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.

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.