TY - JOUR
T1 - The European Public Prosecutor
T2 - Quintessential supranational criminal law?
AU - Öberg, Jacob
N1 - Funding Information:
This article is the outcome of discussions with many academic colleagues and friends, particularly during presentations of early drafts of this article in Lund and in online seminars organized by Örebro and Uppsala University. I would wish to particularly acknowledge the valuable comments, suggestions and constructive criticisms from Marianne Wade, Ester Herlin-Karnell, Chris Harding, Valsamis Mitsilegas, Graham Butler, Tomas Färndahl, Maria Skrzypiec and Xavier Groussout.
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2021.
PY - 2021/4
Y1 - 2021/4
N2 - This article critically examines the extent to which the European Public Prosecutor’s Office can be claimed to constitute a prime example of supranational criminal law. The article observes that among policymakers and commentators, the Office appears to be a hallmark of the transformation of EU criminal law from an intergovernmental paradigm to a strong federal and supranational polity. The article discusses the scope, nature and limits to the powers of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, as well as its operating structure in light of Article 86 TFEU and the recently adopted EPPO Regulation. It departs from the basic assumption that the EPPO stands in the midst of supranationalism and intergovernmentalism. Whilst the EPPO is envisaged to be independent of the Member States, the Office’s complicated, multifaceted and vertical structure means that Member States are able to direct, to some extent, its activities. The article argues, however, that a general assessment of the Office’s operational and strategic direction (where its operational activities are managed and supervised by centralized ‘European’ prosecutors), and the type (direct criminal enforcement powers) of powers it has makes it distinctive as the most ‘integrated’ and ‘supranational’ EU agency.
AB - This article critically examines the extent to which the European Public Prosecutor’s Office can be claimed to constitute a prime example of supranational criminal law. The article observes that among policymakers and commentators, the Office appears to be a hallmark of the transformation of EU criminal law from an intergovernmental paradigm to a strong federal and supranational polity. The article discusses the scope, nature and limits to the powers of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, as well as its operating structure in light of Article 86 TFEU and the recently adopted EPPO Regulation. It departs from the basic assumption that the EPPO stands in the midst of supranationalism and intergovernmentalism. Whilst the EPPO is envisaged to be independent of the Member States, the Office’s complicated, multifaceted and vertical structure means that Member States are able to direct, to some extent, its activities. The article argues, however, that a general assessment of the Office’s operational and strategic direction (where its operational activities are managed and supervised by centralized ‘European’ prosecutors), and the type (direct criminal enforcement powers) of powers it has makes it distinctive as the most ‘integrated’ and ‘supranational’ EU agency.
KW - EPPO
KW - EU competences
KW - EU criminal law
KW - EU criminal policy
KW - European prosecution
KW - intergovernmentalism
KW - justification for EU action
KW - supranationalism
KW - transnational interests
U2 - 10.1177/1023263X211005980
DO - 10.1177/1023263X211005980
M3 - Journal article
AN - SCOPUS:85105102349
SN - 1023-263X
VL - 28
SP - 164
EP - 181
JO - Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law
JF - Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law
IS - 2
ER -