s financial interests.

The Politics of Differentiated Integration: What do Governments Want? Country Report - Hungary

This paper evaluates the salience of differentiated integration (DI) and the positions of successive Hungarian governments since the country’s EU accession. It finds that DI has a low-salience and tends to come up in relation to specific events or policy debates. DI-related discussions rarely cross the bounds of the parliamentary arena and references to DI in government programmes, prime minister speeches and European Council statements are rare. At the conceptual level, DI salience peaked in 2017, which can be attributed to the debates on the future of Europe, even though Hungary did not officially participate in this process. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office has been the most important DI-related issue in the Hungarian context, linked also to broader problems of corruption and democratic backsliding in the country. In terms of DI positions, these tend to reflect a government-opposition pattern. More specifically, the opposition vocally rejects the concepts of ‘two-speed Europe,’ ‘multiple-speed Europe’ and most of all ‘two-tier Europe’ for fear that Hungary may be ‘left out’ or ‘left behind’ in Europe. On the other side, while successive Fidesz-governments have not embraced the concepts of two-speed or multiple-speed Europe per se, they have not completely rejected them either. Top government officials are particularly supportive of enhanced cooperation, which they view as a mechanism that empowers the Member States.

EPPO and Digital Challenges

Digital solutions play the key role in the effectiveness of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

The EPPO and the Corporate Suspect – Jurisdictional Agnosticism and Legal Uncertainties

The advent of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (“EPPO”) has been broadly welcomed throughout the European legal community, including by legal entities operating in the single market and their advisors. Even so, considerable uncertainties remain for these economic actors on how the new enforcement regime will affect them. These uncertainties stem from the fact that the twenty-two jurisdictions in which the EPPO will operate have in some cases radically different approaches to issues such as the nature of and conditions for corporate criminal liability as well as the substantive and procedural framework governing corporate criminal investigations. The fluidity with which the EPPO will conduct investigations across the EU, combined with potential unpredictability of the locus of an ultimate resolution or trial, will mean that these substantive and procedural divergences are likely to raise considerable difficulties, particularly for legal entities. The EPPO should therefore quickly establish guidelines on how to approach multi-jurisdictional investigations and proceedings involving legal entities. The absence of such guidelines will not only unnecessarily reduce companies’ ability to manage their enforcement risk, but will also negatively impact the EPPO’s effectiveness in dealing with complex corporate investigations and proceedings.

The Independence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office

An efficient and impartial European public prosecution service cannot exist without effective external independence from the EU institutions and the Member States and internal autonomy of its members.

European Public Prosecutor's Office: New Actor in EU Criminal Law

The European Public Prosecutor's Office was established under enhanced cooperation in 2017, as a new body in the institutional system of the European Union. The establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office changes the EU criminal law in a significant way, as it is the first body of the European Union, which will undertake its own investigations of criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the EU, carry out acts of prosecution and exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the Member States.

Participation in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office

Participation in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office

A Procuradoria Europeia e seu papel no fortalecimento de integração europeia

O texto ora apresentado traz à lume o momento político e econômico vivenciado pela União Europeia frente às adversidades advindas da globalização e a necessidade premente de fortalecimento da integração. O controle das fronteiras externas e o combate à criminalidade transnacional, dentre outras políticas adotadas pela União, tem por escopo manter e aperfeiçoar o espaço liberdade, segurança e justiça, com a adoção de um conjunto de medidas, dentre as quais a Cooperação Judiciária em matéria penal, que traz em seu bojo a consolidação do direito penal europeu, com a possibilidade de estabelecimento de regras mínimas relativas à definição das infrações penais e das sanções em domínios de criminalidade grave com dimensão transfronteiriça. Nessa esteira e visando o combate à criminalidade lesiva dos interesses financeiros da União, institui-se a Procuradoria Europeia, sobre cuja atuação prestes a iniciar, apresentamos algumas reflexões, fruto de questionamentos e inquietações que circundam o nascimento do novel Ministério Público europeu.

Towards a European Public Prosecutor’s Office

Towards a European Public Prosecutor’s Office

THE EUROPEAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE - AN INSTITUTION WITH A FUNDAMENTAL ROLE IN DEFINING THE EUROPEAN SECURITY SPACE

The security of the European space involves both an external and an internal component. The European authorities play an essential role in ensuring the internal security of the Community through both the security policy and the efficiency of the Community institutions. The European Public Prosecutor's Office represents a newly established institution, which through its form of organization as well as its attributions aims to ensure the internal security of the Community in the aspect of combating offenses against the financial interests of the European Union. By cooperating with the other European institutions and state authorities, the European Public Prosecutor's Office will play a decisive role in the fight against corruption.

Implementation of Effective Measures against Fraud and Illegal Activities in Cohesion Policies : An Analysis of Current Structures, a Discussion of Reform Ideas and a Look Towards Changes by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office

The article analyses the state of implementation and the effectiveness of measures applied by competent administrative programme authorities under shared management in the EU cohesion policy for the prevention, detection, correction and prosecution of fraud. It discusses the concrete initiatives taken to increase the preparedness of the management and control systems against fraud and presents the various components needed for a consistent administrative response in reaction to fraudulent irregularities. It also discusses possible reform ideas and looks at what will change with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office : Protecting the Union’s Financial Interests through Criminal Law

The protection of the financial interests of the European Union and the defence of the European financial system are two aspirations that have accompanied the European Union since its foundation. They are part of the nature of the Union, which was born to overcome the economic crisis installed in Europe after the Second World War. Today, such objectives have been recognized in the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The undeniable economic imprint of the Union is shown in the different areas in which its legislative activity is carried out. The ambitious financial policy only makes sense on a solid economic and financial context, which requires the protection of the budget and the prevention and sanction of conducts undermining the economic pillars. The European Public Prosecutor´s Office (EPPO) marks the turning point in criminal policy that seeks to strengthen the fight against fraud. In this legal context, it is interesting to highlight two aspects. First, the European legislator understands that criminal law is the most effective instrument to combat fraudulent activities affecting the financial interests of the Union; as a consequence, criminal law becomes a prima ratio barrier against crime. Second, the EPPO will be the only body to investigate and prosecute such crimes. The objective of this article is to analyse these aspects and reflect on the limits on the material competence attributed to the EPPO.

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) – Past, Present, and Future

This article first gives a brief historic overview of the long road to the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), starting with the first ideas at the meeting of the Presidents of the European Criminal Law Associations in 1995 and worked out in more detail in the Corpus Juris drafts in 1997 and 1999. The driving force was ultimately the instalment of a legal basis in the 2007 Lisbon Treaty, which paved the way for the 2013 Commission legislative proposal and the final Council decision on the Regulation establishing the EPPO by means of enhanced cooperation in 2017. The article also argues that objections to the established scheme – especially those raised by the non-participating countries and national parliaments during negotiation of the Commission proposal – should not be ignored. These objections mainly refer to infringements of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. According to the author, the arguments against subsidiarity are unfounded; however, the question remains as to whether the proportionality principle has been upheld, considering the limitation of the EPPO to prosecute PIF offences only. In order to reconcile with proportionality, the author advocates extending the EPPO’s competence to environmental crime. He draws several parallels to the situation involving PIF and calls on politicians, civil society organisations, and legal experts to think about the inclusion of crimes against the environment into EPPO’s portfolio.

OLAF – 20 Years of Protecting the Financial Interests of the EU

In 2019, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) celebrated 20 years of existence. From today’s perspective, the Office could be qualified as one of the most recognisable Directorates-General of the European Commission. This is due to its unique powers, experience and the results achieved over the past twenty years. OLAF’s main mission is to investigate fraud against the EU budget, as well as serious misconduct within the European institutions, and to develop anti-fraud policy for the European Commission. For the time being, OLAF has concluded more than 5000 cases and recommended several billion euro be returned to the EU budget. In 2018 alone, OLAF opened 219 investigations after analysing incoming information in 1259 selections. It concluded 167 investigations, which led to OLAF issuing 256 recommendations to competent authorities at EU and national level. This article focuses on the processes that led to the establishment of OLAF, the results that the Office has achieved so far and the new challenges the Office will face in the near future, such as cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and new priorities for its investigative activities.

Twenty Years since Tampere : The Development of Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters

Twenty years having passed since the Conclusions of the European Council in Tampere, which proposed the principle of mutual recognition as the “cornerstone” of judicial cooperation within the Union, the author takes the opportunity to reflect on the main achievements in this sector before and after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. From the enthusiasm following the adoption of the European Arrest Warrant to the recently achieved European Investigation Order and the Regulation on freezing and confiscation orders, the panorama of mutual recognition still seems to be characterized by excessive fragmentation. After Tampere and following the adoption of the consecutive programmes of action of 2004 (The Hague) and 2009 (Stockholm), no really new strategic guidelines have been adopted by the heads of state and governments, notwithstanding the clear mandate assigned to them by Art. 68 TFEU. Looking forward to the new Strategic Guidelines to be adopted in March 2020, the European Council indeed seems to have for a long while abdicated from its leading role in streamlining objectives in the sector of criminal justice, an area that would enormously benefit from clear orientation guidelines for future initiatives of the new European Commission. As examples, the article proposes fostering the rationalization and simplification of the disparate instruments of cooperation and forging the future relationship between the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and Eurojust, in particular concerning the possible expansion of their respective competences and scope