European Public Prosecutor

The European Public Prosecutor (Eusta, English European Public Prosecutor's Office , EPPO) is an EU primary law according to Art. 86 TFEU founded and since then secondary law on the Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of the Council of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation in Establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO), an independent body of the European Union to combat criminal offenses detrimental to the Union's financial interests. The media classifies it as a first in the history of the Union. The Lisbon Treatyhas not yet set up the European Public Prosecutor's Office, but only authorized the Council to unanimously adopt a regulationin this sense to be accepted. Since this unanimity could not be achieved within the framework of the 28 member states, the EuStA was founded in the procedure of enhanced cooperation by Regulation (EU) 2017/1939. For a long time, work was expected to start at the end of 2020 or mid-2021, as the nomination of the European delegated prosecutors in particular was delayed. The start date was finally set to June 1, 2021. At the start of work, the EPPO is “severely underfunded”, which is why its effectiveness is doubted even before work begins. The latest news on the implementation of the EPPO are, for example, brought to the German state governments via the state representations in Brussels.

At a meeting of EU justice ministers on June 8, 2017, 20 EU member states agreed on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office. The European Public Prosecutor's Office will be located on the Kirchberg plateau in Luxembourg .

Mireille Delmas-Marty , a retired French (EU) criminal law professor who was significantly involved in the construction of the corpus juris and the regulation of the EPPO (see below) - can even be considered its (co-) creator - sees the EPPO as the beginning of a new era of European judicial cooperation (so also others) and beyond that as a model for a future "world legal order" ("Le parquet européen pourrait préfigurer un futur ordre juridique mondial"), since the institution has the advantage of being far from it to be removed from seriously affecting the national sovereignty of the participating states.

EU legal basis and national implementation (DE)

The EPPO finds its raison d'être in Art. 86 TFEU.

Its existence is designed and specified in accordance with secondary law in Regulation (EU) 2017/1939. This is based on Art. 288 (2) TFEU. An EU regulation is therefore directly applicable in every member state. In addition to the immediate validity, however, a declaration of participation in the establishment of the EuStA must have been submitted within the framework of mutual recognition and cooperation (see under history).

The European Public Prosecutor's Office Act

Basically, it should be emphasized that EU regulations, which by virtue of their enactment directly apply in the member states, do not have to be implemented. In fact, they are not implemented either, but in accordance with the ECJ case law (case 39/70, Fleischkontor, Rn.4) only implemented in order to create uniformity and to transfer the regulation into the member state's legislative system (but they are from There is a strict distinction between domestic, German regulations and so-called EU implementing regulations). It is therefore better to speak of the adaptation of national law to an EU regulation (or the permissibility of domestic implementing provisions). In Germany, the national adjustment for the "nationwide validity" of the information in Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 was enacted by the European Public Prosecutor's Office Act (EUStAG) on July 10, 2020. Essentially, the EUStAG only serves the national implementation of this ordinance. It may not repeat the wording of the regulation according to EUGH case law, but only have a clarifying function (see ECJ Olg. Rs. 272/83, Commission / Italy, Rn. 27).

Exemplification: Implementation of the regulation in other member states

Other member states have also passed such laws (cf., for example, Slovenia, which has supplemented its public prosecutor's law called " Zakon o državnem tožilstvu " in 2019 and 2020 with ZDT-1C and ZDT-1D (Art. 1a para. 2, 71a-f, 74 Paragraph 2, 75 Paragraph 6, 92 Paragraph 6, 105 Paragraph 2, 192 Paragraph 5 (the specialized public prosecutor of Slovenia "Specializirano državno tožilstvo Republike Slovenije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: SDT)." 198 Paragraph 2) is responsible. .

The developments in France started in March and December 2020 (so-called "Projet de loi relative at Parquet européen et à la justice spénale specialisée [JusX1933222L]). In December 2020 the National Assembly passed the draft law (Loi n ° 2020-1672, 24 dec. 2020, JO 26 dec.).

Basic data
Title:	Law implementing the EU regulation establishing the European Public Prosecutor's Office
Short title:	European Public Prosecutor Act
Abbreviation:	EUStAG
Type:	Federal law
Scope:	Federal Republic of Germany
Issued on the basis of:	Art. 74 para. 1 no. 1, 11
Legal matter:	Intergovernmental legal assistance
References :	319-120
Issued on:	July 10, 2020 ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 1648 )
Effective on:	17th July 2020
GESTA :	C126
Weblink:	Text of the law
Please note the note on the applicable legal version.

history

Estimates of tax fraud assume damage to the value of 50 billion euros annually. Therefore, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Nice in February 2000 , the European Commission proposed to include a legal basis in the Treaties to strengthen the fight against fraud against the financial interests of the European Community (now the European Union). Rules should allow cross-border fraud to be prosecuted - by a European Public Prosecutor.

In December 2001 a Green Paper was presented on the criminal law protection of the European Communities' financial interests - and on the appointment of a European Public Prosecutor.

Since the European Constitutional Treaty has not been fully ratified, the provisions on the European Public Prosecutor's Office in Article 86 TFEU have been taken over from the Constitutional Treaty and provision is made for the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor's Office based on Eurojust .

The Commission proposed a regulation establishing the European Public Prosecutor's Office. The proposal was adopted on July 17, 2013. The Council Working Group on Cooperation in Criminal Matters and other institutions discussed the Commission's proposal at several meetings. The Council for Justice and Home Affairs approved the compromises reached on March 3, 2014. It was determined that the European Public Prosecutor's Office should have a collegial structure. The College will consist of the Chief Prosecutor and one European Public Prosecutor from each Member State.

The European Parliament (EP) published a first interim report on February 21, 2014 (rapporteur of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs: Salvatore Iacolino ). The Council published a report on the status of negotiations, in which he reveals a more conservative line on November 28, 2014. A draft for a second interim report was published by the EP on January 16, 2015 (rapporteur Monica Macovei ).

At an EU summit on March 9, 2017, 17 of the 28 member states agreed to set up the European Public Prosecutor's Office as an independent EU authority against criminal offenses detrimental to the Union's financial interests. It aims to combat corruption, money laundering, fraud with EU funds and cross-border VAT fraud. The EU treaties already provide for closer cooperation between member states.

The declaration was signed by representatives from Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Austria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and the Czech Republic.

In Portugal and Cyprus, internal votes had to be completed before they could be signed. Italy asked for more powers for the European Public Prosecutor. The Commission wants to accommodate Italy with moderate adjustments.

At the beginning of June 2017, representatives of 20 countries agreed on the creation of the European Bar in the Council's Judicial Committee. In addition to Ireland, Denmark and Great Britain, which have an “opt-out” clause to create new offices, Sweden, the Netherlands, Poland, Hungary and Malta did not support the EU legal profession.

Since the Netherlands also joined the European Public Prosecutor's Office according to the coalition agreement of the new government under Mark Rutte from 2017 and Malta also joined in August 2018, 22 of the 28 member states want to establish the European Public Prosecutor's Office.

Overview

Member states of the European Public Prosecutor's Office within the EU

EU member state with participation

EU member state without participation

EU member state with opt-out

Participating EU member states

•  Belgium
•  Bulgaria
•  Germany
•  Estonia
•  Finland
•  France
•  Greece
•  Italy
•  Croatia
•  Latvia
•  Lithuania
•  Luxembourg
•  Malta
•  Netherlands
•  Austria
•  Portugal
•  Romania
•  Slovakia
•  Slovenia
•  Spain
•  Czech Republic
•  Cyprus

EU member states with opt-out

•  Denmark
•  Ireland

Non-participating EU member states

•  Hungary
•  Poland
•  Sweden

Establishment procedure

In accordance with a special legislative procedure (unanimity after approval by the EP ), the Council of the European Union can set up a European Public Prosecutor's Office by ordinances based on Eurojust (Art 86 (1) TFEU). A group of Union Member States can also enforce provisions on a European Public Prosecutor's Office within the framework of enhanced cooperation .

The Lisbon Treaty contains acceleration clauses with regard to the European Public Prosecutor's Office and for police cooperation. Therefore, at least nine Member States can establish closer cooperation - even without a proposal from the Commission or a vote by the Council.

Tasks and responsibilities

According to Article 86 (4) TFEU, the European Council may decide to extend the powers of the European Public Prosecutor's Office to the fight against serious crime with a cross-border dimension and to amend Article 86 (2) TFEU with regard to persons who, as perpetrators or participants, more than committed offenses affecting a Member State ( consent procedure ).

In his State of the Union address 2018, Commission President Juncker called for the tasks of the European Public Prosecutor to be expanded to include the fight against terrorist acts.

The PIF Protection: PIF Convention and PIF Directive: Significance and History

The tasks of the European Public Prosecutor's Office are regulated by the EPPO-VO and the PIF-RL. The PIF Directive is legally based on Art. 288 and Art. 325 TFEU. Stefanie Bock has commented on the subject matter and mandate of Article 325 TFEU in the German literature on criminal law .

Combating crimes affecting the Union's financial interests

The directive aims to protect EU assets. The EU as a supranational organization (this characterizes the European Union, which is an association of states, constitution, administration and jurisdiction (see BVerfGE 140, 317 <338 para. 44)) has a very large budget. A large amount of money flows from this EU budget in the form of loans, grants, structural funds, premiums, etc. In order to criminalize criminal acts directed against the EU budget, harmonization in the member states of the European Union is required. This is primarily aimed at the criminal codes of the member states and thus has an impact on national criminal law.

In an "accompanying document to the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the criminal law fight against fraud directed against the financial interests of the European Union" from 2012 it is explicitly shown which options the EU has to comply with the protection mandate of Art. 310 para 6 TFEU and also to fulfill the conditions of Art. 325 TFEU. There is also an opinion on the decision to establish a new protection:

"The EU already has a number of legal acts which oblige the Member States to lay down minimum criminal law provisions to protect the EU's financial interests (in particular the 1995 Convention on the Protection of the European Communities' Financial Interests relating to Fraud and the relevant protocols on combating bribery and corruption and money laundering). However, it has been shown that these instruments are not sufficient to achieve the desired protection. This affects the credibility of the EU's budgetary saving efforts. "

Forerunner of the PIF Directive: The PIF Convention

Before the PIF Directive 2017 was passed, the PIF Convention of 1995 was largely in force. This already protected the financial interests of the EU.

Competence of the EPPO for EU fiscal criminal law

In principle, the EPPO has jurisdiction in the area of ​​so-called fiscal criminal law of the EU. The term fiscal criminal law is used in connection with the EU budget. The abbreviation PIF-RL stands for protection des intérêts financiers de l'Union and is established in the European legal area as an acronym for the protection of the financial interests of the European Union. The term has existed at least since 1995 and was largely known by the Corpus-Juris (Latin for body of law) under the rule of Mireille Delmas-Marty .

In the German translation of the Corpus Juris, which analyzed and scientifically assessed a standardization of criminal offenses to better protect the financial interests of the European Communities, it said literally:

“The 'Corpus Juris of the Criminal Law Regulations for the Protection of the Financial Interests of the European Union' has played a decisive role in the discussion of future European criminal law. In particular, the proposals on the law of evidence and the European Public Prosecutor's Office have led to intensive and critical discussions in criminal law and the legal profession. Voices that previously considered or rejected the Europeanization of criminal law as unimportant are now calling for more “Europeanization” (such as rules of evidence valid throughout Europe and a European investigative judge) in order to guarantee a constitutional criminal law in Europe. This shows that the wheel of Europeanization of criminal law can no longer be turned back, but that developments will continue. "

The PIF Directive (EU) 2017/1371

The current PIF guideline is Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud against the financial interests of the Union by criminal law.

It obliges the member states of the European Union, for example according to Article 3 PIF-RL, to criminalize so-called fraud to the detriment of the Union in national law. The member states were requested to implement the directive into national law by July 6, 2019. Jähnke , Vice-President of the Federal Court of Justice aD . and honorary professor at the Friedrich Schiller University Jena assumes that the implementation will not be identical in all member states:

“The Federal Republic of Germany has implemented it and thus created national penal provisions that the EPPO will apply in future. These penal provisions are necessarily not completely identical in all Member States; [...]. "

The RL represents the material area of ​​responsibility of the EuStA . The EPPO will investigate the PIF offenses in the national implementing laws.

The implementation of the PIF Directive (EU) 2017/1371 in national law: EUFinzSchStG

In 2012, the EU finally announced in SWD (2012) 196 that "[...] possible risks in relation to compliance with the implementation deadline by the member states [...] will be listed and explained in an implementation plan attached to the proposal." In addition, a done monitoring the implementation of the new PIF Directive. In SWD (2012) 196 final it was already stated: "One to three years after the implementation of the proposal, the Commission would carry out a specific empirical study with a focus on data collection."

In Germany, the implementation took place before July 6, 2019 in part with the so-called EU Financial Protection Strengthening Act (EUFinzSchStG), which was enacted as Art. 1 of the law of June 19, 2019 ( Federal Law Gazette I, p. 844 ).

The legislative procedure in the German Bundestag is fully available on the German Bundestag website.

The full title of the Implementation Act is called: "Act to implement Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the criminal law fight against fraud directed against the financial interests of the Union (EUFinSchStGEG kaAbk. ) ".

The EuFinSchStG came into force in Germany on June 28, 2019.

Art. 2 and Art. 3 of the EUFinSchStG contain changes to the StGB and the GVG. Art. 4 specifies the date of entry into force. It contains some changes regarding national law.

Art. 1 introduces the EUFinSchStG . consists of three paragraphs: § 1 improper use of services of the European Union, § 2 illegal reduction of income of the European Union, § 3 bribery and bribery with reference to the financial interests of the European Union.

The PIF Directive (EU) 2017/1371: Substantive competence of the EPPO

Art. 2 of the EuFinSchStG made changes to §§ 264 and 335 StGB. Section 264 of the Criminal Code criminalizes subsidy fraud. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of § 264 StGB z. For example, the term "European Communities" was replaced by "European Union" because it was de facto out of date in terms of the standard.

Section 335a of the Criminal Code, which is linked to Section 334 of the Criminal Code (bribery), criminalizes the actions of foreign or international employees (e.g. those who work for international organizations or the EU).

Art. 3 of the EuFinSchStG changes the Courts Constitution Act (GVG). "EuFinSchStG" is added to Section 74c of the GVG, thereby defining which national court is responsible for criminal offenses against the financial interests of the Union, the so-called PIF offenses. According to the current legal situation, a criminal chamber of a regional court is responsible as a so-called commercial criminal chamber in accordance with Section 74c, Paragraph 1, No. 6b, provided that it is also competent as a court of first instance in accordance with Section 74, Paragraph 1 of the GVG.

A (delegated) Eu-StA would have to indict de jure before the court specified in Section 74c (1) No. 6b for a criminal offense against the financial interests of the Union.

Subsidy fraud under Section 264 of the Criminal Code can be found in Section 74c (1) No. 5 of the GVG. Accordingly, the regulation is consistent from a legislative point of view.

It was disputed in the first half of 2019 (19th legislative period) whether the directive should have been implemented at all with another national law.

Draft bill for implementation: statements

The lead Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection , at this point still under the direction of Dr. Katarina Barley , obtained numerous statements on his draft bill for the purpose of determining the need to implement Directive (EU) 2017/1371 from academic and practical experts . The BMJV submitted the draft on October 11, 2018.

For example, Martin Böse formulates a statement in which he took the view that the guidelines should be implemented in the StGB rather than in the EuFinSchStG. He expresses substantial criticism of the draft bill and goes into detail about the regulations. He literally put it:

“The introduction of a law to strengthen the protection of the financial interests of the European Union (EUFinSchStG) is to be rejected. An independent law only makes sense if it comprehensively and uniformly regulates the criminal law protection of the Union's financial interests. In contrast, the provisions of the draft only have a supplementary function, as the protection under criminal law is still essentially guaranteed by Sections 263, 264 of the Criminal Code and Section 370 AO (RefE, p. 13 ff.). The connection with the relevant facts of the StGB (cf. also § 1 sentence 2, § 3 EUFinSchStG) therefore speaks in favor of transferring the new regulations into the StGB (or possibly into the AO). "

In addition, he criticized that Section 261 of the Criminal Code (money laundering) had not been adapted to Art. 4, Paragraph 1 of Directive (EU) 2017/1371 and suggested what a recording could look like:

"A supplement could be formulated as follows:" 6. Offenses according to §§ 263, 264, 266c StGB and § 370 AO, insofar as the act is directed against the financial interests of the European Union. ""

Another comment came from Carsten Momsen . He expressed himself in detail with regard to partial aspects, but also came to the conclusion that the implementation in a main law, the EUFinzSchStG, would not be beneficial - only because the EuStA was clearly granted competencies.

The German Association of Judges , expressis verbis , questioned whether it would not have been sufficient to refer to § 263 StGB, the German general fraud, for the implementation.

Further comments on the draft bill came from the Federal Bar Association, the Taxpayers Association of Europe and the Economic Criminal Law Association

Implementation of the PIF Directive 2017/1371 in other EU member states

Greece implemented the PIF directive in May 2020. The law is called "Ενσωμάτωση στην ελληνική νομοθεσία των Οδηγιών (ΕΕ) 2016/800, 2017/1371, 2017/541, 2016/1919 2014/57 / ΕΕ, κύρωση του Μνημονίου Διοικητικής Συνεργασίας μεταξύ του Υπουργείου Δικαιοσύνης της Ελληνικής Δημοκρατίας και του Υπουργείου Δικαιοσύνης και Δημόσιας Τάξεως της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας, τροποποιήσεις του ν. 3663/2008 (Α'99) προς εφαρμογή του Κανονισμού (ΕΕ) 2018/1727 και άλλες διατάξεις. " (in German: NOMOS NR. 4689/2020) It was announced in the government gazette 103 / A / 27-5-2020. It serves to integrate EU directives into Greek legislation. In particular, it implements the directives 2016/800, 2017/1371, 2017/541, 2016/1919, 2014/57 / EU. There is also a ratification of the "Memorandum of Administrative Cooperation" between the Ministry of Justice of the Hellenic Republic and the Ministry of Justice and Public Order of the Republic of Cyprus for amendments to Law 3663/2008 (A'99) implementing Regulation (EU) 2018 / 1727 and other provisions.

Formal responsibility according to the EUStA VO

The competence of the European Public Prosecutor's Office and the national public prosecutor's offices is shared depending on the amount of damage, the complexity of the procedure and the connection with other criminal offenses. According to the system of shared jurisdiction standardized in Article 24 of the EPPO Regulation, all EU institutions and authorities as well as the Member States are required to provide the European Public Prosecutor with comprehensive information about all criminal offenses that could fall within the competence of the European Public Prosecutor's Office. The European Public Prosecutor's Office can exercise its competence by initiating investigative proceedings or, if the right of evocation is applied, take over proceedings already initiated by national authorities (Article 25 (1) EPPO). In the event of damage of less than 10,000 euros to the detriment of the Union's financial interests (Article 86 (1) TFEU), the European Public Prosecutor's Office may only exercise its jurisdiction if this criminal case has concrete effects at Union level, so that it appears necessary for the European Public Prosecutor's Office to conduct the investigation leads, or if members of the institutions of the Union, officials or servants of the Union are suspected of committing the crime.

In the case of disadvantages for the Union's financial interests of less than 100,000 euros, criminal proceedings can also be carried out by referral from national authorities in the case of lighter crimes (Article 34 (3) EPPO). In addition, there are further restrictions on jurisdiction (e.g. prevailing clause).

The European Public Prosecutor's Office acts as the national public prosecutor's office in prosecuting crimes before the competent courts of the Member States.

Extension of the EPPO competence to other cross-border criminal offenses

Considered responsibility for terrorism

At the latest since the terrorist attacks on November 13, 2015 in Paris , which were perpetrated on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and the music club Bataclan , the EPPO has been thinking about expanding its competence. Accordingly, it should also be responsible for bundling terrorist acts and prosecute them cross-border criminally. In its State of the Union address of 12 September 2018, the Juncker Commission expressed its wish to put this reflection on the agenda (strengthening the mandate of the European Public Prosecutor's Office to combat cross-border terrorist offenses). The Bund Deutscher Kriminalbeamter ( Bund Deutscher Kriminalbeamter) turned against this in 2020 , calling for money laundering to be looked at first, which is also closely related to terrorist acts.

As early as 2017, Juncker said the following in his State of the Union address :

“The European Union must also become stronger in the common fight against terrorism. In the last three years we have made great strides in this regard as well. But we do not react quickly enough when there is a cross-border terrorist threat. […] From my point of view, there are also many reasons to entrust the newly created European Public Prosecutor's Office with the prosecution of cross-border terrorist offenses. "

In 2020, the demands after the attacks in Vienna were renewed. This is about monitoring threats and more efficient investigative work against threats:

"Assassination attempt in Dresden, attacks in Paris, Nice and Vienna: The Greens and the CSU are calling for more consistent measures against Islamist threats. According to a newspaper survey, more than 130 Islamists are imprisoned in German prisons. "

Status of the legislative process

Principle of subsidiarity

The European Commission stresses that criminal offenses affecting the financial interests of the Union are better to be prosecuted at Union level. Even the national authorities of the Member States would not prosecute crimes that harm the Union's financial interests with sufficient efficiency.

In response to the Commission's proposal to establish a European Public Prosecutor's Office, 14 parliaments from eleven EU member states raised subsidiarity complaints pursuant to Article 6 of Protocol No. 2 of the Lisbon Treaty (“yellow card”) by October 28, 2013 . The Commission nevertheless stuck to its proposal to set up a European Public Prosecutor's Office and considers it to be in line with the principle of subsidiarity.

European Parliament

On February 20, 2014, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) adopted a draft interim report on the Commission's draft regulation establishing the European Public Prosecutor's Office. Comprehensive changes were indicated or requested. For questions of criminal prosecution before national courts, the termination of the proceedings and the termination after settlements, a legal review should be carried out by the ECJ and not only be possible by national courts as previously provided for in the Commission proposal. The procedural guarantees and procedural rights of suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings should also be guaranteed at a very high level.

The plenary session of the European Parliament approved this on March 12, 2014. On September 28, 2017, LIBE approved the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office and accepted the draft recommendation of the Italian rapporteur Barbara Matera (EPP) - with the European Parliament also accepted the proposal to establish the European Public Prosecutor's Office on October 5, 2017 in Strasbourg . Thereafter, on October 12, 2017, the Council passed the regulation within the framework of enhanced cooperation (EPPO-VO).

Justice and Home Affairs Council

The Justice and Home Affairs Council proposed on 4 March 2014, an authority structure in the form of a college of national prosecutors that the Commission, however, a Board of Directors only by a prosecutor.

Commission proposal

The proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor of 17 July 2013 (COM (2013) 534 final) contains 75 articles:

• Chapter I: Subject matter and definitions
• Chapter II: General provisions (note: characteristics of the European Public Prosecutor's Office and its status, etc.)
• Chapter III: Rules for Investigative, Law Enforcement and Judicial Proceedings
• Chapter IV: Procedural guarantees
• Chapter V: Judicial Control
• Chapter VI: Data protection
• Chapter VII: Financial and Human Resources Regulations
• Chapter VIII: Provisions on relations between the European Public Prosecutor's Office and its partners
• Chapter IX: General Provisions (Note: Institutional Issues)
• Chapter X: Final Provisions

Legislative process at European level

The procedure for legislating in the European Union with regard to the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor's Office is the approval procedure (code AVC). The European Parliament (EP) can approve the adoption of the Council's legal act or refuse to approve it ( right of veto ). The EP cannot change the final proposal. After Parliament has given its approval, the Council unanimously decides on the adoption of the proposal for a European Public Prosecutor's Office (Art. 86 (1) TFEU).

EUStA Public Prosecutor General

Laura Codruța Kövesi

First Public Prosecutor General of the EPPO Laura Codruța Kövesi

In autumn 2019, the European Parliament and the EU member states nominated Laura Codruța Kövesi as the first female Public Prosecutor General of the European Public Prosecutor's Office. According to the applicable legal basis, Kövesi will hold the office until 2026.

Kövesi said in a comment from the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) 20th General Activity Report [2019] that it wants to see the EPPO as a flexible, success-oriented institution whose effectiveness in the investigation process is achieved through strict compliance with the fundamental guarantees of the individual in an investigation against his person. She wants the EPPO to be an excellent center for financial investigations and the seizure of criminal profits, mastering the advanced standards of forensic data analysis. Especially her work as the ex-head of corruption of the Romanian anti-corruption authority makes her vigilant and armed for these changes:

“[I] want the EPPO to be a flexible, result-oriented institution, whose effectiveness of proceedings will be accompa-nied by strict compliance with the fundamental guarantees of the persons who are subject to the investigations.In order to properly achieve its mission , the EPPO will have to be fully independent, acting only in the interests of the EU, without taking any instructions from either European or national authorities. I also want it to become a center of excellence in the area of ​​financial investigations and seizure of criminal assets, by implementing advanced standards in forensic accounting and data analysis. My previous experience as the Chief Prosecutor of the Romanian National Anticorruption Directorate makes me also acutely aware of the challenges we are facing. "

Duration of mandate as European General Prosecutor

The mandate of the European Public Prosecutor General is designed for seven years and cannot be renewed.

Deputy of the EU Public Prosecutor General

The deputy of the EU Public Prosecutor General is mentioned in recital (26), (40; Art 6 para. 1, 8 para. 3, 10 para. 1 and para. 7, 11, 15, 16 para. 6, 19 para. 4k, 34 Para. 4, 46. Articles 11 and 15 are central, which are the position and the tasks (11 Para. 2: "[...] support him in the fulfillment of his tasks and represent him in absence or hindrance. [ ...] ") and on another occasion the appointment by secret ballot by the college (15 para. 1) and dismissal (15 para. 2 and 3). The term of office is limited to three years. The EPPO will establish rules of procedure and that will "lay down the rules and conditions for the exercise of the function of Deputy European Public Prosecutor".

Personnel composition (first term of office 2021-2024)

On November 11, 2020, Danilo Ceccarelli and Andrés Ritter (see below) were elected to the post of Deputy European Public Prosecutor General.

Further development of the EPPO

Basic structure / organizational chart

The EPPO is structured in two stages. The structure is described as a hybrid structure.

The Public Prosecutor General heads the EPPO and represents it externally. It is basically surrounded by two representatives (modified primus inter pares principle). All three people chair the college.

The administration (administrative body)

During the establishment of the EPPO, an interim director performed in accordance with Art. 20 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939. According to Article 20 (1) (a) Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, an official of the Commission was to be appointed as interim director after hearing the Council. He was responsible for the provisional administrative apparatus and took B. Recruitment (service contracts etc.), see Art. 20 (2) Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 and financial liquidity provision for the initial phase of the EPPO as well as the search for a suitable location in Luxembourg.

The EPPO's first interim director

The EU official Monsieur Olivier Salles from Belgium took over the post of the first interim director of the EPPO. Salles published an article for the European Court of Auditors calling the EPPO the "new kid on the [EU] block".

The second interim director of the EPPO

Article 20 (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 states: "As soon as the college takes up its work in accordance with Article 9 (1), the interim administrative director carries out his work in accordance with Article 18." Article 18 defines the status of administrative director firmly. This means that the second interim director will also be the first (permanent) administrative director of the EPPO. On May 18, 2020, the commission announced who will succeed Monsieur Olivier Salles. Accordingly, Richard Sonnenschein will take over the post for the remaining interim period.

The administrative director of the EPPO (Art. 18/19 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939)

The first administrative director (as of September 2020) has not yet been appointed. Its status is based on Art. 18 of the regulation. Its activities are based on Art. 19 of the EPPO Regulation.

The college (governing body)

The College of the EuStA consists of a European Public Prosecutor and the General Public Prosecutor as well as his two representatives.

Working language of the European Public Prosecutor's Office

The definition of the working language of the EPPO is a matter of decision for the college of the EPPO. Since September 30, 2020, Art. Para. 1 of EPPO decision 002/2020 has stipulated that English is the working language for operational and administrative activities. Lt. According to Art. 1 (2) of the same decision, the French language is to be used in conjunction with the English language in communication with the ECJ.

The European Public Prosecutors

The European Public Prosecutors are to be separated from the European Delegated Public Prosecutors and the EU Public Prosecutor General.

You are in charge of the delegated European member states, who investigate in the member states, and in a senior position.

The European Public Prosecutors of the first term of office (from 2020–2026 and 2020–2023)

Since the end of July 2020, the first European public prosecutors of the first year of European public prosecutors have been appointed by the Council of the EU and have been known by name since then. On September 28, 2020, the European Public Prosecutors were sworn in before the responsible judge at the European Court of Justice.

In particular, the following 22 European Public Prosecutors have been appointed:

• Frédéric Baab
• Cătălin-Laurențiu Borcoman
• Jaka pretzel
• Danilo Ceccarelli (Deputy)
• Gatis Doniks
• Yvonne Farrugia
• Teodora Georgieva
• Daniëlle Goudriaan
• Petr Klement
• Tomas Krušna
• Tamara Laptoš
• Katerina Loizou
• Ingrid Maschl-Clausen
• José Eduardo Moreira Alves d'Oliveira Guerra
• Juraj Novocký
• Andrés Ritter (Deputy)
• Maria Concepción Sabadell Carnicero
• Gabriel Seixas
• Kristel Siitam-Nyiri
• Harri Tiesmaa
• Yves Van Den Berge
• Dimitrios Zimianitis

The European Public Prosecutors take on coordinating tasks and, in the college, take on strategic and planning tasks. You decide in the college in coordination with the European Public Prosecutor General.

The decision in the college should be based on internal procedural rules. The elaboration is planned for 2020

The permanent chambers of the EPPO

The permanent chambers of the EuStA each consist of three members. You have two European Public Prosecutors. In addition, there is the European Public Prosecutor General, one of his representatives or a European Public Prosecutor as chairperson, see Article 10 of the EPPO regulation.

The chambers are responsible for controlling the investigations of the delegated European public prosecutors. Above all, the chambers decide whether to bring charges or to close proceedings. The chamber can also order the right of evocation under Art. 27 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939.

Delegated European Public Prosecutors (core of the investigative work of the EPPO)

If you look at the structure of the EPPO hierarchically, you will find the delegated European public prosecutors below the chamber.

Delegated comes from the Latin delegare and mine basically to delegate. The delegated European public prosecutors are de facto only seconded to Luxembourg "on paper". They carry out their work on site in their respective member state. In their work they should be independent, ie free from instructions from national authorities.

At the national level, the European Delegated Prosecutors are responsible for prosecuting PIF crimes (see Brodowski overview ). According to an internal EUStA agreement, there should be a total of 140 delegated European public prosecutors in the member states . Lt. According to a message from Christine Lambrecht at the November conference during the German EU Council Presidency (see below), there are said to be eleven German delegated European public prosecutors : "[...] In the summer we laid the legal basis for the European Public Prosecutor's Office in Germany can investigate: with eleven delegates of European public prosecutors in Berlin, Frankfurt am Main, Hamburg, Cologne and Munich. "

The EPPO spokesmen have repeatedly announced on social media in 2021 how many delegated prosecutors have already been reported. On March 11, 2021 Didier Reynders said: "I reaffirmed today during the #JAH Council the urgency to set up European Public Prosecutor's Office and I therefore insisted that Member States speed up the appointment procedure to be ready by end April." The table lists the numbers according to the notices that have become known. The justice ministries of the member states had to send the notifications to the prosecution in Luxembourg.

BE	BG	DE	EE	FI	FR	GR	IT	KR	LE	LT	LUX	MA	ND	AU	PT	RU	SK	SP	SL	TR	ZY
1 1	10	1 10	2		5			2 (2)		3 4th			2		4th	6th 6th			5 4th	3 3 2
March 17, 2021 Communication March 11, 2021	February 17, 2021	December 2, 2020 November 25, 2020	December 2, 2020		March 26, 2021			March 26, 2021		February 3, 2021 January 21, 2021			February 10, 2021		March 9, 2021	February 10, 2021 January 29, 2021			December 9, 2020 November 25, 2020	March 26, 2021 February 5, 2021 December 23, 2020

The EUStAG contains the executive implementation provisions of Regulation 2017/1939 (Actualités) applicable in Germany. The system of delegated public prosecutors is criticized for being able to investigate not only for the EU public prosecutor's office, but also for their own member state. From an independence point of view, this patronage is viewed critically by Laura Kövesi herself as well as in criminal law literature. The position of national prosecutors is not harmonized in the EU. In some member states, such as Germany, the "judicial policy authority" of superiors is viewed critically - even if there are regulations in the regulation and the national implementation law that are intended to ensure the independence of the delegated public prosecutors.

Employment situation of the European delegated public prosecutors

The European delegated prosecutors are independent prosecutors. Your mandate generally lasts three to a maximum of five years (the term of office can then be renewed). They are not subject to the authority of the respective national minister of justice (see for Germany since 07/2020 § 142b GVG).

Appointment and dismissal

The conditions and nomination criteria that the candidates must have are also based on the basic employment modalities of EU officials. The conditions are set out expressis verbis in Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 (Article 16 Appointment and dismissal of European Public Prosecutors) .

Salary and position

The remuneration of the delegated European public prosecutors in Germany was critically examined in the RefE for the EUStAG. In principle, the pay of public prosecutors in Germany is a matter for the federal states. Here public prosecutors are run in grade R and receive equivalent salaries to those of a judge. However, the remuneration paid by the member states was seen as a hindrance to the independence of the delegated European public prosecutors.

The Czech Republic has published a payroll.

Section 2 of the ordinance, which is headed "Personnel provisions", specifies the employment situation of the delegated European public prosecutors in Germany. According to Art. 96 of Regulation (Eu) 2017/1939, the civil servants' statute and the conditions of employment for other servants of the Union (Regulation No. 31 (EEC), 11 (EAG) of the Council on the statute of civil servants and on the Conditions of employment for other servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community; OJ 45 of 14 June 1962, p. 1385).

Delegated public prosecutors as “special advisers” to the EPPO

At first glance, the position of the delegated public prosecutors as "special advisers" seems strange. According to Annex XIII. 1. of the Statute, the delegated public prosecutors are so-called “other servants of the European Union”.

In contrast to the European Public Prosecutors (who are ready to give instructions) and who have so-called temporary employment relationships (temporary employment "full"), the delegated public prosecutors only have temporary employment relationships in accordance with Art. 5 of Annex XIII. 1. the official status of Union officials.

There it says in part:

"Special advisor within the meaning of these Conditions of Employment is a servant who, because of his exceptional qualifications and regardless of other professional activities, is employed to provide his services to one of the institutions of the Union on a regular basis or during certain periods of time , and who receives his remuneration from funds which for this purpose are made available in the section of the budget of his institution as a lump sum .

The terms are all open to interpretation. As a rule, evidence of an 'exceptional qualification' due to the factual context of criminal prosecution in the field of investigative activities in the national member state will have to be provided (calls for applications from the EPPO were published as "call for application in the EU's own application portal"). For Germany, this means admission (so-called qualification within the meaning of Article 33 (5) of the Basic Law) to the office of judge within the meaning of Section 5 "

This is given if a degree in law was carried out at a German university, which was completed with a passed so-called first legal examination (mostly above average). In addition, following the first examination, a state, regularly two-year preparatory service (so-called legal traineeship) must have been carried out in one of the 16 federal states at the responsible judicial examination office for the second legal examination. The Second Legal Examination must have at least as successful a result as the First Legal Examination in order to meet the employment requirements for the judicial service. A career in justice begins with an appointment as a public prosecutor or a probationary judge who can be seconded as a public prosecutor. As a rule, the responsible ministers of justice will make the assignment under civil service law according to § 20 / § 29 , as is usual in practice, dependent on the career and the experience gained in the judicial service and finally the subsumption under Art. 5, 123, 124 das Propose / implement the EU Staff Regulations.

These criteria can also be found in a document from the Hamburger Richterverein eV. There it says on the one hand: "Pursuant to Article 17 (1) of the EPPO Regulation, the European Delegated Public Prosecutors appointed by the Member States are appointed by the European Public Prosecutor General and the European State Public Prosecutors for an extendable term of office of five years on the proposal of the European Public Prosecutor General - Prosecutors. If they are appointed, the public prosecutors will be (partially) assigned to work at the European Public Prosecutor's Office in accordance with Section 20 of the Civil Service Status Act by the respective employer ". On the other hand, the prerequisites recognized from Article 17 (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 are specified. Accordingly, a German delegated European public prosecutor must "[...]: meet the following requirements

Requirements for qualification as a delegated European public prosecutor according to the collegiate agreement of the EPPO

In September 2020, the EPPO first passed conditions for the employment (Decision 001/2020) of the delegated European public prosecutors, which was already known.

Requirements for qualification as a delegated European public prosecutor in Germany according to the Hamburg judges' association

The Hamburg judges' association passed this on in a more concrete form in an expression of interest procedure:

• active membership of the public prosecutor's office or judiciary in their respective member state (entry or promotion office),
• Relevant practical experience within the framework of their respective national legal system, in particular knowledge of large white-collar crime cases, criminal tax law and international cooperation
• very good knowledge (language level corresponding to at least C 1) of the English language,
• strong ability to work in a team,
• high degree of flexibility and willingness to work and willingness to undertake domestic and international business trips.
• Also desirable are: good knowledge (language level according to at least B 2) of the French language as well as
• intercultural competences that facilitate cooperation with European Delegated Prosecutors from other Member States.
• The task of delegated European Public Prosecutor can also be performed part-time. "

The delegated European public prosecutors, so it corresponds to the "double hat system" (under the hat of the respective member state) are thus active both for their member state and, if necessary, in the case of the competence of the EPPO for the EU. This system is described as an accumulation of offices.

According to Art. 96 (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, the delegated European public prosecutors as staff of the EPPO enjoy "privileges and exemptions of the European Union", i.e. ultimately immunity in the event of criminal prosecution according to Protocol No. 7 to the TEU.

The provisions set out in Article 96 (6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 are also central. There it says:

“(6) The European Delegated Prosecutors are recruited as special advisers in accordance with Articles 5, 123 and 124 of the Conditions of Employment. The national competent authorities facilitate the European Delegated Prosecutors in the exercise of their duties under this Regulation and refrain from taking any actions or policies that could adversely affect their career or their status in the national law enforcement system. In particular, the national competent authorities shall provide the European Delegated Prosecutors with the resources and equipment they need to carry out their duties under this Regulation and shall ensure that they are fully involved in the national law enforcement authorities . It will ensure that adequate arrangements are in place to ensure that the rights granted to the European Delegated Prosecutors in the national system with regard to social security, pensions and insurance are maintained . "

This includes the office staff of a public prosecutor's office. So in particular the responsible judicial officers, public lawyers and clerks. According to § 152 GVG, these could be subordinate to the delegated European public prosecutor for the duration of the investigation for the EPPO. The office officials could possibly also have to be paid temporarily by the EPPO (namely as so-called "local servants" according to Article 4 of the official status of the EU for so-called "auxiliary activities" of the organ of the Union acquiring the service). The following sentence in Article 96 (6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 is also central to the salary:

“It also ensures that the total remuneration of a European Delegate Prosecutor is no less than the remuneration that he would have received if he had only remained a national prosecutor . The general working conditions and the working environment of the European Delegated Prosecutors are the responsibility of the competent national judicial authorities. "

The salary of national public prosecutors is based on the applicable salary table for public prosecutors. This means that it is not possible to say in general how high the salary is (entry: approx. 4000/4600 euros as a public prosecutor at the AG or LG, up to 11,000 euros as a federal prosecutor = range based on salary law, officially appropriate and based on experience, see also BesG) . This is actually the case, since the states and not the federal government in Germany are responsible for the salaries of their civil servants. The separation between state and federal officials also applies here. This sentence may lead to different salaries for the delegated European public prosecutors in Germany (e.g. Baden-Württemberg [as of August 28, 2020] 4623.91 and Berlin 4480.25). The value that the EU "pays" should therefore be as high as or above the highest national salary for the German delegated European public prosecutors.

Localization of the delegated European public prosecutors in Germany

According to § 141 GVG there should be a public prosecutor's office at every German court . For the delegated European public prosecutors, however, a change was provided for in the newly created EUStAG .

According to Section 143 (6) of the GVG, local jurisdiction will not be specifically limited, but will relate to the entire territory of the Federal Republic. The ministerial draft of the EUStAG states:

"According to Article 13, Paragraph 2, Clause 2 of the EPPO Regulation, the European Public Prosecutor General should approve the number of European Delegated Public Prosecutors and the functional and spatial division of responsibilities between the European Delegated Public Prosecutors after consultation and agreement with the relevant authorities of the member states. At its meeting on November 15, 2018, the Conference of Justice Ministers of the Federal States spoke out in favor of the European Public Prosecutor Delegates planned for Germany being concentrated in centers in Bavaria, Berlin, Hamburg, Hesse and North Rhine-Westphalia. "

Centers vs. non-center country system

The system centers vs. non- center states was devised within the framework of an administrative agreement between the sixteen German federal states , which was based on the state of North Rhine-Westphalia and was also drafted.

Five country centers as the seat of the EPPO in Germany

“The settlement should take place in each case with a public prosecutor's office or a public prosecutor's office. According to Section 3 (3) EUStAG-E, these offices of the European Delegated Public Prosecutors are to be regarded as the 'seat' of the EPPO in the Federal Republic of Germany, insofar as the Code of Criminal Procedure to determine the local jurisdiction of the investigating judge is linked to the seat of the public prosecutor's office or its branch. [...] "

The centers are in Berlin , Frankfurt am Main , Hamburg , Cologne and Munich .

Candidates for German offices (German European public prosecutors)

According to Article 16 of the EUStA-VO, Germany had to propose three candidates for the office of the German European Public Prosecutor.

The German European Public Prosecutor

1st German European Public Prosecutor (term of office 2020-2026)

Andrés Ritter has been appointed the first German European Public Prosecutor by the Council of the EU. His term of office begins with the announcement of the initiation, i.e. the start of work by the European Public Prosecutor's Office.

In an interview with the journalist Annette Riedel , Andrés Ritter said : “I have practically been working in the field of legal assistance for 25 years . I have seen the times when you had to send requests for legal assistance through the Ministry of Justice and the Foreign Office . The fact that this has developed in this direction, that direct cooperation is possible and is now even taking place in an integrated manner with the European Public Prosecutor, is a milestone in terms of what law enforcement can achieve. That is something that should not be ignored in all this discussion, so as not to question the usefulness of such an authority for ultimately general considerations. "() Andrés Ritter is a law graduate Years in the Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania judiciary (Justice Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania ), where he was head of the Rostock public prosecutor's office for many years.Right speaks several languages ​​(Spanish, German, English and French).

Andrés Ritter urged Riedel to say that he was "[...] not the man for Germany. [...] [He was] the man from Germany for the European Union and for the European taxpayer." "

The European public prosecutors delegated by Germany to the EPPO

Until August 2020, the European delegated prosecutors were not known by name to the public (for their task and function, see above).

On October 19, 2020, the EU Public Prosecutor General received mail from the German State Secretary Margaretha Sudhof , who officially and on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection named nine names of candidates for the office of delegated European public prosecutor in Germany . Lt. According to the country agreement, the delegated prosecutors should be appointed on November 1, 2020. According to Art. 1 of the EPPO decision 19/2020 ten names were announced; these persons are appointed for a renewable period of 5 years.

The first delegated European public prosecutors in Germany (2021)

In Hamburg and Lower Saxony, Chief Public Prosecutor Jörg Schröder and Catrin Knuth from the Hamburg Public Prosecutor's Office are investigating.

In Frankfurt, a senior public prosecutor and a public prosecutor from the Frankfurt public prosecutor's office are investigating. Eva Kühn-Hörmann pointed out that "[the] these [two] are responsible for processing preliminary investigations from the federal states of Hesse, Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland. In addition, there is a senior public prosecutor from the Federal Prosecutor who was originally responsible for processing Revisions in proceedings of the European Public Prosecutor's Office is responsible, but initially also takes on investigative proceedings of the European Public Prosecutor's Office from Baden-Württemberg. "

Chief Public Prosecutor Marcus Paintinger is investigating in Munich.

Margarethe Koppers and Dirk Behrendt announced that "Berlin [...] completed the organizational and administrative preparations for the Berlin location in time for the start."

Peter Biesenbach confirmed the start of work in North Rhine-Westphalia.

Special features of the EPPO work process

The EUStA is to receive a modern case management system that is based on information technology and is optimized for internal work processes. When designing the case management system, the officers are largely guided by the case management system of OLAF, the European anti-fraud office (now mainly administrative investigations).

Internal rules of procedure

Among all "College Decisions", i.e. those decisions that the College made in 2020 before the full commencement of work, the 50-page document, which contains the internal work process rules and which came into force on October 12, 2020, is the most significant. In the original sound, the rules were published under the following title: "INTERNAL RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE EUROPEAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE / College Decision 003/2020". The document contains 72 articles and will form the basis of all internal work of the EPPO.

Data protection rules

The investigations of the EPPO are particularly data protection-intensive, i. H. potentially interfere with data protection rights. Therefore, Decisions 005/2020 006/2020, 008/2020 and 009/2020, which apply to the investigative work and the internal work of the EPPO, can also be classified as an important document for the special working process of the EPPO.

Developments 2020/1 (designated "starting years")

COVID-19 Impact on Criminal Fraud Scenarios

In an interview with the European Public Prosecutor Andrés Ritter for Deutschlandfunk Kultur, Annette Riedel talked about the Corona aid fund ( reconstruction funds ) in August 2020 and emphasized that the payments to mitigate COVID-19 significantly increase the importance of the EPPO.

According to Laura Codruța Kövesi , the COVID-19 pandemic may have an impact on the fraud investigations that will start in late 2020. She fears criminal groups could take advantage of the situation (which Europol confirmed in March 2020: Crimes would increase in the Corona period - especially on the Internet), with which she subliminally stated that criminal groups can benefit from states of emergency .

The pandemic has required rapid political action to mitigate the negative consequences for individuals and companies in the EU economic zone. In particular, the regional structural areas of the EU, which were already in a bad position before the crisis, pushed for a "quick transfer" of funds.

These sums would by loans (loans) and grants paid (grants).

She took a clear position on this and sees more work in the future for the EuStA in connection with the payouts in the Corona crisis. Where there are more payments, there are syllogistically more opportunities for fraudulent activities.

"If there are more funds, and if there is more flexibility in how to use them, then indeed I anticipate that we will have more work to do."

In an interview with the Bucharest journalist Luiza Ilie and the co-responsible for the interview Giles Elgood, she said on May 12, 2020 on Thomoson Reuters that the Global Response Package to mitigate the impact of the coronavirus on the EU economy has a significant impact on development of subsidy fraud , the corruption and the organized crime could have.

She sees z. B. a danger in wrongly issued, deceptively real produced papers for the receipt of medical material, which is financed with EU funds. In this context, she addressed “ public procurement contracts ” and then classified them as dangerous if they were awarded without open, public bids, as was the case during the corona crisis. Opaque, potentially fraudulent measures can be seen here.

She also pointed out that the staffing of the European Public Prosecutor's Office was in need of improvement, thus indirectly addressing the resources available to the EuStA. In doing so, she referred, inter alia , to the small number of European Public Prosecutors available to her (regarding the EuStA system and the delegated European Public Prosecutors).

She expects a case volume of 3000 cases, which could be handed over by the member states to the EuStA for investigation by the end of 2020. In order to cope with this amount, the small amount of prosecutors assigned to her is an "absurdly small number". This is particularly true if one considers the competences of the EuStA and its jurisdiction in the 22 participating member states and relates them to one another.

Despite these sub-optimal conditions, she was optimistic and feels ready to start work.

In the original sound, their statements were partly as follows:

'And each year after that, about 2,000 more cases. We need more money and more prosecutors', she said, declining to put a figure on the number but suggesting 'hundreds'. [...]

"Direct procurement is very easy to use because if someone wants to award a contract without competitive bidding it is very easy to sign a contract with a company that has a special interest, or is connected to relatives or friends [...]"

"Organized criminal groups are especially strong at anticipating and exploiting every opportunity on an industrial scale."

Future EU fraud scenarios

Gabriel Seixas, the first Luxembourg European public prosecutor, sees the corona crisis as a time that promotes fraud. In the future, there will be primarily digital fraud variants that the EU Commission must be interested in. The more cryptocurrencies based on blockchain technology would be used, the more effective law enforcement would have to be made possible in the digital area:

"" Pendant la crise du covid-19, nous avons observé une criminalité de plus en plus perfectionnée, basée principalement sur les nouvelles technologies. Notamment le recours aux bitcoins et à la technologie de la blockchain de manière générale. Le recours aux sociétés offshore reste aussi d'actualité, cela reste même une valeur sûre, au même titre que les ransomware, ces logiciels destinés à bloquer l'accès aux données d'une entité en échange du versement d'une rançon. Mais à côté de cela, il exist also d'autres fraudes qui passent plus inaperçues, notamment celles liées aux droits de douanes et d'accises qui peuvent représenter une certaine somme. »"

Personnel and budgeting debate ("EPPO staffing decision process")

According to an analysis by Debevoise & Plimpton, the European Public Prosecutor's Office can be described as “severely understaffed” (Central Level — Under-Resourced Skeleton Crew?). This problem had been raised several times by the attorney general in the course of the first half of 2020.

There are also budgeting constraints. The initially planned budget of € 8,372,000 has since been increased to € 11.7 million (COM (2020) 145 final).

“[…] In her remarks before the European Parliament in early February 2020, European Chief Prosecutor Kövesi expressed concerns that the EPPO budget only allowed for four case analysts at the central office. She queried how this level of staffing would allow the EPPO effectively to review 3,000 cases. Her remarks appear to some extent to have been taken on-board, with the European Council on 27 March 2020 presenting an amending EU budget including an increase of the EPPO's 2020 budget by € 3.3m, principally to allow for the accelerated recruitment of an additional 18 staff members previously planned for 2021. With this 'top-up', the EPPO's annual budget for 2020 stands at approximately € 11.7m. [...] ”

In addition, the analysis looks at the organizational structure of the EPPO and questions the effectiveness of the current system of Regulation 2017/1939. They express how important it is that the EPPO is financially "properly" equipped in order to be able to take effective action against "EU fraud" (see PIF criminal offenses above):

"[...] The immediate concern ought rather to be to ensure that the EPPO is in a position to provide material added value to the fight against frauds on the EU budget in the short term. Here, the answer is surely to provide the EPPO at the central level with the financial resources to ensure that the available EDPs have the means, currently lacking in the various Member States, to carry out the complex investigative steps necessary to pursue the most difficult cases [...]. "

"Specialized investigative staff for the EPPO costs and the cost of living in Luxembourg is rising"

The Luxembourg European Public Prosecutor Gabriel Seixas , appointed in autumn 2020, said in an interview with the daily Luxemburger Wort that specialized staff could cost the EPPO more than it had planned before it was set up. On the one hand, everyday life in Luxembourg, the workplace of the EPPO management, is very expensive. For this reason it is difficult to get national prosecutors to move to Luxembourg ("Effectivement, la vie est très chère au Luxembourg et je pense que c'était le principal motif qui explique pourquoi les personnes qui devaient être détachées depuis Bruxelles n'ont pas souhaité donné suite ... Je sais que la Commission est en train de réfléchir à la mise en place d'un coefficient correcteur pour adapter les salaires au Luxembourg, car à ce jour, Bruxelles et Luxembourg sont placés sur un même niveau alors que les prix ici peuvent aller du simple au double par rapport à Bruxelles. ") On the other hand, he sees the efficiency of the EPPO at risk if better, above all specialized staff (e.g. translators trained in criminal law) are employed for the EPPO. He underlined that the EPPO needs a budget of € 55 million:

"Nous proposons 55 millions d'euros'. Car le budget proposé nous permet de financer les procureurs délégués mais pas le personnel spécialisé nécessaire au fonctionnement du niveau central. Or, nous avons besoin d'un niveau central fort. Nous allons, par example , Recevoir les informations des 22 Etats membres dans leur langue nationale. Il nous faut donc du personnel capable d'encoder, comprendre et verifier ses informations dans toutes ces langues. Il nous faut alsi des juristes capables de faire des liens entre différents dossiers pour centraliser les informations et être en capacité d'agir plus rapidement. Et donc mener à bien notre objectif final. Je pense que si nous n'avons pas ces moyens, le parquet européen ne pourra pas agir efficacement. "

Factual problems with the establishment of the EuStA

Malta “delay” the establishment of the EPPO

In an interview with euronews on June 7, 2020, the EPPO's first female public prosecutor expressed that the appointment of the European delegated prosecutors had been delayed because Malta could not nominate three candidates because the selected candidates did not meet the requirements (see above to the delegated European public prosecutors). She also expressed that “there can only be justice for all if everyone works in one direction”.

As early as May 2020, the Times of Malta reported that the establishment of the EuStA could be postponed to 2021 due to the problems with the candidate selection beyond the originally planned start date (November 2020).

The "problem of the establishment in 2020" is so explosive because there have been cases of corruption in Malta (and Slovakia) in recent years , which journalists investigated , which subsequently uncovered various grievances. It is therefore now assumed that Malta does not want to seriously counter corruption and the offenses associated with it.

Reasons for not appointing DelgStAs for the college

On the one hand, The Slovak Spectator reported on April 9, 2019 that the families of Ján Kuciak , Slovakia and Daphne Caruana Galizia , Malta, who was murdered “in October 2017 by an attack with a bomb placed in or on her car”, the appointment Laura Codruța Köves morally approve and therefore support i. S. v. Would "welcome".

On the other hand, Didier Reynders , the Belgian politician responsible for appointing the European Delegated Prosecutors , said that:

"[...] he had been informed by Malta's justice minister Edward Zammit Lewis that the country faced 'specific, inherent challenges' to find enough candidates who meet EPPO selection criteria,"

This statement by Reynders allows the conclusion that the requirements of Art. 16 of Regulation 2017/1939 could not be met. The Times of Malta sees reasons for this e.g. B. in the relatively small size of Malta and its small population. There are not as many people available for election as in other, larger and more populous EU countries. Malta found it difficult to nominate candidates at all.

Delay in construction due to "Jansa public prosecutor appointment affair" Slovenia 2021

Shortly before the start of the EPPO, which had been postponed again and again, but was then set for June 1, 2021, it emerged that Slovenia's incumbent Prime Minister Janez Jansa prevented the selection and nomination of two delegated Slovenian public prosecutors. In the course of this, the then Minister of Justice of Slovenia Lilijana Kozlovic resigned from her position on May 27, 2021 . Kozlovic belongs to the smaller ruling party SMC and had asked the independent prosecutor's council to appoint two suitable candidates. ORF and other media representatives reported that Jansa may have opposed the nomination of the two public prosecutors because they were also involved in investigations against him in the past. Zdravko Pocivalsek, Slovenia's Minister of Economic Affairs and head of the coalition party SMC, also got involved in the dispute. Pocivalsek believed that Jansa's appointment of just one delegated public prosecutor from Slovenia - Didier Reynders, EU Commissioner for Justice, proposed that variant as an interim solution - meant that the government, the government of which he was a member, exceeded his powers. Pocivalsek criticized the EU for its pressure on the urgent appointment of the delegated prosecutors and pointed out that participation in the EU authority is voluntary. The EU Attorney General held against it and referred to the very long preparation time. She considers the non- or late appointment to be a bad omen.

Differentiation from OLAF, Eurojust and Europol

Eurojust and Europol are mainly responsible for the exchange of information and the coordination of national investigations and prosecutions. Europol can also investigate itself in certain cases, but Eurojust does not prosecute it . OLAF may conduct investigations into administrative matters in cases of suspected fraud or similar illegal activities that cause financial damage to the state.

OLAF and the EPPO

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) faces a difficult future, according to the Supervisory Committee. According to this, 45 posts from the Office for Combating Fraud will go to the EPPO in the coming years (plan 2018-2023). The Committee has therefore argued that the "personnel deductions" could be recruited equivalently from all EU staff, instead of almost systematically weakening OLAF vis-à-vis the EPPO.

"As stated in its previous opinions the Committee considers that the transfer of posts from OLAF to the EPPO should be considered carefully and managed in a way that preserves OLAF's ability to continue delivering on its current and new responsibilities (ie, 'Rule of Law') , 'Green Deal', CAFS, Brexit, EPPO). The impact assessment of the posts (45) to be transferred to the EPPO is still a priority for the OLAF Supervisory Committee. The Committee supports the idea stated in the OLAF HR Strategic Plan that adapting to the new context created by the establishment of the EPPO would require more flexibility and a more solid method for allocating the resources according to OLAF's priorities and workload. A period of adaptation will be necessary whilst the mechanisms for cooperation between both entities are being established. "]"

-

Cooperation difficulties are expected, which could only be resolved during the phase of the EPPO's first investigative work. In the meantime, more flexibility must be dared in the personnel debate.

Inghelram believes that OLAF will hardly lose its importance. He sees the reason for this in the different orientations of the two organs of the Union. The EPPO will mainly investigate the suspected member states and OLAF is responsible for the entire EU, so it has a colorful, diverse bouquet of additional administrative tasks.

"The EPPO will most likely also have an important impact on the further shaping of OLAF. OLAF will remain independent from the EPPO and it will have a larger territory of operation than the EPPO, since it is competent for the entire EU, whereas the EPPO will only be competent within the participating Member States. The fields of operation of the EPPO and OLAF are, however, closely linked. Therefore, a division of tasks will most likely develop in practice, affecting also OLAF's current functioning. "

Cases of the EPPO

In 2020 the EPPO did not start its work (see above, among other things, factual problems with the establishment of the EPPO), so it has not yet been able to start investigations or respond to indications of behavior potentially damaging the EU's financial situation.

Legal comments on the EUStA-VO

The text edition Schomburg / Lagodny 2020 contains a very short introduction to the regulation by Sabine Gleß and Thomas Wahl, but it does not contain or offer any in-depth commentary.

For October 2020 an edition by Dominik Brodowski, professor of criminal law and Christoph Burchard , also professor of criminal law and Hans-Holger Herrnfeld, senior public prosecutor at the Federal Court of Justice and head of the "European Public Prosecutor's Office", entitled "European Public Prosecutor's Office" was at Nomos, CH Beck and Hart Publishing announced, which will be available in bookshops on November 10, 2020. It is an article-by-article commentary.

Comments on the German implementation law and the EUStAG have been included in Beck's online commentary on the StPO and the GVG since August 2020.

Legal studies and the EPPO

Law students also get to know the EPPO. It is addressed in the so-called focus areas of criminal law, which differ from university to university and from state to state, and is the subject of examination questions. It is regularly discussed and discussed in the lecture "European Criminal Law". It can be assumed that questions about the EPPO will increase once it has started working. In the well-known basic course StPO von Volk / Engländer (9th edition, 2020, p. 24) there is already a short section that indicates the increased importance of the EPPO for studies. It is to be expected that in the future, above all, questions about delimitation and differentiation about the national prosecutor could be asked of exam candidates by professors who are authorized to take examinations.

The EPPO: a political issue in Germany - demands and criticism of the EPPO

The German EU Council Presidency 2020

While Germany had the presidency of the Council of the EU in the second half of 2020 , it tackled numerous projects relating to the EPPO.

November 2020 conference on EPPO

According to the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, a "high-level" conference on the advanced establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office received special attention . The conference was attended by ECJ President Koen Lenaerts , Federal Justice Minister Christine Lambrecht , Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders and EU Public Prosecutor Laura Kövesi . 160 people from the EU justice landscape discussed the start of the EPPO with each other and exchanged views on future investigations and the role the EPPO will play in relation to states that are not members.

Among other things, the conference dealt with the future working relationship of the EPPO with other EU institutions and addressed questions relevant to criminal defense. ECJ President Koean Lenaets said the following:

"The establishment of the European Public Prosceutor's Office is the beginning of a new chapter in the cross-border fight against financial fraud and corruption at the European Union level."

It was stated that the EPPO will start its first investigations in 2021.

Criticism from German federal parties

In Germany, the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) has so far expressed partly unreflected criticism of the establishment of the EPPO.

Tobias Matthias Peterka (AfD) uttered the following words in the second deliberation of the EPPO law in the Bundestag on May 28, 2020 (reproduction from the plenary minutes): “[...] also at the EPPO: the highest paid public prosecutors, de facto controlled by Brussels Attack on the primacy of the only democratically established member states. [...] "Andrés Ritter, the German European Public Prosecutor, said in an interview to the AfD's criticism of the establishment of the EPPO:" Do we have to take seriously what the AfD says without any expertise? Because they are forgetting a very important fact, namely the fact that we are talking about damage to the EU budget. In other words, it is an area that is also assigned to the European Union from a subsidiarity perspective. And the principle of subsidiarity also says that things should be regulated where they can best be regulated. And this fragmentation, which I talked about at the beginning, makes it clear how necessary it is for us to have an authority that is uniformly supranational and can then pool resources at European level so that this fight against fraud and Corruption, which has not been efficient and effective for so long, can actually then also be carried out for the benefit of the European taxpayer. "

Demands from German federal parties

In a press release on October 7, 2020, the CDU and CSU pointed out that Hungary was still not a member of the EPPO. Katja Leikert demanded that Hungary should become a member as soon as possible. This increases the chances for the rule of law throughout the EU and promotes the multiannual financial framework and the Corona economic recovery fund:

“[…] [N] ot all EU member states are part of the European Public Prosecutor's Office. Only 22 have so far been able to decide to participate. In particular, we regret that Hungary and Poland have so far stayed away from the institution. Hungary complains about being distrusted about the use of EU funds. If Hungary sees it that way, then it has to build trust in its institutions and its rule of law. Hungary must make it clear what steps it is taking to ensure the correct use of EU funds. The European Public Prosecutor's Office was created for precisely such cases, and Hungary should join immediately. "

- Katja Leikert (deputy chairwoman of the CDU / CSU parliamentary group) : Press release from the CDU / CSU parliamentary group of October 7, 2020

Technical criticism and suggestions for improvement for the future of the EPPO

Three Portuguese criminal law scholars say the following in their paper on the European Judicial Training Center (ejtn) competition called " THEMIS 2021 Semi-final A: EU and European Criminal Procedure - TH / 2021/01 ":

"Judicial cooperation measures in criminal matters, like their equivalents, aim at greater European integration between the Member States, united by the same principles and objectives. Today we know that there is still a long way to go to overcome the fragmentation that exists in the third pillar of the European Union, and the reality is still far from what was imagined. The EPPO was not immune to these vicissitudes: the idealized project is far from the intended reality. "

See also

• Official Journal of the European Union (publication of the legislative acts adopted)
• European law

Internet presence

The EUStA has had its own homepage under the typical EU identifier since January 2020.

The EPPO in the traditional media

The EPPO has appeared in newspapers as well as in film and television since 2018, and even more so since 2020 (the planned launch year). A prominent feature is a feature of the ARD's Europa Magazin, which was broadcast on November 8, 2020 and remains available on the ARD website until November 8, 2021.

The EPPO on social networks

The EPPO has been tweeting under the acronym @EUProsecutor since May 2020 . One of the first posts related to the move of the recruited members and public prosecutors into the offices on Kirchberg in Luxembourg.

literature

• Dominik W. Heike: The European Public Prosecutor's Office - Development and Current Status . AV Akademikerverlag, 2015, ISBN 978-3-639-85392-6
• Burkhard, Jähnke: T he principle of legality: a maxim of common European criminal procedure law . In: Journal for International Criminal Law , 2020, 241; zis-online.com (PDF).
• Bonačić, Marin, The European Public Prosecutor's Office and Croatian Criminal Justice: Implementation Requirements and Possible Solutions, Hrvatski ljetopis za kaznene znanosti i praksu, Vol. 27 No. 1, 2020, pp. 303-324 https://hrcak.srce.hr/244941
• Christodoulou, Hélène, Le parquet européen à l'origine de la mutation de la procédure pénale nationale, DALLOZ actualité, Le quotidien du droit, in: Le droit en débats, February 27th, 2020, online: https: //www.dalloz -actualite.fr/node/parquet-europeen-l-origine-de-mutation-de-procedure-penale-nationale#.X3m_1e3gpPY
• Esser, Robert, § 13 Internationalization of Criminal Law, Rn. 16–39, in: Hilgendorf, Erich / Kudlich, Hans / Valerius, Brian (ed.), Handbuch des Strafrechts, Volume 1, 2019, CF Müller.
• Fiscalía General del Estado: The Future European Public Prosecutors Office . fiscal.es (PDF).
• Gheorghe, Bocşan, “COMENTARII CU PRIVIRE LA APLICABILITATEA DISPOZIŢIILOR ART. 104 ALIN. (5) DIN REGULAMENTUL (UE) 2017/1939 ALCONSILIULUI DIN 12 OCTOMBRIE 2017 DE PUNERE ÎN APLICARE A UNEI FORME DE COOPERIARE INSTRUMENT” . Revista Universul Juridic 08/2018, pp. 96–101, https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=697489 [on the applicability of Art. 104 (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 ].
• Ines Härtel: Handbook of European Legislation . Springer Verlag, Berlin / Heidelberg / New York 2006, ISBN 3-540-30664-1 .
• Kirry, Schürrle, Seeger, Shvets. In: Debevoise & Plimpton (Resourcing the EPPO — Starting out with Hands Tied Behind Its Back?) ,. Research Paper, 4th Uni 2020; debevoise.com (PDF).
• Ligeti, Katalin / Antunes, Maria João / Giuffrida, Fabio, in: Giustizia Penale Europea (ed. By Allegrezza / Gialuz / Liegti / Lupária / Ormazabal / Parizot) The European Public Prosecutor's Office at Launch. Adapting National Systems, Transforming EU Criminal Law, Wolters Kluwer / Cedam, Milano / San Giuliano Milanese (University Luxembourg / Coimbra / Eclan), 2020.
• Nowak, Celina (ed.), In: Giustizia Penale Europea (ed. V. Allegrezza / Gialuz / Liegti / Lupária / Ormazabal / Parizot), The European Public Prosecutor's Office and national authorities, Wolters Kluwer Italia / Cedam, Milano / San Giuliano Milanese, 2016.
• Ruggieri, Francesca, L'impatto culturale e giuridico delPubbico Ministero europeo (EPPO): l'ottica del sistema italiano, in: Bazzocchi, Valentina (ed.), La Protezione dei diritti fodamentali e procedurali dalle esperienze investigative dell'OLAF del procuratore europeo, p. 227ff., 2013, Digitalia Lab, Rome, online: http://www.europeanrights.eu/public/eventi/eppo_ita.pdf .
• Santos, Margarida. A implementação da Procuradoria Europeia - a emergência de um modelo de intervenção penal entre a cooperação ea integração penal? Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, Porto Alegre, vol. 5, n. 2, p. 999-1038, May / Ago. 2019. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v5i2.240 .
• Sokanović, Lucija, The Substantive Jurisdiction of the European Public Prosecutor's Office: the Croatian Perspective, in: Hrvatski ljetopis za kaznene znanosti i praksu, Vol. 26 No. 2, 2019, pp. 669–692 online: https://hrcak.srce.hr/232782 .
• Silke Nürnberger: The future European public prosecutor - an introduction . In: Journal for Legal Studies , 2009, 225; zjs-online.com (PDF).
• Trentmann, Christian * Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor's Office - On the right track ?, in: ZStW 129 (1) 2017, pp. 108–145.
• Wolfgang Schomburg, Otto Lagodny, SabineGleß: International mutual legal assistance in criminal matters; International Cooperation in Criminal Matters. Beck Juristischer Verlag, 2019, ISBN 978-3-406-72435-0 .
• Zöller, Mark A., § 21 Eurojurst, EJN and European Public Prosecutor's Office, in: Böse, Martin (Ed.), European Criminal Law with Police Cooperation, in: Hatje, Armin / Müller-Graf, Peter-Christian, Enzyklopädie Europarecht, Volume 9 , 1st edition, Nomos, Baden-Baden, 2013 [second edition will appear at the end of 2020].
• Zöller, Mark A ../ Bock, Stephanie, § 22, European Public Prosecutor, in: Böse, Martin et al (Ed.), European Criminal Law, in: Hatje, Armin / Müller-Graf, Peter-Christian, Enzyklopädie Europarecht, volume 11, 2nd edition, Nomos, Baden-Baden / Vienna (facultas) / St. Gallen (Dike), 2021, pp. 1105–1139.

Web links

• Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor of 17 July 2013 (COM (2013) 534 final) (PDF).
• Draft REGULATION OF THE COUNCIL on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office of the Council of the European Union (9834/1/14 REV 1) of May 21, 2014.
• Opinion (PDF) of the Federal Bar Association (No. 22/2013 of October 2013) and the German Lawyers' Association (Opinion No. 48/2013) on the Commission's proposal for a European Public Prosecutor's Office.
• Europe should have its own public prosecutor . World online .
• Overview of the legislative process in the EC ( Memento of November 4, 2011 in the Internet Archive )
• Proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor , Eurocrim Research Center, University of Tübingen
• Anette Grünewald , A European Public Prosecutor's Office based on the ideas of the European Commission hrr-strafrecht.de
• EU Global Response Package
• Interview with Andrés Ritter, the German European Public Prosecutor (conducted by Annette Riedel for Deutschlandfunk Kultur)

Individual evidence

1. ↑ See also Art III-274 Constitutional Treaty as amended by the 2004 Intergovernmental Conference, Verassungsvertrag.eu (PDF)
2. ↑ AJ Pénal | Dalloz. Retrieved March 29, 2021 . 
3. ↑ Video: EU: Public Prosecutor's Office - Europamagazin - ARD | The first. Retrieved November 8, 2020 . 
4. ↑ MWO: Attorney General Kövesi in the European Law subcommittee. Retrieved May 12, 2021 . 
5. ↑ EURACTIV with AFP: EU public prosecutor's office to start on June 1st. In: www.euractiv.de. April 8, 2021, accessed on April 23, 2021 (German). 
6. ↑ ORF at / Agencies red: EU public prosecutor's office should start on June 1st. April 7, 2021, accessed April 7, 2021 . 
7. ↑ European Public Prosecutor's Office , on ec.europa.eu
8. ↑ La Pm venuta da Est sfida la corruzione e le maxi-frodi Ue. Retrieved March 15, 2021 (Italian). 
9. ↑ L'essentiel: Le parquet européen au travail début 2021? Retrieved December 3, 2020 (French). 
10. ↑ Press corner. Retrieved May 26, 2021 . 
11. ↑ EURACTIV with AFP: European Public Prosecutor's Office underfunded and understaffed before launch. In: www.euractiv.de. October 9, 2020, accessed November 8, 2020 . 
12. ↑ Video: EU: Public Prosecutor's Office - Europamagazin - ARD | The first. Retrieved November 8, 2020 . 
13. ↑ Wojcik, Kristina: EU monthly report February 2021-March 2021 short message on the topics in the EU in Brussels. April 15, 2021, accessed on May 3, 2021 (German). 
14. ↑ Representation of the State of Hesse to the European Union: Report from Brussels 08/2021. April 23, 2021, accessed May 10, 2021 (German). 
15. ↑ 20 member states agree on details on creating the European Public Prosecutor's office (EPPO) - Consilium. Retrieved June 8, 2017 (French). 
16. ↑ here in Tower B, floors 1-5 (PDF) eurocrim.org
17. ↑ EU public prosecutor's office comes to Luxembourg , Luxemburger Wort , June 8, 2017. Initially, The Hague was also discussed as the seat, but the Netherlands did not participate in the establishment. Therefore, the choice of seat fell on Luxembourg.
18. ↑ Vogel / Brodowski: Non-paper from the Commission services on the state of play of the setting up of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO). (PDF) July 16, 2020, accessed on July 16, 2020 . 
19. ↑ Revue de l'Union européenne | Dalloz. Retrieved March 29, 2021 . 
20. ↑ Background | European Public Prosecutor's Office. Retrieved March 29, 2021 . 
21. ^ Jacquin, Jean-Baptiste: Avec le parquet européen, l'émergence d'une justice pénale supranationale . Ed .: Le Monde. Paris December 8th 2020 ( lemonde.fr ).
22. ^ Collin, Charlotte: Le Parquet européen commence ses activités . Ed .: Dalloz Actualité. Paris March 2021 ( dalloz-actualite.fr ).
23. ↑ Mireille Delmas-Marty: "Le parquet européen pourrait préfigurer un futur ordre juridique mondial" . In: Le Monde.fr . October 6, 2020 ( lemonde.fr [accessed March 29, 2021]).
24. ^ Herrnfeld / Brodowski / Burchard: European Public Prosecutor's Office Article-by-Article Commentary . 1st edition. Beck / Hart / Nomos, Baden-Baden, p. 4-5 .
25. ↑ Riedl, Eckard; Klamert, Marcus; Samoilova, Elizaveta: Script for the modular basic training of occupational groups A1 and A2 and salary groups v1 and v2 THE EUROPEAN UNION Basics of Union Law . Ed .: Administrative Academy of the Federal Republic of Austria. Vienna August 2020, p. 59 f . ( oeffentlicherdienst.gv.at [PDF]).
26. ↑ see BT-Drs. 19/17963
27. ↑ Beukelmann, Stephan: The European Public Prosecutor's Office . In: NJW Special . No. 12 , 2020, p. 367 .
28. ↑ Heger, Martin: Introduction of the European Public Prosecutor's Office in German Law . Ed .: ZRP. No. 4 . CH Beck, 2020, p. 115-118 .
29. ^ Schneider, Jan-Martin: Changes in the German and French law of litigation and the organization of justice in view of the legislation on the implementation of the European Public Prosecutor's Office . In: Actualités Deutsch-Französische Juristenvereinigung eV (Ed.): The electronic magazine Actualités . No. 2 , 2020, p. 12-19 .
30. ↑ Zakon o državnem tožilstvu. Retrieved November 16, 2020 . 
31. ↑ REPUBLICA SLOVENIA: Predlog zakona o spremembah in dopolnitvah zákona o državnem tožilstvu. March 2018, accessed November 16, 2020 (Slovenian). 
32. ↑ Projet de loi relatif au Parquet européen et à la justice pénale spécialisée (JUSX1933222L) - Dossiers législatifs - Légifrance. Retrieved December 12, 2020 . 
33. ↑ Christodoulou, Hélène: Specialization de la justice ou montée en puissance des procureurs? In: Dalloz actualité. January 7, 2021, accessed January 17, 2021 (French). 
34. ↑ EU public prosecutor could prosecute VAT fraudsters in the future. In: finanzen.net . finanzen.net GmbH, October 14, 2016, accessed on April 13, 2019 . 
35. ^ Herrnfeld / Brodowski / Burchard: European Public Prosecutor's Office Article-by-Article Commentary . 1st edition. Beck / Hart / Nomos, Baden-Baden, Introduction / Genesis of the EPPO Regulation, p. 820 , col. 1-6 .
36. ↑ 1st interim report on the proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (COM (2013) 0534 - 2013/0255 (APP)).
37. ↑ Orientation debate (PDF) 15862/1/14 REV 1. Interinstitutional dossier: 2013/0255 (APP).
38. ↑ DRAFT INTERIM REPORT (2nd interim report) (PDF) on the proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (COM (2013) 0534 - 2013/0255 (APP)) - only in English!
39. ↑ EU summit paves the way for 17 member states to become a European Public Prosecutor. Zeit online, March 10, 2017, accessed March 10, 2017 . 
40. ↑ Ama Lorenz: EU summit agrees on European public prosecutor's office. EurActiv , 10 March 2017, accessed 10 March 2017 . 
41. ↑ ^{a b} Nikolaj Nielsen: EU backs setting up prosecutor's office. EUobserver , March 10, 2017, accessed March 12, 2017 . 
42. ↑ 20 EU countries agree on new anti-fraud lawyers. EurActiv , 9 June 2017, accessed 19 June 2017 . 
43. ↑ New Dutch government wants 'more EU' on migration, climate. EUobserver , October 10, 2017, accessed October 10, 2017 . 
44. ↑ Ordinance on the implementation of enhanced cooperation for the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office, OJ L 283, 1.
45. ↑ Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud directed against the financial interests of the Union by criminal law, OJ L 2017/198, 29. This directive is based on Article 83 (2) TFEU ​​based (annex competence), whereby the Commission takes the view that this directive should have been based on Article 325 TFEU (Doc 7929/17 ADD 1 of 10 April 2017).
46. ↑ Bock, Stefanie: The protection of the Union's financial interests - considerations on the anti-fraud directive 2017/1371 . In: Bock / Ambos (ed.): Current and fundamental questions of economic criminal law / Questions actuelles et fondamentales du droit pénal des affaires . 1st edition. tape 39 . Duncker / Humblot, Berlin 2019, p. 156-180 .
47. ↑ 2 BvR 859/15 . bundesverfassungsgericht.de. Accessed June 1, 2020.
48. ↑ ^{a b} European Commission: Working Document of the Commission Services - Summary of the Impact Assessment Accompanying Document to the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the criminal law fight against fraud directed against the financial interests of the European Union SWD (2012) 196 final. (PDF) EU, July 11, 2012, accessed on August 27, 2002 . 
49. ↑ EUR-Lex - 133019 - EN - EUR-Lex. Retrieved January 29, 2021 . 
50. ↑ Adick / Bülte: Chapter 1 Introduction: The benefits of a uniform presentation of fiscal criminal law . In: Adick / Bülte (Ed.): Law in practice: Fiscal criminal law - criminal offenses against state assets . 2nd revised edition. CF Müller, 2020, ISBN 978-3-8114-5631-0 , pp. 1-12, 12-48 .
51. ^ Tonio Walter: Criminal Law Regulations for the Protection of the Financial Interests of the European Union - Corpus Juris 2000 (Florence version) -. (PDF) In: Book. M. Delmas-Marty, JAE Vervaele, accessed May 27, 2020 . 
52. ↑ Jähnke, Burkhard: The principle of legality: a maxim of common European criminal procedure law . In: Hefendehl / Hoyer / Rotsch / Schünemann (ed.): Journal for International Criminal Law . No. 5/12 . Giessen June 7, 2020, p. 1 (3) .
53. ↑ DIP21 extract. Retrieved May 27, 2020 . 
54. ↑ RefE implementation of RL (EU) 2017/1371 in German law. (PDF) BMJV, accessed on May 27, 2020 . 
55. ↑ ^{a b c} Martin Böse: RheinischeFriedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn Opinion on the ministerial draft of a law for the implementation of Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of July 5, 2017 on combating the Union's financial interests through criminal law directed fraud. (PDF) University of Bonn, accessed on May 27, 2020 . 
56. ↑ Carsten Momsen : Opinion on the draft bill (RefE) of the Federal Ministry of Justice and for consumer protection draft of a law to implement Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and the Council of July 5, 2017 on combating against fraud directed against the Union's financial interests. (PDF) Freie Universität Berlin, accessed on May 27, 2020 . 
57. ↑ German Association of Judges: Opinion of the German Association of Judges on the draft bill for the implementation of Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and the Council of July 5, 2017 on the criminal law fight against the financial interests of the Union directed fraud. (PDF) German Association of Judges, accessed on May 25, 2020 . 
58. ↑ Opinion No. 39/2018 (PDF) bmjv.de. Accessed June 1, 2020.
59. ↑ Assessment of the Taxpayers Association of Europe (TAE) (Association of Taxpayers Europe) (PDF) bmjv.de. Accessed June 1, 2020.
60. ↑ A draft bill for the implementation of Directive (EU) 2017/1371 (PDF) bmjv.de. Accessed June 1, 2020.
61. ↑ Νόμος 4689/2020 - ΦΕΚ 103 / Α / 27-5-2020. Retrieved June 3, 2020 (Greek). 
62. ↑ Press corner. Retrieved November 8, 2020 . 
63. ↑ Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the European Council - A Europe that protects: an initiative to extend the competences of the European Public Prosecutor's Office to include cross-border terrorist offenses. European Commission, September 12, 2018, accessed November 8, 2020 . 
64. ^ Sebastian Fiedler: Motion of the FDP parliamentary group: upgrade Europol to a European criminal investigation office; Printed matter 19/10164. Bund Deutscher Kriminalbeamter, May 11, 2020, accessed on November 8, 2020 . 
65. ↑ Jean-Claude Juncker, State of the Union Address, September 13, 2017.
66. ↑ The Greens and CSU present plans of action against Islamists. Retrieved November 8, 2020 . 
67. ↑ See Recital 4 of the proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor of 17 July 2013 ( COM (2013) 534 final (PDF)).
68. ↑ Communication from the Commission (COM (2013) 851) of November 27, 2013.
69. ↑ 40 votes in favor, 5 against and 2 abstentions.
70. ↑ Press document of the Council (PDF) 7095/14 from 3./4. March 2014
71. ↑ ORF at / agencies red: Corruption hunter Kövesi heads the EU public prosecutor's office. September 19, 2019. Retrieved September 19, 2019 . 
72. ↑ Lili Bayer: Romania's Kövesi poised to become EU public prosecutor. In: Politico.eu. September 19, 2019, accessed on September 19, 2019 . 
73. ^ John Smith: European Public Prosecutor's Office. February 19, 2016, accessed July 16, 2020 . 
74. ^ The EPPO's Hybrid Structure and Legal Framework - eucrim. Accessed July 16, 2020 . 
75. ^ New kid on the block: the European Public Prosecutor's Office. European Court of Auditors, July 5, 2019, accessed on July 16, 2020 . 
76. ↑ The European Public Prosecutor. Retrieved July 16, 2020 . 
77. ^ European Court of Auditors: New kid on the block: the European Public Prosecutor's Office. July 5, 2019, accessed September 10, 2020 . 
78. ^ Council of the European Union: EU Council Document 8009/20. (PDF) In: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8009-2020-INIT/en/pdf . EU, May 18, 2020, accessed September 10, 2020 . 
79. ↑ New interim head of administration for the European Public Prosecutor's Office , on ec.europa.eu, accessed on 23 September 2020
80. ↑ The European Public Prosecutor. Retrieved July 16, 2020 . 
81. ↑ ^{a b c d e f g} Chief Public Prosecutor on fraud with EU fundsGood news for European taxpayers , on deutschlandfunkkultur.de
82. ↑ EPPO / Kövesi: DECISION OF THE COLLEGE OF THE EUROPEAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE (EPPO) OF 30 SEPTEMBER 2020 ON INTERNAL LANGUAGE ARRANGEMENTS. September 30, 2020, accessed December 18, 2020 . 
83. ↑ Infographic - College of the EU Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) , on consilium.europa.eu
84. ↑ ^{a b} https://twitter.com/euprosecutor/status/1311598588947058688. Retrieved October 27, 2020 . 
85. ^ The EPPO's Structure and Powers — 1 European Head, 22 National Swords. Retrieved July 16, 2020 (American English). 
86. ↑ Elianade Matos Teixeira Santos Oliveira / Maria Desidério Pereira Dias / Mónica Alexandra Soares Pereira: EuropeanDelegatedProsecutor: thetwilightzonewithintheEPPO. April 2, 2021, accessed April 2, 2021 . 
87. ↑ Brodowski, Dominik: The European Public Prosecutor's Office - an introduction . Ed .: StV. No. 10 , 2017, p. 684 ff .
88. ^ "Sans moyen, le parquet européen ne pourra agir". September 15, 2020, accessed on October 21, 2020 (French). 
89. ↑ European Public Prosecutor: New Chapter in the Fight Against Financial Fraud and Corruption in the EU. Retrieved November 19, 2020 . 
90. ↑ Didier Reynders on twitter.com
91. ↑ https://twitter.com/euprosecutor/status/1372130314043191297. Retrieved April 1, 2021 . 
92. ↑ https://twitter.com/euprosecutor/status/1369962873263362048. Retrieved March 13, 2021 . 
93. ↑ https://twitter.com/euprosecutor/status/1362431980445569030/photo/1. Retrieved March 13, 2021 . 
94. ↑ https://twitter.com/euprosecutor/status/1334065603011809280. Retrieved March 13, 2021 . 
95. ↑ https://twitter.com/euprosecutor/status/1331601295589990401. Retrieved March 13, 2021 . 
96. ↑ https://twitter.com/euprosecutor/status/1334065603011809280. Retrieved March 13, 2021 . 
97. ↑ https://twitter.com/euprosecutor/status/1375500602592083969. Retrieved April 1, 2021 . 
98. ↑ https://twitter.com/euprosecutor/status/1375372868566052864. Retrieved April 1, 2021 . 
99. ↑ https://twitter.com/euprosecutor/status/1356952981690802183. Retrieved March 13, 2021 . 
100. ↑ https://twitter.com/euprosecutor/status/1352279217787035648. Retrieved March 13, 2021 . 
101. ↑ https://twitter.com/euprosecutor/status/1359496668333367302. Retrieved March 13, 2021 . 
102. ↑ https://twitter.com/euprosecutor/status/1359496668333367302. Retrieved March 13, 2021 . 
103. ↑ https://twitter.com/euprosecutor/status/1356187383889276930. Retrieved March 13, 2021 . 
104. ↑ https://twitter.com/euprosecutor/status/1336659664566693890. Retrieved March 13, 2021 . 
105. ↑ https://twitter.com/slovakiaineu/status/1331700995181731840. Retrieved March 13, 2021 . 
106. ↑ https://twitter.com/euprosecutor/status/1375372868566052864. Retrieved April 1, 2021 . 
107. ↑ https://twitter.com/euprosecutor/status/1357631714185670657. Retrieved March 13, 2021 . 
108. ↑ https://twitter.com/euprosecutor/status/1352279217787035648. Retrieved March 13, 2021 . 
109. ↑ European Commission: Brussels, 3June 2019 (OR. En) 9548/19. (PDF) July 16, 2020, accessed on July 16, 2020 . 
110. ^ The EPPO's Hybrid Structure and Legal Framework - eucrim. Accessed July 16, 2020 . 
111. ↑ Video: EU: Public Prosecutor's Office - Europamagazin - ARD | The first. Retrieved November 8, 2020 . 
112. ^ Justice Belgium Online: European Prosecutors Eligible Criteria. (PDF) July 16, 2020, accessed on July 16, 2020 . 
113. ↑ Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of the Council of October 12, 2017 on the implementation of enhanced cooperation to establish the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) , on eur-lex.europa.eu
114. ↑ LTO: What is the salary of a prosecutor? Pay in the judiciary. Retrieved July 16, 2020 . 
115. ^ Setting up the EPPO - State of Play. eucrim, accessed on July 16, 2020 . 
116. ↑ Czech Republic: Remuneration EDPs and EPs. March 14, 2021, accessed March 14, 2021 . 
117. ↑ EUR-Lex - 01962R0031-20140501. Retrieved October 1, 2020 . 
118. ↑ Regulation No. 31 (EEC) 11 (EAG). Retrieved October 12, 2020 . 
119. ↑ BT Drs. 19/17963. (PDF) German Bundestag, p. 42 , accessed on October 1, 2020 . 
120. ↑ Expression of interest procedure as Delegate European Public Prosecutor in the center of Hamburg , on richterverein.de, accessed on October 25, 2020
121. ↑ Expression of interest procedure as Delegate European Public Prosecutor in the center of Hamburg , on perma.cc, accessed on October 25, 2020
122. ↑ European Public Prosecutor's Office: DECISION OF THE COLLEGE OF THE EUROPEAN PROSECUTIVE OFFICE OF 29 SEPTEMBER 2020 WITH REGULATIONS ON THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF THE DELEGATED EUROPEAN PROSECUTORS . 1st edition. Brussels ( europa.eu [PDF]).
123. ↑ Schleswig-Holsteinischer Landtag: Inquiries from the meeting of the European Committee v. 08/12/2020 - transfer 19/4458. August 12, 2020, accessed November 30, 2020 . 
124. ^ Bittmann, Folker: EU-direct: The European Public Prosecutor's Office before the start. In: WiJ. January 1, 2020, accessed October 1, 2020 . 
125. ↑ Salary tables. Retrieved October 1, 2020 . 
126. ↑ Conference of Ministers of Justice November 15, 2018. (PDF) NRW Justice, July 16, 2020, accessed on July 16, 2020 . 
127. ↑ State Parliament of North Rhine-Westphalia, submission 17/4329/2020: Draft administrative agreement on the posting of public prosecutors on the occasion of their activity as European Delegated Public Prosecutors for the European Public Prosecutor's Office . Ed .: LAND NRW. Düsseldorf May 19, 2020.
128. ↑ RefE EUStAG. (PDF) Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, July 16, 2020, accessed on July 16, 2020 . 
129. ↑ European Public Prosecutor's Office starts work in Hamburg. Retrieved June 1, 2021 . 
130. ↑ Senior Public Prosecutor on Fraud with EU Funds - Good news for European taxpayers. Retrieved August 20, 2020 . 
131. ↑ NNN: Personnel: Rostock's senior public prosecutor will work for EU | nnn.de. Retrieved August 20, 2020 . 
132. ↑ NNN: Personnel: Rostock's senior public prosecutor will work for EU | nnn.de. Retrieved August 20, 2020 . 
133. ↑ https://twitter.com/euprosecutor/status/1318590222469386240/photo/1. Retrieved October 21, 2020 . 
134. ↑ Schleswig Holsteinischer Landtag - reprint 19/4558: Inquiries from the meeting of the European Committee v. 08/12/2020 . ( ltsh.de [PDF]).
135. ↑ EPPO / Kövesi: Appointements EDPS Germany. November 25, 2020, accessed December 18, 2020 . 
136. ↑ European Public Prosecutor's Office starts work in Hamburg. Retrieved June 1, 2021 . 
137. ↑ Start for the European Public Prosecutor's Office in Frankfurt on June 1st | Information portal Hessen. Retrieved June 1, 2021 . 
138. ↑ Start for the European Public Prosecutor's Office in Frankfurt on June 1st | Information portal Hessen. Retrieved June 1, 2021 . 
139. ↑ Start for the European Public Prosecutor's Office in the Main metropolis. June 1, 2021, accessed June 1, 2021 . 
140. ↑ Abendzeitung Germany: From now on the European Public Prosecutor's Office is investigating - Munich is a competence center. May 31, 2021, accessed June 1, 2021 . 
141. ^ Start of the European Public Prosecutor's Office in Berlin. May 31, 2021, accessed June 1, 2021 . 
142. ↑ Kölner Stadtanzeiger: Funding fraud - EU public prosecutors take up work in North Rhine-Westphalia. In: Wikipedia. Ministry of Justice of North Rhine-Westphalia, June 1, 2021, accessed on June 1, 2021 (German). 
143. ^ The EPPO's Hybrid Structure and Legal Framework - eucrim. Accessed July 16, 2020 . 
144. ↑ EPPO / Kövesi: Internal Rules of Procedure of the EPPO. October 12, 2020, accessed December 18, 2020 . 
145. ^ Kövesi, Laura: RULES CONCERNING THE DATA PROTECTION OFFICER OF THE EUROPEAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE. October 21, 2020, accessed December 18, 2020 . 
146. ↑ Kövesi, Laura: INTERNAL RULES CONCERNING RESTRICTIONS OF CERTAIN DATA-SUBJECT RIGHTS IN RELATION TO THE PROCESSING OF ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONAL DATA IN THE FRAMEWORK OF ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE EPPO. December 18, 2020, accessed December 18, 2020 . 
147. ↑ Kövesi, Laura: DECISION OF THE COLLEGE OF THE EUROPEAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE (EPPO) OF 21 OCTOBER 2020 LAYING DOWN RULES ON PUBLIC ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE (EPPO). December 18, 2020, accessed December 18, 2020 . 
148. ↑ Kövesi, Laura: RULES CONCERNING THE PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA BYTHE EUROPEAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFIC. December 18, 2020, accessed December 18, 2020 . 
149. ↑ ^{a b c d e f g h i} Virus response opens way for corruption: EU chief prosecutor . In: Reuters . May 12, 2020 ( reuters.com [accessed May 25, 2020]).
150. ↑ Europol is sounding the alarm: More crimes due to the corona crisis. Retrieved May 25, 2020 . 
151. ↑ Luiza Ilie, Muck Rack. Retrieved May 25, 2020 . 
152. ^ Columns. In: Reuters.com. Retrieved May 25, 2020 . 
153. ↑ Folker Bittmann: EU-direct: The European Public Prosecutor's Office before the start . wi-j.com. Accessed June 1, 2020.
154. ^ "Sans moyen, le parquet européen ne pourra agir". September 15, 2020, accessed on October 21, 2020 (French). 
155. ^ "Sans moyen, le parquet européen ne pourra agir". September 15, 2020, accessed on October 21, 2020 (French). 
156. ↑ Kirry, Seeger, Schürrle, Shvets, Bisch, Lööf, Fleuriot, Popp, Hirst, Mozetic, Krauss: Resourcing the EPPO — Starting out with Hands Tied Behind Its Back? Ed .: Debevoise & Plimpton. 1st edition. ( debevoise.com ).
157. ↑ Resourcing the EPPO Starting out with Hands Tied Behind Its Back? Retrieved July 16, 2020 (American English). 
158. ↑ Resourcing the EPPO Starting out with Hands Tied Behind Its Back? Retrieved July 16, 2020 (American English). 
159. ^ "Sans moyen, le parquet européen ne pourra agir". September 15, 2020, accessed on October 21, 2020 (French). 
160. ^ "Sans moyen, le parquet européen ne pourra agir". September 15, 2020, accessed on October 21, 2020 (French). 
161. ↑ Laura Codruţa Kövesi: Justice must apply equally to everyone. July 6, 2020, accessed July 16, 2020 . 
162. ^ EU considers changing public prosecutor office rules due to Malta. Retrieved July 16, 2020 (UK English). 
163. ^ Julian Bonnici: All Five Of Malta's Candidates For EU Public Prosecutor Were Rejected At The First Hurdle. June 18, 2020, accessed July 16, 2020 (American English). 
164. ^ EU considers changing public prosecutor office rules due to Malta. Retrieved July 16, 2020 (UK English). 
165. ↑ ^{a b} Malta delays the start of EU office to fight corruption. Retrieved July 16, 2020 (UK English). 
166. ↑ ORF at / agencies red: Slovenia: Minister resigned in dispute with Jansa. May 27, 2021, accessed May 30, 2021 . 
167. ↑ ORF at / agencies red: Slovenia: Minister resigned in dispute with Jansa. May 27, 2021, accessed May 30, 2021 . 
168. ↑ ORF at / agencies red: Slovenia: Minister resigned in dispute with Jansa. May 27, 2021, accessed May 30, 2021 . 
169. ↑ LTO: European Public Prosecutor starts. Retrieved May 30, 2021 . 
170. ↑ Forstner, Armin: EUROPOL and OLAF A representation of the European agencies taking into account the legal historical development . Ed .: University of St. Gallen. St. Gallen December 2015 (EUROPOL and OLAFEa presentation of the European agencies taking into account the legal-historical development Master's thesis within the framework of the ULG Parliamentarism and regional politics at the Karl-Franzens University Graz).
171. ↑ European Supervisory Committee: Opinion 2/2020 OLAF's preliminary draft for 2021. (PDF) EU, accessed on August 26, 2020 . 
172. ↑ Inghelram, Jan: EPPO, OLAF and CJEU - a brief look at their interplay . In: European Union, European Court of Auditors Journal (Ed.): Fraud Ethics Integrity and and Corruption . No. 2 . Luxembourg February 2019, p. 70 f . ( europa.eu [PDF]).
173. ↑ Schomburg, Lagodny: International mutual legal assistance in criminal matters = International Cooperation in Criminal Matters. Retrieved June 6, 2020 . 
174. ^ Herrnfeld, Brodowski, Burchard: European Public Prosecutor's Office. Retrieved June 6, 2020 . 
175. ↑ Satzger, Helmut / von Maltitz Nicolai: Things worth knowing about the newly created »European Public Prosecutor«: (Exam) questions on the focus in European criminal law . In: Legal Education . tape 40 , no. 2 . De Gruyter, Berlin January 17, 2018 ( degruyter.com ).
176. ↑ European Public Prosecutor: New Chapter in the Fight Against Financial Fraud and Corruption in the EU. Retrieved November 19, 2020 . 
177. ↑ https://twitter.com/euprosecutor/status/1329450722656710659. Retrieved November 19, 2020 . 
178. ↑ Minutes of the plenary session 19/163: Stenographic report, 163rd session. (PDF) German Bundestag, May 28, 2020, accessed on November 10, 2020 . 
179. ↑ Hungary has to join the European Public Prosecutor's Office. Press release. In: cducsu.de. October 7, 2020, accessed October 25, 2020 . 
180. ↑ THEMIS PRESENTATION - PORTUGUESE TEAM | Created using Powtoon - The Visual Communication Platform. Accessed April 30, 2021 . 
181. ↑ Santos Oliveira / Pereira Dias / Soares Pereira: European Delegated Prosecutor: thetwilightzonewithintheEPPO. April 30, 2021, accessed April 30, 2021 . 
182. ↑ Home | European Public Prosecutor's Office. Retrieved January 17, 2021 . 
183. ↑ Video: EU: Public Prosecutor's Office - Europamagazin - ARD | The first. Retrieved November 8, 2020 . 
184. ↑ https://twitter.com/euprosecutor. Retrieved October 27, 2020 . 

Please note the information on legal issues!