The European Public Prosecutor’s Office and Environmental Crime ¦ Further Competence in the Near Future?

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office and Environmental Crime: Prospects for Expanded Competence

Introduction to the EPPO and Its Current Role

The establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) by Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 marked a significant milestone in European criminal justice. This supranational body introduced a vertical cooperation model, diverging from prior horizontal collaborations between Member States through agencies like Eurojust. The EPPO’s primary mandate is to investigate, prosecute, and bring offenders to justice for crimes affecting the financial interests of the European Union (EU), operating in coordination with national courts. Despite its groundbreaking role, the EPPO’s competence is currently limited to offenses targeting the EU’s economic interests, which some view as a narrow scope that does not fully leverage the potential of a pan-European prosecutorial body. This limitation has sparked debate on whether the EPPO should have expanded authority to cover other serious cross-border crimes, particularly environmental offenses.

Current Competence Framework of the EPPO

The EPPO’s jurisdiction is primarily defined by Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which focuses on protecting the EU’s financial interests. The EPPO’s powers are further shaped by EU secondary legislation, including Directive (EU) 2017/1371 (the PIF Directive), which outlines specific offenses such as subsidy fraud, tax offenses, money laundering, bribery, and embezzlement.

The regulation establishes a complex material competence combining substantive and procedural criminal law elements, while also applying territorial and personal jurisdiction criteria. It operates based on a model of shared competence with Member States, where national authorities retain concurrent investigative and prosecutorial powers but work in complementarity with the EPPO.

Legal Possibility and Political Context for Extension to Environmental Crime

Article 86(4) TFEU provides a legal basis for extending the EPPO’s powers beyond financial crimes to include serious crimes with a cross-border dimension. This extension requires unanimous approval by the European Council, consent from the European Parliament, and consultation with the European Commission.

Although this article opens a door for expanding EPPO’s mandate, there are significant political and legal hurdles. Currently, no concrete plans exist at the EU level to modify the EPPO’s competence to encompass environmental crimes. Instead, more immediate attention is given to enabling the EPPO to prosecute violations of EU restrictive measures, such as sanctions related to geopolitical conflicts.

Bastian Schwind-Wagner_Follow "The European Public Prosecutor’s Office currently focuses on protecting EU financial interests, but there is ongoing discussion about extending its mandate to other serious cross-border crimes like environmental offenses. Although legally possible, expanding into environmental crime faces political and definitional challenges and is not expected soon."

Arguments for and Against Including Environmental Crimes

Environmental crime has been recognized as an increasingly serious issue with substantial cross-border implications. Proponents argue that environmental offenses share characteristics with financial crimes covered by the EPPO: both involve serious harm without direct individual victims (“victimless” crimes), require cross-border cooperation, and relate to protecting collective European goods.

The recent Directive (EU) 2024/1203 on environmental protection through criminal law reflects growing EU commitment to criminalize environmental harm effectively. Furthermore, European Parliament resolutions have called for exploring an extension of EPPO’s mandate to include environmental offenses.

However, defining environmental crime uniformly across all Member States remains challenging due to varying national laws and classifications. This lack of harmonization complicates establishing clear jurisdictional competence for the EPPO. Additionally, political will at the Union level appears limited for expanding competence into environmental crime compared to other areas like terrorism or sanctions enforcement.

Future Perspectives and Conclusion

While environmental crime presents strong arguments for inclusion in the EPPO’s prosecutorial scope — given its cross-border nature and importance in EU policy — practical and political considerations make an immediate extension unlikely. The most probable near-term expansion relates to prosecuting violations of EU restrictive measures rather than environmental offenses.

In conclusion, broadening the EPPO’s mandate beyond financial interests could enhance its effectiveness in combating serious cross-border crimes and strengthen EU criminal justice. Despite this potential, the extension to environmental crime faces definitional ambiguities and political reluctance that suggest it will remain a future consideration rather than an imminent development.

Dive deeper

• Research ¦ Prof. Dr. Mar Jimeno Bulnes (2024). The European Public Prosecutor’s Office and Environmental Crime. eucrim, Issue 2/2024, pp 146 – 152. https://doi.org/10.30709/eucrim-2024-010 ¦ Link ¦ licensed under the following terms, with no changes made: CC BY-ND 4.0