Op 1 juni 2021 werd het Europees Openbaar Ministerie operationeel. Ook Nederland is een deelnemende staat. Onlangs kwam de Nederlandse invoeringswet tot stand. Die kenmerkt zich door haar bondigheid. Daarmee blijft onduidelijk wat de strafrechtspleging van het EOM kan verwachten en wat het EOM op zijn beurt van de actoren in de strafrechtspleging en de partners daarbuiten verwacht.

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 Union has set itself the objective of establishing an area of freedom, security and justice. To achieve this goal and strengthen the trust of citizens in our institutions, the protection of the Union’s financial interests is an absolute necessity and of utmost importance. Every year, the Member States indeed lose billions of euros in revenue, inter alia value added tax (VAT), due to cross-border carousel fraud depriving the European Union of a substantial amount of its budget. In addition, hundreds of millions of European structural funds are misappropriated or misused for wrongful purposes each year.

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.

Even before the initiation of an investigation, the Permanent Chamber may have to take a decision, notably when the EDP, after verification of a criminal complaint, is of the view that there are no reasons to initiate an investigation. The Permanent Chamber can “overrule” the EDP’s decision and instruct the EDP to start an investigation. Equally, at later stages of the proceedings, e.g., when the verdict is handed down at the end of the trial, the decision whether to lodge an appeal or not, will, in principle, be taken by the Permanent Chamber at the central level upon proposal from the EDP who represents the EPPO in court.