The European Public Prosecutor’s Office - the protection of the EU’s financial interests as supranational integration project –. (RI §425715)  

La Fiscalía Europea - la protección de los intereses financieros de la UE como proyecto de integración supranacional - - Werner Miguel Kühn

El presente artículo ofrece una descripción general de las competencias de la recientemente creada Fiscalía Europea (“EPPO”), un organismo supranacional que investiga y persigue delitos penales que afectan los intereses financieros de la Unión Europea (“UE”). Se discutirán varios aspectos relacionados con el procedimiento penal y el derecho penal material con el fin de explicar cómo la Fiscalía Europea se inserta en los sistemas judiciales nacionales a pesar de su origen supranacional. Entre los asuntos a ser examinados estará el requisito de perseguir el delito de manera eficiente, asegurando que los derechos procesales de los sospechosos y acusados serán debidamente respetados. Se prestará especial atención a la cooperación con otras entidades de la UE y autoridades nacionales tanto en los Estados miembros como en terceros países. Los elementos contenidos en este artículo permitirán al lector evaluar si la Fiscalía Europea ha cumplido los objetivos trazados por el legislador de la UE.

Palabras clave: Unión Europea; Fiscalía Europea; cooperación internacional; intereses financieros; cumplimiento de la ley; procedimiento penal; derechos fundamentales; Imperio de la ley.;

This article presents an overview of the competences of the recently established European Public Prosecutor’s Office (“EPPO”), a supranational body that investigates and prosecutes criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the European Union (“EU”). Various aspects related to criminal procedure and substantive criminal law will be discussed with a view to explain how the EPPO is embedded in the national judicial systems despite its supranational origin. Among the matters to be examined will be the requirement to prosecute crime efficiently while ensuring that the procedural rights of the suspects and the accused persons will be duly respected. A particular focus will be on the cooperation with other EU entities and national authorities both in the Member States as well as in third countries. The elements contained in this article shall allow the reader to assess whether the EPPO has met the objectives set by the EU legislator.

I. Introduction. II. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EPPO. III. HYBRID ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE. 1. The central level. 2. The decentralized level. IV. Competence and tasks. 1. Supervision and instructions. 2. Material competence. 3. Territorial competence. 4. Initiation, termination of the investigation and prosecution. 5. Lifting of privileges or immunities. V. Rights and procedural safeguards foreseen in EU law. 1. Rights enshrined in the EPPO Regulation and harmonized minimal standards. 2. The European Convention on Human Rights. 3. Procedural rights available under the applicable national law. 4. Data protection rules. 5. Procedural rights in the cases involving non-participating Member States and third countries. 6. Mechanisms of control and legal remedies. VI. Legal review. VII. Issues arising from the interaction with national law. 1. The EU legislator’s choice in favor of an intergovernmental model. 2. The institutional anchoring of the European Delegated Prosecutors in the national judicial systems. 3. The incomplete harmonization of substantive criminal law. 4. Diversity of national procedural rules. 5. Use of autonomous concepts with a view to address the reality of national law. 6. Sentencing and sanctions. VIII. COOPERATION. 1. The cooperation with other EU bodies. 1.1. EUROJUST. 1.2. OLAF. 1.3. EUROPOL. 2. The cooperation with non-participating Member States. 3. The cooperation with third countries. IX. General aspects concerning the functioning of the EPPO. 1. Working languages. 2. Legal personality and capacity. 3. Luxembourg as “judicial capital” of Europe. 4. Transparency and public access to documents. 5. Staff rules. 6. Case management system and other IT tools. X. The future of criminal justice. 1. The possible extension of the EPPO’s mandate to other serious crimes. 2. European Criminal Court and European Criminal Defense? XI. Looking back at the first year of operation. XII. Conclusions.

Keywords: European Union; European Public Prosecutor; international cooperation; financial interests; law enforcement; criminal procedure; fundamental rights; rule of law.;