A Blunt Weapon for the EPPO? Taking the Edge Off the Proposed PIF Directive

This chapter focuses on the progressive watering down of the proposal for a Directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law (PIF directive). The result of negotiations, reflected in the (draft) directive as agreed by the Council and the European Parliament, is seen as quite unsatisfactory. The ECJ judgment in the Taricco case constitutes a decisive con tribution to the negotiations. In particular, one of the most crucial issues of the case concerns the reasoning of the ECJ defining the legal context of the case and the reference made to Article 325(1) and (2) TFEU as the legal basis for obligations of the Member States in the field of PIF crimes. The ECJ thus sent a clear message to the Member States, inducing them to abandon their opposition to the formal recognition of VAT-related fraud as a PIF crime and thereby a crime within the material scope of the EPPO. The judgment also confers problematic obligations on the national judge, who is confronted with the incompatibility of national provi sions with EU law in case these provisions inadequately protect EU interests. Furthermore, the impact of such an outcome on the legality principle as conceived in the Italian system, which was concerned in the Taricco case, is discussed. In conclusion, the unsatisfactory legal framework, combining provisions in the PIF directive with provisions in the EPPO regulation defining the conditions for exer cising its competences, constitutes a substantial risk for the effectiveness of the EPPO.