are (still) conducted by Member State authorities exclusively; Setting-up the EPPO with a limited mandate (PIF offences) – EPPO has priority competence to order investigations and direct prosecutions into PIF offences Setting up the EPPO with an extended mandate (PIF offences and serious cross-border crimes) – EPPO has exclusive/shared competence to order investigations and direct prosecutions into PIF offences and other serious cross-border crimes (money laundering, corruption, accounting offences). Besides these three options regarding scope, the Commission needed to consider a series of significant legal, institutional and organisational matters (relationship with Eurojust, OLAF, national authorities, judicial review) which could be formulated as sub-options. Moreover, particular procedural issues (EP involvement, legislative process, what if unanimity requirements are not met, enhanced co-operation with which member states, etc.) needed to be considered in these options. In accordance with Article 86 the proposal could include one or more regulations covering different aspects of the setting up of an EPPO. Soft law instruments were not relevant as legislative measures were needed to address criminal offences and law enforcement. Likely impacts will include a more effective, dissuasive and equivalent criminal law protection of the Union's financial interests. Irregularities affecting the European budget may reach or exceed 1 Billion Euro per year, from which around €280 million could be suspected EU fraud cases to be investigated within the EPPO's competence. This amount could be significantly reduced if the EPPO were to direct investigations and prosecutions throughout the EU, acting on all cases of PIF offences. Moreover, economies of scale might be achieved for the benefit of justice budgets of participating Member States, due to a streamlining of the judicial procedures involving EU financial interests across the EU. Depending on how the relationship between the EPPO and the national authorities would be defined, the impact would be primarily on national police and judicial authorities, which would certainly have to cope with the new framework for investigations and prosecutions ordered by the EPPO. The administrative burden would depend on the new relations established between the EPPO and the national authorities, and whether the initiative would impose new information obligations on Member States. Preparatory work, in particular the 2001 Green paper on the establishment of a European Prosecutor, was taken into consideration. Existing studies and evaluations, in particular the Criminal Justice Systems Study, the Euroneeds Study, the Pretrial investigative model rules, the Spanish Presidency Report, officially launched in Brussels in