Vertical Cooperation

  • Gaetano De Amicis
  • Roberto E. Kostoris


The chapter gives an outline of the centralised bodies of the European Union for administrative, police and judicial cooperation. The first section is dedicated to the administrative and police cooperation bodies. Firstly, it highlights the structure, functioning and powers of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and its relationship with national judicial authorities. Then it describes the functioning and the operational scope of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), established under Regulation 2016/794/EU, with particular regard to the system for collecting, storing and transmitting data. The last part of the first section addresses the issue of the cooperation between the European agencies and the International Police Organization (Interpol). The second section of the chapter is conversely focused on European judicial cooperation, which is managed at a centralised level by the European agency Eurojust, whose task is to coordinate national judicial authorities and whose powers have been enhanced by Decision 2009/426/JHA and especially by the Treaty of Lisbon (Article 85 TFEU). Finally, the chapter also includes a brief overview of the proposal of establishing a European Public Prosecutor’s Office and its further developments.

Further Reading

  1. Bachmaier L (2012) La cooperación judicial en asuntos penales en Europa: consideraciones prácticas, situación actual y propuestas de futuro. In: Colomer G, Vilar B, Cuadrado C (coords) El derecho procesal español del siglo XX a golpe de tango. Liber Amicorum en homenaje a Juan Montero Aroca, Tirant lo Blanch, Madrid, pp 1203 ffGoogle Scholar
  2. Bachmaier Winter L (2015) The potential contribution of a European Public Prosecutor in light of the proposal for a regulation of 17 July 2013. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice, pp 121 ffGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbe E (2007) L'espace judiciaire européen. La documentation Francaise, ParisGoogle Scholar
  4. Blasi Casagran C (2016) El Reglamento de Europol: un nuevo marco jurídico para el intercambio de datos policiales en la Unión Europea. Revista General del Derecho europeo, no. 40Google Scholar
  5. Böse M (2012) Ein europäischer Ermittlungsrichter - Perspektiven des präventiven Rechtsschutzesbei Errichtungeiner Europäischen Staatsanwaltschaft. Rechtswissenschaft Zeitschriftfürrechtswissenschaftliche Forschung, pp 172 ffGoogle Scholar
  6. Brodowski D (2017) Strafrechtsrelevante Entwicklungen in der Europäischen Union – ein Überblick. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, pp 11 ffGoogle Scholar
  7. Camaldo L (ed) (2014) L'istituzione del Procuratore europeo e la tutela penale degli interessi finanziari dell'Unione Europea. Giappichelli, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  8. Covolo V (2015) L’émergence d’un droit pénal en réseau. Analyse critique du système européen de lutte antifraud. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  9. Covolo V (2017) Regulation 833/2013 - concerning investigations conducted by OLAF: a missed opportunity for substantial reforms? Eur Crim Law Rev, pp 151 ffGoogle Scholar
  10. Csúri A (2012) The changing structure of actors involved in the protection of EU finances. Eucrim, pp 79 ffGoogle Scholar
  11. Damaskou A (2015) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office. A ground-breaking new institution of the EU legal order. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 126 ffGoogle Scholar
  12. De Amicis G (2009) La “nuova” Rete giudiziaria europea ed il suo rapporto con Eurojust. Cass. pen., pp 1710 ffGoogle Scholar
  13. De Amicis G (2010) Il “rafforzamento” di Eurojust nella prospettiva del Pubblico ministero europeo: finis an transitus? In: Zanetti E, Corso C (eds) Studi in onore di M. Pisani, II. La Tribuna, Piacenza, pp 111 ffGoogle Scholar
  14. De Angelis F (2012) L'espace judiciaire pénal européen: une vision se concretise. Eucrim, pp 75 ffGoogle Scholar
  15. de Hert P, Papakonstantinou V (2016) The new police and criminal justice data protection directive: a first analysis. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 7 ffGoogle Scholar
  16. Delmas-Marty M, Vervaele JAE (eds) (2000) The implementation of the Corpus Juris in the Member States: penal provisions for the Protection of European Finances (4 vol). Intersentia, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Durdevic Z (2013) Judicial control in pre-trial criminal procedure conducted by the European Prosecutor’s Office. In: Ligeti K (ed) Toward a prosecutor for the European Union. Vol. I – A comparative analysis. Hart, Oxford, pp 986 ffGoogle Scholar
  18. Erkelens LH, Meij AWH, Pawlik M (eds) (2014) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office: an extended arm or a two-headed dragon? Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  19. Erbežnik A (2015) European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) – too much, too soon and without legitimacy? Eur Crim Law Rev, pp 209 ffGoogle Scholar
  20. Faletti F (2017) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the principle of equality. Eucrim, pp 25 ffGoogle Scholar
  21. Fernando Aparicio JM (2004) El nascimento del fiscal europeo. Revista de derecho comunitarioeuropeo 17:231 ffGoogle Scholar
  22. Giudicelli-Delage G, Manacorda S, Tricot J (2015) Le contrôle judiciaire du parquet européen. Nécessité, modèles, enjeux. Societe de Legislation Compareé, ParisGoogle Scholar
  23. Göhler J (2015) To continue or not: who shall be in control of the European Public Prosecutor’s dismissal decisions? New J Eur Crim Law, pp 102 ffGoogle Scholar
  24. Gonzales-Herrero Gonzales J, Butincu MM (2009) The collection of evidence by OLAF and its transmission to the national judicial authorities. Eucrim, pp 92 ffGoogle Scholar
  25. Grasso G, Illuminati G, Sicurella R, Allegrezza S (eds) (2013) Le sfide dell'attuazione di una procura europea: definizione di regole comuni e loro impatto sugli ordinamenti interni. Giuffrè, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  26. Hamran L, Szabova E (2013) European Public Prosecutor’s Office – Cui Bono? New J Eur Crim Law, pp 23 ffGoogle Scholar
  27. Inghelram JFH (2011) Legal and institutional aspects of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). An analysis with a look forward to a European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Europa Law Publishing, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  28. Jourová V (2016) The cost(s) of Non-Europe in the area of freedom, security and Justice the European Public Prosecutor’s of CE as a Guardian of the European taxpayers’ money. Eucrim, pp 94 ffGoogle Scholar
  29. Klip A (2016) European criminal law: an integrative approach, 3rd edn. Intersentia, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Kostoris RE (2013) Pubblico ministero europeo e indagini “nazionalizzate”. Cass. pen., pp 4738 ffGoogle Scholar
  31. Kostoris RE (2015) The perspective to establish a European Public Prosecutor’s Office: lights and shadows of a work in progress. Towards scientific criminal law theories. CCLS (College of Criminal Law Science) Tenth Anniversary Anthology of Papers from International Academic Partners. Law Press China, Beijing, pp 771 ffGoogle Scholar
  32. Kostoris RE (2015) A European Public Prosecutor Office against Euro-financial crimes: which future? J East-Eur Crim Law (2), pp 27 ffGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuhl L (2008) The future of the European Union’s financial interests. Eucrim, pp 186 ffGoogle Scholar
  34. Kuhl L (2013) Framework for coordination between judicial authorities and OLAF. In: Luchtman M (ed) Choice of forum in cooperation against EU financial crime. Freedom, security and justice and the protection of specific EU-interests. Eleven International Publishing, Utrecht, pp 91 ffGoogle Scholar
  35. Kuhl L (2015) L’expérience de l’Office européen de lutte anti-fraude. In: Giudicelli-Delage G, Manacorda S, Tricot J (dir) Le contrôle judiciaire du parquet européen. Nécessité, modèles, enjeux. Société de législation comparée, Paris, pp 178 ffGoogle Scholar
  36. Lassalle A (2005) Ministere public européen et organes de procedure europeens: les enjeux de l'articulation horizontale. In: Giudicelli-Delage G, Manacorda S (sous la direction de) L'integration penale indirecte. Societè de Legislation Comparè, Paris, pp 211 ffGoogle Scholar
  37. Ligeti K (ed) (2013) Toward a prosecutor for the European Union, Vol. I – A comparative analysis. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. Ligeti K, Marletta A (2016) EU criminal justice actors: accountability and judicial review Vis-À-Vis the EU Citizen. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 175 ffGoogle Scholar
  39. Ligeti K, Simonato M (2013) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office: towards a truly European prosecution service? New J Eur Crim Law, pp 7 ffGoogle Scholar
  40. Lopes Da Mota JL (2008) The heart of the future European Public Prosecutor. Eucrim, pp 62 ffGoogle Scholar
  41. Lopes Da Mota JL (2003) A Eurojust e a emergência de un sistema de justiça penal europeo. Revista portuguesa de ciências criminal, pp 177 ffGoogle Scholar
  42. Marletta A (2016) Interinstitutional relationship of European bodies in the fight against crimes affecting the EU’s financial interests. Past experience and future models. Eucrim, pp 141 ffGoogle Scholar
  43. Marstaller M (2016) The legality principle: an effective way to minimise the European prosecutors’ influence on substantive criminalisation? Eur Crim Law Rev, pp 161 ffGoogle Scholar
  44. Mitsilegas V (2009) EU criminal law. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Nilsson HG (2011) Judicial cooperation in the EU. Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor. In: Guild E, Carrera S, Eggenschwiler A (eds) The area of freedom, security and justice ten years on: successes and future challenges under the Stockholm programme. CEPS, Bruxelles, pp 73 ffGoogle Scholar
  46. Novokmet A (2017) The European public prosecutor’s office and the judicial review of criminal prosecution. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 374 ffGoogle Scholar
  47. Nowak C (2016) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office and national authorities. Cedam, PadovaGoogle Scholar
  48. Panait R (2015) Information sharing between OLAF and national judicial authorities. The advantages of a supranational structure and the legislative limitations specific to a European hybrid body. Eucrim, pp 64 ffGoogle Scholar
  49. Parizot R (2015) The future EPPO: what role for the CJEU? New J Eur Crim Law, pp 538 ffGoogle Scholar
  50. Pi Llorens M (2017) El nuevo mapa de las agencias europeas del Espacio de Libertad, Seguridad y Justicia. Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo, pp 77 ffGoogle Scholar
  51. Rafaraci T (ed) (2007) L'area di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia: alla ricerca di un equilibrio fra priorità repressive ed esigenze di garanzia. Giuffrè, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  52. Salazar L (2006) Constitution pour l'Europe, programme de La Haye et ministère public européen. In: Ruggieri F (ed) La protection des interets financiers de l'Union et le role de l'Olaf vis-à-vis de la responsabilité penale des personnes morales et des chefs d'entreprises et admissibilité mutuelle des preuves. Bruylant, Bruxelles, pp 159 ffGoogle Scholar
  53. Sicurella R (2017) Preparing the environment for the EPPO. Fostering mutual trust by improving common legal understanding and awareness of existing common legal heritage. Proposal of guidelines and model curriculum for legal training of practitioners in the PIF sector. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 476 ffGoogle Scholar
  54. Sieber U, Brüner FH, Satzger H, Von Heintschel-Heinegg B (eds) (2011) Europaieshes Strafrecht. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  55. Simonato M (2016) OLAF investigations in a multi-level system. Legal obstacles to effective enforcement. Eucrim, pp 136 ffGoogle Scholar
  56. Spencer JR (2012) Who’s afraid of the big, bad European Public Prosecutor? Camb Yearb Eur Leg Stud, pp 363 ffGoogle Scholar
  57. Stefanou C, White S, Xanthaki H (2011) OLAF at the crossroads. Action against EU fraud. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  58. Tricot J (2005) Ministere public europeen et systemes penaux nationaux: les enjeux de l'articulation vertical. In: Giudicelli-Delage G, Manacorda S. (sous la direction de) L'integration penale indirecte. Societé de Legislation Comparé, Paris, pp 181 ffGoogle Scholar
  59. Van Den Wyngaert C (2004) Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor in the Corpus Juris model: water and fire? In: Walker N (ed) Europe’s area of freedom, security and justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 231 ffGoogle Scholar
  60. Vervaele JAE (2008) The shaping and reshaping of Eurojust and Olaf. Eucrim, pp 180 ffGoogle Scholar
  61. Vervaele JAE (2009) From Eurojust to the European prosecution service in the European judicial area. The beginning of a European criminal procedural law. In: Espina Ramos JA, Carbajosa IV (ed) The future European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Fiscalia General del Estado, pp 125 ffGoogle Scholar
  62. Vervaele JAE (2010) Quel statut pour le Ministère Public? European enforcement agencies in the area of freedom, security and justice. In: Cour de Cassation (ed) Quelles perpectives pour un Ministère Public Europèenne? Dalloz, Paris, pp 171 ffGoogle Scholar
  63. Wade ML (2013) A European public prosecutor: potential and pitfalls. Crime Law Soc Change 59:439 ffGoogle Scholar
  64. Weyembergh A (2011) The development of Eurojust: potential and limitations of article 85 of the TFEU. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 75 ffGoogle Scholar
  65. Weyembergh A, Armada I, Brière C (2015) Competition or cooperation? State of play and future perspectives on the relation between Europol, Eurojust and the European Judicial Network. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 2 ffGoogle Scholar
  66. White S (2011) Operational activities and due process. In: Stefanou C, White S, Xanthaki H (eds) OLAF at the crossroads. Action against EU fraud. Hart, Oxford, pp 77 ffGoogle Scholar
  67. White S (2013) Towards a decentralizated European Public Prosecutor’s Office. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 23 ffGoogle Scholar
  68. Wieczorek I (2015) The EPPO draft regulation passes the first subsidiarity test: an analysis and interpretation of the European Commission’s Hasty approach to national parliaments’ subsidiarity arguments. Germ Law J, pp 1247 ffGoogle Scholar
  69. Zwiers M (2011) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Analysis of a multilevel criminal justice system. Intersentia, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Italian Court of CassationRomeItaly
  2. 2.School of LawUniversity of PaduaPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations