The effectiveness of the EPPO demands a functional interpretation of Art. 22(3) of the EPPO Regulation . Yet, the precise contour of this functional interpretation is far from being shaped, and such a task must be accomplished by practitioners, academics, and jurisprudence in the years to come.

The EPPO and OLAF shall not only co-exist, but also take advantage of their capacities, professional knowledge and the new legal options in order to become a powerful tool for combating fraud.

Differences in the criminal systems of the 22 participating Member States will certainly be a challenge for the EPPO when conducting investigations at the national level and, in particular, when using evidence obtained from other Member States. How competent courts in individual Member States react to the impact of evidence gathered in other Member States under the EPPO Regulation will be shown in practice. Surely, the sooner the EPPO starts producing some tangible results, the sooner it will be recognized by European taxpayers as an effective and efficient instrument in the protection of the European Union’s budget.

The Permanent Chambers are the genuine multinational element in the EPPO’s proceedings.

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.

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office should ensure that crime does not pay.