Linked e-resources
Details
Table of Contents
Intro; Introduction: The EPPO and the Challenges Ahead; Contents; About the Contributors; The Status of Independence of the European Public Prosecutor's Office and Its Guarantees; 1 Introduction; 2 What Independence for the Future European Public Prosecutor's Office?; 3 The Guarantees of the Independence of the European Public Prosecutor's Office in the Regulation of 2017 and in the Pre-legislative Work of the Council; 3.1 The Organizational Structure of the European Public Prosecutor's Office; 3.1.1 The College; 3.1.2 The Permanent Chambers.
3.1.3 The European Chief Prosecutor and the Deputy Chief Prosecutors3.1.4 European Prosecutors; 3.1.5 European Delegated Prosecutors; 3.1.6 The Administrative Director; 3.1.7 Seconded National Experts; 3.2 Regulatory Autonomy of the European Public Prosecutor's Office; 3.3 Budgetary and Managerial Autonomy of the European Public Prosecutor's Office; 4 Concluding Remarks: Some Problematic Aspects; References; The Material Competence of the European Public Prosecutor's Office; 1 Introduction.
2 Legal Basis: What the Treaty of the European Union Envisaged for the European Public Prosecutor's Office3 Material Competence of the European Public Prosecutor's Office: Determination by a Dynamic Reference to the PIF Directive; 4 PIF Directive: Competence Framework for the European Public Prosecutor's Office. PIF Directive and VAT; 4.1 PIF Directive and VAT; 5 Related Crimes, Including Inextricability and Instrumentality: The Case of Criminal Organisations and the Remaining Cases; 6 The Exercise of the Competence by the European Public Prosecutor's Office.
7 The Reporting Obligations of the Member States8 Conclusions; References; The European Public Prosecutor's Office and Its Coordination with the National Public Prosecutor's Office: The Model of Complementarity; 1 Introduction; 2 The Principle of Complementarity as the Fountain of Inspiration for an Alternative Model; 2.1 Background; 2.2 The Principle of Complementarity in the Rome Statute of the ICC; 2.3 The Principle of Complementarity as a Parallel Mechanism for an Alternative Model of an EPPO; 2.3.1 The Criterion of Complementarity; 2.3.2 The Situation in Relation to the ICC.
2.3.3 Differences and Problems3 The Principle of Complementarity as a Guiding Principle for the Future EPPO's Work; 3.1 The Role of Complementarity in the EPPO's Exercise of Its Right of Evocation; 3.2 Complementarity Guiding the Relationship Between the Centralised and the Decentralised Level Within the General Structure of the EPPO; 4 Conclusion: Advantages of implementing the Principle of Complementarity; References; Choosing the National Forum in Proceedings Conducted by the EPPO: Who Is to Decide?; 1 Choosing Forum Between Multiple Jurisdictions: Framework and History. 2 EPPO and Jurisdiction.
3.1.3 The European Chief Prosecutor and the Deputy Chief Prosecutors3.1.4 European Prosecutors; 3.1.5 European Delegated Prosecutors; 3.1.6 The Administrative Director; 3.1.7 Seconded National Experts; 3.2 Regulatory Autonomy of the European Public Prosecutor's Office; 3.3 Budgetary and Managerial Autonomy of the European Public Prosecutor's Office; 4 Concluding Remarks: Some Problematic Aspects; References; The Material Competence of the European Public Prosecutor's Office; 1 Introduction.
2 Legal Basis: What the Treaty of the European Union Envisaged for the European Public Prosecutor's Office3 Material Competence of the European Public Prosecutor's Office: Determination by a Dynamic Reference to the PIF Directive; 4 PIF Directive: Competence Framework for the European Public Prosecutor's Office. PIF Directive and VAT; 4.1 PIF Directive and VAT; 5 Related Crimes, Including Inextricability and Instrumentality: The Case of Criminal Organisations and the Remaining Cases; 6 The Exercise of the Competence by the European Public Prosecutor's Office.
7 The Reporting Obligations of the Member States8 Conclusions; References; The European Public Prosecutor's Office and Its Coordination with the National Public Prosecutor's Office: The Model of Complementarity; 1 Introduction; 2 The Principle of Complementarity as the Fountain of Inspiration for an Alternative Model; 2.1 Background; 2.2 The Principle of Complementarity in the Rome Statute of the ICC; 2.3 The Principle of Complementarity as a Parallel Mechanism for an Alternative Model of an EPPO; 2.3.1 The Criterion of Complementarity; 2.3.2 The Situation in Relation to the ICC.
2.3.3 Differences and Problems3 The Principle of Complementarity as a Guiding Principle for the Future EPPO's Work; 3.1 The Role of Complementarity in the EPPO's Exercise of Its Right of Evocation; 3.2 Complementarity Guiding the Relationship Between the Centralised and the Decentralised Level Within the General Structure of the EPPO; 4 Conclusion: Advantages of implementing the Principle of Complementarity; References; Choosing the National Forum in Proceedings Conducted by the EPPO: Who Is to Decide?; 1 Choosing Forum Between Multiple Jurisdictions: Framework and History. 2 EPPO and Jurisdiction.