Процесуальний статус та повноваження Європейської прокуратури (EPPO)

Abstract

The article provides a comprehensive scientific analysis of the procedural status and jurisdictional powers of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) as the first autonomous supranational body of criminal justice. The long history of the institute’s formation is researched, starting from the 1995 initiatives and the 1997 «Corpus Juris» academic project, which laid the foundation for the codification of EU criminal law, to the publication of the 2001 Green Paper as a key consultative document for stimulating pan-European debates. Particular attention is paid to the role of the 2007 Lisbon Treaty, which, through the implementation of Article 86 TFEU, created a direct legal basis for the establishment of the body under the enhanced cooperation procedure using «accelerator clauses». The material competence of the EPPO in the field of PIF crimes is determined in accordance with Directive 2017/1371, in particular regarding large-scale VAT fraud, corruption, and money laundering, and doctrinal proposals for expanding the mandate to environmental crimes and terrorism are considered. The study emphasizes the unique nature of the office as a body sui generis with direct enforcement powers that distinguish it from traditional agencies. The organizational structure of the body, which combines central (College, Permanent Chambers) and decentralized (delegated prosecutors) levels, ensuring institutional independence from the governments of Member States, is analyzed. Through the prism of the case law of the EU Court of Justice (Taricco, G. K. and Others, Stan v EPPO cases), the mechanisms of cross-border interaction between the handling and assisting delegated prosecutors are revealed, and the priority of national courts in exercising judicial control over the acts of the prosecutor’s office is confirmed. Systemic risks of implementing the right of evocation caused by shortcomings of Article 25 of Regulation 2017/1939 are outlined, illustrated by conflicts of competence in Spain and Croatia. The dynamics of Ukraine’s integration into the supranational financial security system of the EU are investigated: from the 2022 Working Arrangement and memorandums with NABU and SAPO to the ratification of the Framework Agreement on the Ukraine Facility in 2024. The paper examines the legal implications of the 2024 Agreement which serves as a mandatory legal guarantee for the effective protection of the Union’s financial interests during the reconstruction of Ukraine.