The choice in the EPPO Regulation to establish the material scope of the EPPO by referring to the provisions in the PIF Directive “as implemented by national law” implies that the exact scope of competence of this first European investigating and prosecuting authority finally arises out of national legislations. As a result, the latter becomes decisive in setting the boundaries of individual responsibility in the concrete case. As it was in the past under the force of the third pillar instruments, the level and quality of implementation at national level remain crucial. The first report of the Commission on the implementation of the PIF Directive did raise several critiques in this respect. As a matter of fact, a significant number of infringement proceedings have been launched by the Commission following the worrying findings of the Implementation Report on the PIF Directive.

The legal framework under which the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) is called to operate is particularly complex, given the need for this body to exercise its functions in the legal systems of the Member States, applying both Union and national law. While this may justify the many references to national law contained in the EPPO’s founding Regulation (2017/1939), several among these references present relevant interpretative issues, and may in some cases even have a misleading effect. The article aims at showing examples of these different scenarios. It also touches briefly on the relevance of soft law in the legal framework of the EPPO.

The first of June 2021 marked the start of the operational activities of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). Established by Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 (‘EPPO Regulation’), the EPPO is the European Union body competent to investigate, prosecute and bring to judgment the perpetrators of criminal offences affecting the Union’s financial interests. The EPPO was established by means of enhanced cooperation. At the time of writing, five Member States do not participate in the EPPO: Denmark, Ireland, Poland, Hungary and Sweden. The effective action against crimes affecting the Union budget requires however smooth cooperation between the EPPO and its counterparts not only in the Member States that participate in the enhanced cooperation, but also in the non-participating Member States. This contribution delves into such cooperation and the several issues it raises, first providing for some introductory remarks on the choice of some Member States not to join the enhanced cooperation on the EPPO. It then analyses the two main provisions of the EPPO Regulation concerning the EPPO’s relations with non-participating Member States, Article 99 and, most importantly, Article 105. Finally, this contribution shortly addresses the relevant role played by Eurojust in this context.

The issue of cross-border admissibility of evidence is a recurring theme of European Criminal Justice, and continues to be perceived as a decisive obstacle hindering the effective prosecution and adjudication of crime. In spite of this, the EPPO Regulation does not include an extensive framework guaranteeing the cross-border admissibility of evidence. In this article, it is argued that this lacuna is far less worrisome than it seems: the boundaries set out by EU primary law, in particular Article 325(4) TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR), as well as the opportunity of the ECJ to judge on these boundaries, allow for a sufficient convergence of national laws and practices on the (in-)admissibility of evidence.

The article analyses the first question referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling in a case concerning the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). It involves the interpretation of a key provision regarding the investigations of this new office, i.e. Art. 31 of Council Regulation EU 2017/1939. This provision governs investigative measures that need to be undertaken in a Member State other than the Member State of the handling European Delegated Prosecutor. In the case at issue, the Oberlandesgericht Wien, Austria is seeking clarification as to the extent of judicial review if it comes to cross-border investigations within this regime. The author argues that the case raises a number of key issues for the functioning of the EPPO regarding its structure and operation, not to mention the EPPO’s relevance in the creation of a common area of justice in the European Union.

This article argues that, with the establishment of the EPPO, the European Union intended to pursue, through the integration of procedural powers vested within the EPPO and OLAF, the creation of an “end-to-end” prosecution cycle that is able to seek both criminal penalties and administrative/financial sanctions, such as asset forfeiture and the restoration of damages caused by violations and misuse of EU funds. The authors reach the conclusion that this newly established holistic approach for the prosecution of administrative violations and criminal activities increases the effectiveness of the work of all EU bodies in tackling crime, securing punishments for the criminal perpetrators, and increasing the possibility for the misappropriated funds to be recovered.

The European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) has been very effective in tackling cross-border VAT frauds and other criminal offences that affect EU financial interests. 'We have currently more than a thousand of cases under investigation, says Daniëlle Goudriaan, European Prosecutor at the EPPO.