The decision to drop the case in the new EPPO’s regulation: Res Iudicata or transfer of competence?

Abstract

This article discusses one of the most important decisions the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) can take: the decision to drop a case. When this happens, the case will either be referred to national prosecutors or to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) or dismissed entirely. Why is this an important decision? Because it means the EPPO declines to prosecute, prosecution being (along with investigation) its very raison d’être. This is why it is important to understand how and when the EPPO may drop a case. In this respect, the EPPO Regulation (adopted on 12 October 2017) pursues two goals: first, it seeks to leave the EPPO a certain margin of discretion when deciding whether to drop a case; secondly, however, it seeks to limit that discretion in order to reduce the risk of decisions that are arbitrary or based on irrelevant considerations. This article argues that this strikes an acceptable balance between two different legal traditions: the ones inspired by the strict legality principle, such as Italy and Germany, and those inspired by the principle of opportunity, such as France or England and Wales. The article further explores how this balance is consistent with the emerging principles of international criminal law, where international tribunals try the most serious crimes only.