This contribution aims to shed light on some issues concerning the cross-border cases (already or potentially) falling within the competence of the EPPO. The notion of “cross-border cases” – them being PIF offences or other offences – encompasses at least three scenarios:
i) Cases involving two or more Member States participating in the EPPO, including cases where the criminal activity is carried out in a single country, but the suspect has a habitual residence in, or is a national of, another Member State;
ii) Cases involving two or more Member States, one of which is not part of enhanced cooperation;
iii) Cases involving at least one third country.
In the scenarios under ii) and iii), the controversial topic is how to regulate the relations of the EPPO with the competent authorities of non-participating Member States or third countries. In contrast, the scenario under i) brings to the fore issues concerning the efficient handling … Read more

The article presents the substantive criminal-law initiative against EU-fraud, which was adopted by the Commission on 11 July 2012. After giving an overview of the status quo of criminal law protection and its challenges, the author analysis in detail the Commission proposal for the so-called PIF Directive.

The Commission’s proposal for the Regulation establishing a European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) had been under negotiation within the Council for more than three years. Remarkably, the Regulation provides for shared competence between the Member States and the EPPO as regards the prosecution of PIF offences, whereas the original proposal provided for an exclusive competence of the Office.

The most striking change during the negotiations, however, relates to the very design of the EPPO. Member States have been advocating a shift towards a College model – allowing them to designate European Prosecutors who will be members of the European body of the Office. This change may result in an EPPO that will be less decentralized than originally foreseen in the Commission’s proposal. The currently envisaged layout can therefore be considered a mix between the decentralized and the College models.

Against this backdrop, the article first analyses the structure … Read more

The establishment of a European prosecution office with the competence to fight crimes against the financial interests of the EU has been the subject of discussion for many years . Twenty years after the Corpus Juris experts recommended setting up a European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) and four years after the Commission tabled its proposal , the Regulation establishing the EPPO received the European Parliament's consent on 5 October 2017 and was finally adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council on 12 October 2017 under enhanced cooperation with 20 Member States . The Regulation was published in the Official Journal on 31 October 2017 and entered into force on 20 November 2017.
The EPPO will be an independent European prosecution office competent for investigating and prosecuting the crimes.
This article sets out the main elements of the Regulation, outlines the expected advantages of the EPPO, illustrates the next steps … Read more

The article reflects on the future of financial criminal law investigations of the EU. It departs from the experts’ studies conducted which have developed the Corpus Juris Model, and recalls the historic development of the subsequent institutional debate up to the Lisbon Reform Treaty. The reform on OLAF’s functional independence and accountability is put into the context of a possible work plan to complete the reflections. Ultimately, the author outlines a way ahead, which possibly enables financial criminal investigations of the EU to be conducted under the lead of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

The adoption of the regulation establishing the European Public Prosecutor's Office is a decisive step in the completion of the institutional settings for the protection of the EU’s financial interests. This article looks back at the origins of the project and recalls its underlying rationale. It further critically analyses the legislative procedure, studies the contents of the compromise reached, and provides insight into the requirements for efficient operation of the EPPO in cooperation with its partners. By way of concluding remarks, three perspectives are outlined that require further analysis and closer scrutiny, i.e.:
- Efforts in common training schemes;
- Need for criminal investigation and enforcement support;
- Reflections on the merger of the EPPO and Eurojust