The Chief Prosecutor of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), Laura Kövesi, presented, on Wednesday 20 April, the first report of the EPPO for its activities in 2021 to the MEPs of the European Parliament’s Committees on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) and on Budgetary Control (CONT).
The investigations conducted by the EPPO have resulted in the confiscation of €147 million of assets in 2021. Damages from the 515 active investigations is estimated at €5.4 billion, but Ms Kövesi said half of the cases involved complex VAT frauds involving several Member States and several dozen suspects. These investigations are spread over a long period of time, whereas the European Public Prosecutor’s Office started its activities less than a year ago.
Several MEPs asked how they could, at their level, support the work of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to handle more cases.
Reviewing the European Public Prosecutor’s Office Regulation
According to Laura Kövesi, the 2017 regulation establishing the European Public Prosecutor’s Office needs to be amended. The mandate of European prosecutors, for example, needs to be changed in order to have a “transparent, predictable and mathematically correct” rotation system. Currently, European prosecutors have a six-year term of office, with the possibility for some to extend it by three years, and one third of them must be replaced every three years. “It is mathematically impossible”, said the chief prosecutor. She added that the conditions for extending the mandate should be clarified. She also called for a simplified salary system for European prosecutors that would guarantee their independence.
The competence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office should also be clarified, according to Ms Kövesi. Jurisdiction varies from one Member State to another, complicating the work of the EPPO.
Strengthening fraud detection
The second improvement plan concerns fraud detection, which is too weak in some Member States, according to Ms Kövesi. In 2021, the 2,832 notifications received by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office came from national authorities, European institutions or agencies, such as the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), or civil society. However, “in several Member States, national authorities do not report any suspicion of VAT or customs fraud”. She indicated that she was counting on OLAF to strengthen its activities in this respect.
Several MEPs also expressed concern about Poland’s non-cooperation. It is because Poland does not yet recognise the European Public Prosecutor’s Office as a competent authority, explained Laura Kövesi. “This is why I have sent a letter to the Commission on this matter. This is the only possibility we have”. In this letter sent in February, she denounced Poland’s rejections of all requests for judicial cooperation from the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (see EUROPE 12893/22).
See the European Public Prosecutor’s Office Annual Report: https://aeur.eu/f/1aj (Original version in French by Léa Marchal)