To which prosecution service? Analyzing the way the Union Resolves Conflicts of Criminal Jurisdiction

Andrew Zuidema*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

3 Downloads (Pure)


Conflict of jurisdiction is an issue that is not a new problem, but is one that is becoming more prevalent in recent times. This is especially true in the European Union with its four freedoms. One way the Union has tackled conflicts of jurisdiction is through Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA. This measure is designed to handle positive conflicts of jurisdiction, in particular attempting to prevent ne bis in idem violations. Recently the Union established the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, a new measure designed to not only resolve positive conflicts of jurisdiction, but negative ones as well. This article will highlight that the EPPO is not only a prosecution service but also a way to resolve conflicts of jurisdiction. It will do this by conducting a comparative analysis between the two measures by reviewing their respective function, communication, and determination of jurisdiction. Function examines what each measure is capable of doing. Communication examines the way authorities communicate and share information. Determination of Jurisdiction examines the criteria that is used by the mechanism to resolve the conflict. Using these methods will enhance our understanding of the measures the Union has to resolve conflicts of jurisdiction while also highlighting the role that EPPO will play in the years to come.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)374-396
Number of pages23
JournalNew Journal of European Criminal Law
Issue number3
Early online date1-Aug-2023
Publication statusPublished - 2023


  • European Public Prosecutor’s Office
  • conflicts of jurisdiction
  • ne bis in idem
  • MS of Forum
  • Prosecutors

Cite this