This article outlines the new Directive on the violation of Union restrictive measures (EU sanctions), adopted on 24 April 2024. This legislation, initiated by the European Commission in the aftermath of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, above all aims to harmonise across the Member States criminal offences and penalties for the violation of EU sanctions, to strengthen the enforcement of EU sanctions, and to facilitate the confiscation of assets subject to EU sanctions. Lastly, the article examines the possible extension of the competence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) to the criminal offences harmonised by the new Directive.

This article examines the exercise by the Court of Justice of the European Union of its judicial review jurisdiction with respect to the European Public Prosecutor's Office. It describes the Court of Justice’s activities in the framework of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, of which the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is a key element, before examining the Court’s jurisdiction to review the legality of measures taken by the European Public Prosecutor's Office and a number of cases in that context.

On 21 December 2023, the CJEU delivered its first judgment in response to the preliminary reference concerning the extent of judicial review in the context of the EPPO’s cross-border investigations. The questions referred to the CJEU aimed to shed light on two crucial aspects of the respective legal framework. They address both the forum before which the suspect, or another person negatively affected by an investigative measure of the EPPO, may challenge the substantive reasons for adopting the measure and the scope of judicial scrutiny to be performed by the national court. This article first calls to mind the facts of the case and the legal framework on cross-border investigations laid down in Arts. 31 and 32 of the EPPO Regulation. Next, it analyses the Advocate General’s opinion and the findings of the Court and then provides an assessment of the judgment, taking into account the negotiation history of the EPPO Regulation. The author concludes that, even if the CJEU’s judgment offers much-needed clarity and legal certainty for carrying out cross-border investigations by the EPPO, the more adequate solution would be if the Commission were to propose an amendment of the EPPO Regulation.

This article analyses the institutional role of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) in the context of the European Union’s legal framework and underlines the nature of its prosecutorial and judicial authority in the Member States. Against this background, the author reflects on whether the current legal and institutional framework provides sufficient institutional safeguards to protect its independence and the independence of its prosecutors, both at the central and domestic levels. According to the author, institutional safeguards exist to protect the independence of the office as a whole, but they are not sufficient to protect the prosecutors. A significant legal vacuum exists with regard to their career progression and to disciplinary procedures involving them, but it is especially the appointment procedure that is not in line with basic rule-of-law principles, which guarantee the independence of prosecutorial and judicial bodies. Institutional safeguards are in place, however, as regards the dismissal of the European Chief Prosecutor and of the European Prosecutors, which can be decided only by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office, being the largest project in the history of European Criminal Law, is based on Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 (“the EPPO Regulation”) but has nevertheless required substantial adjustments to national criminal law in order to function. This article presents the results of a compliance study commissioned by the European Commission to assess whether the national legislation of the 22 Member States participating in the EPPO is in conformity with the EPPO Regulation.