EIRP Proceedings, Vol 14, No 1 (2019)

Abstract

The idea of setting up a European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) is old and has its foundation in the interest of the European institutions to protect their budgets, both in the pre-accession and post-accession phase. In the interest of protecting financial interests in particular, there was wanted a regulatory framework in criminal matters to generate results. The solution found at Community level, despite complaints from some Member States over the violation of the principle of national sovereignty, was this EPPO institution capable of investigating, judging and prosecuting offenses against the EU budget, such as fraud, corruption or serious cross-border VAT fraud.

          In Romania, the debate on this issue did not address issues of sovereignty, or elements related to the nature of the institution's appearance, its necessity, or how it will work at the level of the signatory, non-statutory or non-EU . In our country the discussion has reduced to who will lead the respective European body, the views being obviously shared. What the public opinion in Romania ignores is the fact that man does not make the institution, but the institution makes the man.

          Given these exaggerations on one side and the other at national level, which have not brought any concrete contribution to the development of a European instrument, I consider as necessary a cold analysis of this institution and its implications for the Member States and Europe overall.