Countdown to Extinction: Why the EPPO Can’t Avoid Politics
I’ve recently developed an obsession with dinosaurs. Since I’m not 10 years old or a paleontologist, you may be puzzled by my newfound preoccupation. But I cannot get one image out of my mind: the image of a comet hurtling towards Earth as millions of dinosaurs were painfully unaware of their impending extinction.
Although the dinosaurs met their end 65 million years ago, I feel this same sense of oblivion and dread when considering the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). The EPPO is an independent office within the European Union (EU) that is responsible for investigating and prosecuting crimes against the EU budget. Created in 2017, and fully operational in June 2021, the EPPO is a relatively new body. It is also the first EU body with the power to prosecute cases of fraud, corruption, and money laundering. The EPPO’s creation marks an extraordinary achievement in the battle against corruption, a battle that threatens the survival of liberal democracies throughout the world. In the EU specifically, almost two-thirds of people think government corruption is a problem in their country, and one-third of people think corruption is getting worse. The EPPO’s task to crackdown on corruption, therefore, is no small feat.
You may still be wondering, however, why am I comparing the EPPO to dinosaurs? What comet is hurtling towards the EPPO? Well, there are many comets heading towards the EPPO. Scholars have voiced concerns about the EPPO’s limited staffing and resources, and Laura Kovesi, the EPPO’s chief prosecutor, has highlighted the challenge of managing nearly 3,000 backlog cases. Others have pointed to the daunting task of overseeing the EU’s COVID-19 recovery package as a new prosecutorial body. However, the largest, and most underrated comet catapulting towards the EPPO is political backlash. And just like the dinosaurs, the EPPO is oblivious to this obstacle that threatens its existence.
Why is political backlash the EPPO’s greatest comet? While the EPPO’s creation is a great step towards combating EU fraud, this institution is not viewed by all in a positive light. Instead, the EPPO is a target for corrupt governments and elites who portray the EPPO as invasive and political. These attacks have hindered the institution before its work has even begun.
The search to find the EPPO’s chief prosecutor, for instance, was characterized by absurdity. Laura Codruța Kovesi, Romania’s former chief prosecutor of the National Anti-Corruption Directorate (DNA), was initially favored to lead the EPPO. However, the Romanian government vehemently lobbied against her appointment. During her time at the DNA, Kovesi prosecuted Romanian political elites such as Liviu Dragnea, resulting in her dismissal in 2018. This history created a stalemate between a European Parliament that supported Kovesi and the Council of the EU that was headed by Romania. In early April 2019, negotiations came to a screeching halt, but in September 2019, the European Parliament conceded to Kovesi’s appointment.
The EPPO faced another political challenge when Slovenian Prime Minister, Janez Janša, canceled the appointment process of two prosecutors on track to join the EPPO. This action defied EPPO requirements and impeded the institution’s ability to operate in Slovenia. Chief Prosecutor Kovesi stated that it would be “impossible to manage all the cases in Slovenia” without these Slovenian prosecutors. Janša is a right-wing populist, and in 2013, he was convicted of corruption after taking bribes in a Finnish defense deal. Janša’s politics and history of corruption reveal his incentives to curtail the EPPO’s work. However, Janša claims the EPPO is being political. To this day, Slovenia does not have prosecutors involved in the EPPO, creating a “prosecution gap in the EPPO zone.”
How has the EPPO responded to political controversies? Thus far, the EPPO has emphasized its neutral mission, and it has presented itself as above the political fray. During an interview with Al-Jazeera, Kovesi was asked how she can work with Romania after her termination. In a short and matter-of-fact manner, Kovesi responded that the European Court of Human Rights ruled her termination was unfair. Kovesi did not expand as to how her fraught relationship with Romania could affect her work at the EPPO. Regarding the controversy with Slovenia, Kovesi also avoided making personal political attacks towards Janez Janša. Instead, Kovesi emphasized concerns about the EU budget.
The EPPO is a neutral body, therefore, Kovesi’s neutral responses to political controversies may appear rational. However, the EPPO cannot have apolitical reactions to the political controversies its existence provokes. Instead, the EPPO must be aware of its position in EU politics, anticipate political backlash, and develop strategies to reduce political fallout. In other words, the EPPO needs to anticipate this comet and react appropriately.
If the EPPO is not aware of its positionality in EU and national politics, it will continue to be used as target practice for populists like Janša and countries like Romania. As seen in these two cases, this target practice hinders the EPPO’s work. If the EPPO implements the following strategies, however, it may be able to anticipate and reduce political backlash:
- Increased Communication
The EPPO needs to launch a strategic communications campaign in all EU member states. Since the EPPO is a new institution, many EU citizens do not know how the EPPO operates or what it was created to do. As seen with Janša, elites take advantage of this obscurity by claiming the EPPO infringes on national sovereignty and has political motivations. It is imperative, therefore, that the EPPO increase outreach to citizens and increase public knowledge of EPPO operations. This outreach should not only be defensive, but offensive. The EPPO should combat misinformation before it is used as a weapon by corrupt officials. In addition, the EPPO should call out elites like Janša for their corrupt ties, rather than sticking to apolitical talking points.
2. Increased Transparency
The EPPO also needs to increase transparency in its selection and prosecution of cases. By creating a public roadmap of future and current cases, as well as providing general case details, EU citizens would be better informed of the EPPO’s work. EPPO investigations would not appear secretive𑁋taking oxygen away from claims that the EPPO is political. In addition, the EPPO should emphasize the financial savings of its investigations. In November 2021, for instance, the EPPO seized 23 million euros in Czechia, Romania, and Slovakia from a VAT fraud scheme. These public figures allow citizens to understand the “bang for the EPPO’s buck.” Finally, the EPPO should be transparent about the number of cases they can process each year.
For defenders of democracy, the EPPO’s creation marks a great step towards curbing the threat of corruption. For beneficiaries of corruption, however, the EPPO is an existential threat that warrants fierce opposition. Although the EPPO is an apolitical body, it must acknowledge its position in EU politics, anticipate political backlash, and develop offensive and defensive counter-strategies. Otherwise, the EPPO will become nothing but a fossil in the museum of EU failures.
