Protection of EU financial interests: EPPO’s cooperation with non-EU states
Author/s: Matić Bošković, Marina,
Pages: 27-44
UDK: 341.638:339.727.2(4-672EU)
346.543
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47152/rkkp.62.3.2
Abstract: The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EEPO) is a cornerstone institution in the EU’s efforts to combat financial crimes and protect its financial interests. Its role encompasses a wide range of activities, from investigating and prosecuting financial crimes to fostering cooperation and ensuring accountability. By centralizing and coordinating efforts across member states, the EPPO significantly strengthens the EU’s ability to safeguard its financial resources and uphold the rule of law. The cooperation between the EPPO and non-EU countries, particularly candidate countries, is essential for ensuring comprehensive protection against financial crimes due to their economic ties with the EU. Sebia, as candidate country for EU membership, has a vested interest in aligning its judicial and law enforcement practices and regulations with the European Union. For the period 2021-2023, Serbia has been allocated 571 million euro under the IPA III funding for national programmes. Proper utilization and protection of these funds are vital, and cooperation with the EPPO can help in achieving this objective. Through mutual legal assistance, information sharing, capacity building, joint investigations, and preventive measures, this international collaboration is safeguarding the EU’s financial stability. The paper identifies benefits and challenges of cooperation between third countries national authorities and EPPO. The paper recognizes challenges in identification of the legal basis for cooperation with the EPPO for some of the third countries and propose options for overcoming and mitigation measures. Kancelarija evropskog javnog tužioca (EPPO) predstavlja ključnu instituciju u naporima EU da se bori protiv finansijskog kriminala i zaštiti svoje finansijske interese. Uloga EPPO obuhvata širok spektar aktivnosti, od istrage i krivičnog gonjenja finansijskih krivičnih dela do negovanja saradnje i obezbeđivanja odgovornosti. Centralizacijom i koordinacijom napora među državama članicama, EPPO značajno jača sposobnost EU da zaštiti svoja finansijska sredstva i održava vladavinu prava. Saradnja između EPPO-a i zemalja koje nisu članice EU, posebno država kandidata, od suštinskog je značaja za obezbeđivanje sveobuhvatne zaštite od finansijskog kriminala zbog njihovih ekonomskih veza sa EU. Srbija, kao zemlja kandidat za članstvo u EU, ima sopstveni interes da uskladi pravosudnu i policijsku praksu i propise sa Evropskom unijom. U periodu 2021-2023, Srbiji je dobila 571 milion evra u okviru IPA III sredstava za nacionalne programe. Pravilno korišćenje i zaštita ovih sredstava su od suštinskog značaja, a saradnja sa EPPO može pomoći u postizanju ovog cilja. Kroz uzajamnu pravnu pomoć, razmenu informacija, izgradnju kapaciteta, zajedničke istrage i preventivne mere, međunarodna saradnja štiti finansijsku stabilnost EU. U radu se identifikuju prednosti i izazovi saradnje između državnih organa trećih zemalja i EPPO. U radu se utvrđuju izazovi u identifikaciji pravnog osnova za saradnju sa EPPO za neke od trećih zemalja i predlažu opcije i mere za prevazilaženje izazova.
Keywords: EU financial interest, EU funds, EPPO, judicial cooperation, third countries; Finansijski interest EU, EU fondovi, Kancelarija evbropskog javnog tužioca, pravosudna saradnja, treće zemlje
References:
1. Baciu, I. (2013) Fraud Against the Financial Interests of the European Union, Particularly in the Field of Public Procurement, European Procurement and Public Private Partnership Law Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 151-174.
2. Bellacosa, M., de Bellis, M. (2023) The protection of the EU financial interests between administrative and criminal tools: OLAF and EPPO, Common Market Law Review, Vol. 60, Issue 1, pp. 15-50.
3. Dabić, D. (2019) Osnivanje Kancelarije evropskog javnog tužioca – rađanje novog uticajnog aktera u evropskom sistemu upravljanja na više nivoa?, Evropsko zakonodavstvo, broj 70, str. 27-52.
4. Dianese, G., Grozdev, D. (2022) EPPO and OLAF – Cooperation by Design, Eucrim, Issue 4, pp. 279-282.
5. Fransse, N. (2019) Judicial Cooperation Between the EPPO and Third Countries – Chances and Challenges, Eucrim, No. 3, pp. 198-205.
6. Herlin-Karnell, E. (2012) White-Collar Crime and European Financial Crises: Getting though on EU Market Abuse, Vol. 37, No. 4, European Law Review, pp. 481-494.
7. Jelisavac Trošić, S., Kostić, J. (2019) Establishing the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and Suppression of Criminal Offenses Against the EU Financial Interests. EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series - ECLIC, Issue 3, pp. 684-704.
8. Kolaković-Bojović, M., Tilovska Kechegi, E., Kurtović, R. (2019) Prosecutorial Discretion and Legal Predictability. Journal of Eastern European Criminal Law (2). pp. 181-192.
9. Kolaković-Bojović, M., Turanjanin, V. (2017) Autonomy of Public Prosecution Service - The Impact of the "Checks and Balances" Principle and International Standards. Journal of Eastern-European Criminal Law (2). pp. 26-41.
10. Kolaković-Bojović, M. (2018) The Rule of Law Principle: the EU Concept vs. National Legal Identity. In: Naučni skup sa međunarodnim učešćem Univerzalno i osobeno u pravu. Univerzitet u Kosovskoj Mitrovici, Pravni fakultet, Kosovska Mitrovica, pp. 137-159.
11. Kolaković-Bojović, M. (2018) The Rule of Law and Constitutional Changes in Serbia. In: Međunarodna naučno-stručna konferencija "Krivično zakonodavstvo i funkcionisanje pravne države" 20-21. april 2018, Trebinje. Srpsko udruženje za krivičnopravnu teoriju i praksu; Grad Trebinje; Ministarstvo pravde Republike Srpske, Trebinje, pp. 277-292.
12. Kolaković-Bojović, M. (2022) Human Rights Protection: From Populism to the Evidence - Based Policy Making. In: Yearbook. No. 5, Human rights protection : from childhood to the right to a dignified old age : human rights and institutions. Provincial Protector of Citizens - Ombudsman ; Institute of Criminological and Sociological Research, Novi Sad; Belgrade, pp. 63-80.
13. Kolaković-Bojović, M. (2021) Life Imprisonment and Parole in Serbia - (Un)intentionally Missed Opportunity. Revija za kriminologiju i krivično pravo, 59 (1). pp. 93-108.
14. Matić Bošković, M. (2022) Krivično procesno pravo EU. Institut za kriminološka i sociološka istraživanja, Beograd.
15. Matić Bošković, M. (2020) Role of Court of Justice of the European Union in Establishment of EU standards on Independence of Judiciary, EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series (ECLIC), No. 4, pp. 329-351.
16. Matić Bošković, M., Ilić, G. (2019) Javno tužilaštvo u Srbiji: Istorijski razvoj, međunarodni standardi, uporedni modeli i izazovi modernog društva, Institut za kriminološka i sociološka istraživanja, Beograd.
17. Matić Bošković, M., Nenadić, S. (2018) Evropski standardi u oblasti pravosuđa. Strani pravni život, Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 39-56.
18. Matić Bošković, M. (2016) Uloga Evropskog javnog tužioca u borbi protiv organizovanog kriminala. In. Ćirić, J. (ed.) Suzbijanje organizovanog kriminala kao preduslov vladavine prava, Institut za uporedno pravo, Beograd, pp. 247-258.
19. Mitsilegas, V. (2009) EU Criminal Law, Hart Publishing.
20. Ruszkowski, J. (2019) Position of OLAF in a multi-level governance system of the European Union. Przeglad Europejski – European Studies Quarterly. No. 3, pp. 103-120.
21. Wade, M. L. (2019) The European Public Prosecutor: Controversy Expressed in Structural Form, In: T. Rafaraci, R. Belfiore, (ed.) EU Criminal Justice – Fundamental Rights, Transnational Proceedings and European Public Prosecutor's Office, pp. 166-180.