Categories
Uncategorized

Practical guide for a defendant “under siege” in an EPPO case: what to do now, what’s next, and where you can win

If you feel “under siege” in an EPPO case, this guide walks you through the real rules of the game: when EPPO is competent, how cross-border measures work and what happens in the first 72 hours. You also get a structured defence checklist, from EU-level rights to freezing orders, digital evidence and ne bis in idem arguments.

Lead

If you’ve been summoned by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) or faced a search bearing the EPPO banner, you’re not alone. EPPO is now handling thousands of cross-border files about EU funds and complex VAT schemes; Romania is among the active jurisdictions. EPPO is not a “general EU prosecutor” and it does not run on a single EU criminal code—its mandate is narrow, but the toolbox is powerful: fast cross-border measures, asset freezes, and broad access to digital evidence. This guide sets out the rules of the game, the errors that cost you most, the defensive levers that matter, and the procedural “pressure points” where cases are often won. (Oficiul Public European al Procurorului)

1) What EPPO is—and why your case landed there

The legal basis. EPPO was created by Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 to investigate and prosecute criminal offences affecting the EU’s financial interests (“PIF offences”). It acts through European Delegated Prosecutors (EDPs) based in participating Member States. (EUR-Lex)

What counts as a PIF offence. The scope is defined by the PIF Directive (EU) 2017/1371 (fraud with EU funds, corruption impacting the EU budget, misappropriation, related money-laundering, etc.). For VAT, EPPO competence covers serious cross-border VAT fraud where the total damage is at least EUR 10 million. If your file concerns EU money flows or a multi-country VAT scheme above that threshold, EPPO can take it. (EUR-Lex)

What EPPO is not. It is not a general anti-corruption office for everything; its remit is limited to offences harming the Union’s financial interests and offences inextricably linked to them. Other matters remain with national prosecutors (e.g., DNA/DIICOT in Romania). (EUR-Lex)

2) How an EPPO case runs in Romania: who decides, which law applies

Investigations in Romania are conducted by EDPs (Romanian prosecutors acting for EPPO), under the oversight of a Permanent Chamber at EPPO’s central office. The EPPO Regulation governs EPPO-specific issues; for aspects it doesn’t cover, the national Code of Criminal Procedure applies. Courts in Romania authorise measures that require judicial leave under national law. EPPO prosecutions are brought before national courts. (EUR-Lex)

In cross-border steps, EPPO uses its sui generis mechanism: the handling EDP assigns a measure to an assisting EDP in the other Member State (Article 31). The assisting EDP obtains any judicial authorisation required by the law of that assisting state; if only the handling state requires authorisation, the handling EDP obtains it and provides it to the assisting EDP. This has been clarified in EPPO College guidance and by the CJEU. (Oficiul Public European al Procurorului)

3) The first 72 hours: what to watch and where you gain time

Searches, seizures, electronic data. Article 30 lists core measures EDPs must be able to order/request (subject to national conditions). In Romania, warrants are issued and enforced under domestic law. Immediate checks: (i) lawful authorisation; (ii) scope and proportionality; (iii) execution—deviations can yield exclusion or attenuation of evidence. (EUR-Lex)

Cross-border execution. If materials are seized abroad, ask who is handling and who is assisting. Under Article 31(3) the assisting EDP secures the authorisation required by their law; refusal obliges the handling EDP to withdraw the assignment—this is a real window for judicial control. (Oficiul Public European al Procurorului)

Asset freezes and account blocks. Freezes are ordered under national law at EPPO’s request. In Romania, ANABI (the National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets) manages seized assets and can organise early sale of certain movables in strictly regulated conditions. Move fast on necessity, scope, valuation and on challenging steps that lead to irreversible loss. (Portal Legislativ)

4) Your minimum EU-level rights—checklist for every step

Regardless of EPPO or national cases, suspects/accused have harmonised minimum rights across the EU:

  • Interpretation & translation (Directive 2010/64/EU). (EUR-Lex)
  • Right to information—including on the accusation and on rights (Directive 2012/13/EU). (EUR-Lex)
  • Access to a lawyer from the earliest stages (Directive 2013/48/EU). (EUR-Lex)
  • Presumption of innocence & right to be present at trial (Directive (EU) 2016/343). (EUR-Lex)

Invoke these explicitly in objections/appeals; they bind authorities applying EU law, including EPPO and national bodies acting for EPPO. Summaries and academic commentaries confirm their scope and practical use. (EUR-Lex)

5) Defence strategy: 12 questions you must ask of any EPPO file

  1. Competence: Do facts fall within PIF/EPPO? For VAT, is there cross-border conduct and ≥ EUR 10m total damage? If not, argue lack of EPPO competence and referral to national prosecution. (Parlamentul European)
  2. Trace the EU money or VAT flows: Build the exact financial chain; EPPO protects the EU budget, not every public fund. The PIF Directive’s scope is your map. (EUR-Lex)
  3. Who decided what—when? Identify the Permanent Chamber decisions (evocation, prosecution, dismissal, referral) and test whether the legal thresholds were met. Internal rules and College decisions govern these steps. (Oficiul Public European al Procurorului)
  4. Authorisations: For each intrusive measure, pinpoint which state’s court authorised it and under which law (see Article 31(3) split of authorisations). Lack or misfit of authorisation is a prime suppression angle. (Oficiul Public European al Procurorului)
  5. Digital evidence: Check provenance, integrity, hash logs, and provider responses. Today, EPPO relies on Article 31 plus national tools; from 18 Aug 2026, the e-Evidence Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 enables direct European Production/Preservation Orders on providers, backed by Directive (EU) 2023/1544 (EU legal representatives/designated establishments). Expect shorter deadlines and more direct orders—plan for lawful challenge and internal preservation protocols. (EUR-Lex)
  6. Parallel tracks & ne bis in idem: The EU Charter Article 50 forbids double prosecution for the same facts once there’s a final decision; EPPO’s architecture seeks “one case” to avoid fragmentation. Map identities of facts and procedural endpoints. (EUR-Lex)
  7. Limitation periods: The PIF Directive requires adequate limitation, including ≥ 5 years where the statutory maximum is ≥ 4 years; national transposition nuances matter. (EUR-Lex)
  8. Chain of custody and search execution: Attack proportionality and execution defects under national standards (Article 30 read with domestic CPP). (EUR-Lex)
  9. Freezing/confiscation: Test necessity, scope, proportionality; seek substitution with guarantees; watch ANABI procedures, especially on early sales and allocation of proceeds. (anabi.just.ro)
  10. OLAF/Eurojust interplay: EPPO has priority for criminal action; OLAF may support or step in administratively when EPPO declines or dismisses. Request/obtain any OLAF materials—these can be exculpatory. (Legislația UK)
  11. Simplified procedures: Article 40 allows simplified prosecution (where national law permits). The College has guidance on when to use them; evaluate cost/benefit early. (Oficiul Public European al Procurorului)
  12. Public communications: EPPO communicates actively; frame any public response with facts, not emotion, to avoid prejudicing your procedural posture. (See Annual Reports for aggregate trends.) (Oficiul Public European al Procurorului)

6) EPPO vs. national prosecutors: don’t fight on the wrong pitch

EPPO’s mandate is topic-bound (EU budget & serious cross-border VAT). If criteria are not met, the case should stay nationally or be referred back (Article 34). Conversely, for mixed bundles (EU and non-EU offences), test segmentation to avoid overreach/duplication. (Legislația UK)

7) What comes next: a typical EPPO timeline

  1. Reporting/trigger (complaint, OLAF/ANAF/AFIR report, own motion).
  2. Opening of investigation by an EDP, overseen by a Permanent Chamber.
  3. Investigative measures under Article 30, including cross-border execution under Article 31–32 (with the authorisation split outlined above). (EUR-Lex)
  4. Competence checks (EPPO vs. national).
  5. Outcome: prosecution (Article 36), referral to national (Article 34), dismissal (Article 39), or simplified procedures (Article 40). (EUR-Lex)
  6. Trial in the competent national court, with the EPPO represented (usually) by an EDP. (Legislația UK)

8) Electronic evidence (e-evidence): what matters today and what changes in 2026

Today: EPPO relies on its Article 31 mechanism and national law to obtain digital data (from emails to server logs). The authorisation rule (assisting state’s law for execution; handling state’s law when only that law requires authorisation) is a critical control point. CJEU and EPPO guidance have clarified the split. (Curia)

From 18 August 2026: The e-Evidence Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 applies directly, enabling European Production/Preservation Orders addressed straight to providers offering services in the EU, wherever data sits. The companion Directive (EU) 2023/1544 forces providers to designate an EU establishment or legal representative to receive orders by 18 February 2026; non-compliance triggers sanctions. Expect much shorter timelines for data delivery and tight validation windows—plan governance and litigation strategy now. (EUR-Lex)

9) Freezing, confiscation, ANABI: damage control in Romania

Romania’s ANABI (Law no. 318/2015) keeps registers of seized sums, manages movable assets above set thresholds, and may organise early sales during proceedings with prosecutorial/court approval. It also publishes information on confiscated immovables and administers allocation rules for proceeds. Defence work here is technical: challenge scope, valuation, conservation, and the legality of sales and allocations. (Portal Legislativ)

10) “Ne bis in idem” and the “one case” principle

Article 50 of the EU Charter bars a second trial/punishment for the same facts once there is a final decision. EPPO’s design is to consolidate related facts/actors into one case across the participating states, yet parallel national tracks can still arise. Map factual identity carefully and document any prior final outcomes. (Agenția Uniunii Europene pentru Drepturi Fundamentale)

11) Fifteen frequent questions from EPPO defendants—fast answers

“Can EPPO have me arrested?” Arrests and detention are ordered by national courts under national law; EPPO applies and the judge decides. (Legislația UK)

“Who searches my home or servers?” National authorities execute searches at an EDP’s request; in cross-border moves, an assisting EDP runs the measure with authorisations required by their law. (Oficiul Public European al Procurorului)

“Can I insist the case stays national?” Yes, when EPPO’s competence isn’t met; Article 34 governs referral to national authorities. (Legislația UK)

“Is dismissal possible?” Yes, but the grounds are exhaustive in Article 39 (e.g., legal impossibility, limitation, insufficient evidence). (Legislația UK)

“Can we negotiate?” Article 40 allows simplified procedures where national law permits (e.g., plea arrangements). The EPPO College has criteria for use—evaluate early. (Oficiul Public European al Procurorului)

“How long do EPPO investigations last?” It depends on complexity and cross-border cooperation. Annual Reports show rising caseloads and heavy VAT components; build a defence for a marathon, not a sprint. (Oficiul Public European al Procurorului)

“What happens to frozen accounts and seized cars?” Managed under Law 318/2015 by ANABI; contest scope/necessity, seek substitution, and police any early-sale steps. (anabi.just.ro)

“Why was I summoned in another Member State?” EPPO is one office: the handling EDP can assign measures to an assisting EDP elsewhere; the assisting EDP secures local authorisations. (EUR-Lex)

“They got my emails directly from the provider—is that lawful?” Today, orders rely on EPPO/national mechanisms; from 18 Aug 2026, direct EU orders to providers will apply—verify the legal basis and authorisations closely. (EUR-Lex)

“If I repay the damage, is the case over?” Repayment can affect both criminal and civil exposure, but does not automatically end the case; you still must fit Article 39 grounds or national criteria within an EPPO path chosen by the Chamber. (Legislația UK)

“Can EPPO reopen later?” The Regulation allows reopening under conditions; national law also shapes this. Check the specific EPPO and domestic rules cited in the decision. (Oficiul Public European al Procurorului)

“Who prosecutes at trial?” The European Delegated Prosecutor represents EPPO in national courts under Article 36 and internal rules on court representation. (Legislația UK)

“Does OLAF still matter?” Yes. EPPO has priority for criminal prosecution, but Article 101 mandates close EPPO–OLAF cooperation; OLAF can support or act administratively if EPPO declines. (Legislația UK)

“Is EPPO expanding?” The mandate is set by law, but activity and budgets have grown; Parliament and EPPO budget documents show increased resources and VAT focus. (Oficiul Public European al Procurorului)

“Where do courts review EPPO acts?” Procedural acts are typically reviewed by national courts, which may request CJEU interpretation. EPPO’s cross-border model was tested and clarified in C-281/22. (Curia)

12) Ten mistakes that “eat you alive” in EPPO cases

  1. Skipping access to the file and notices mandated by the right-to-information directive. (EUR-Lex)
  2. Showing up without specialised counsel (PIF/VAT/cooperation law). (EUR-Lex)
  3. Failing to preserve internal data (litigation hold) and risking separate obstruction exposure.
  4. Not challenging authorisations—especially the Article 31(3) split in cross-border measures. (Oficiul Public European al Procurorului)
  5. Ignoring the EUR 10m VAT threshold and cross-border element. (Parlamentul European)
  6. Letting freezes linger—ANABI processes can advance quickly (including early sales). (anabi.just.ro)
  7. Confusing EPPO with national anti-corruption mandates—argue the right competences. (EUR-Lex)
  8. Underestimating cross-border execution—demand proof of each required authorisation. (Oficiul Public European al Procurorului)
  9. Missing the window for simplified procedures or a strategic Article 34 referral. (Oficiul Public European al Procurorului)
  10. Over-communicating emotionally in public and harming your legal position.

13) Conclusion

EPPO is not an all-purpose EU prosecutor; it is a specialised office with a tight mandate on the EU budget and serious cross-border VAT fraud. Precisely because its toolbox is powerful, procedure and competence are where defence wins are carved out. Stress-test, in order: Article 22 (material competence), Articles 30–32 (investigation and cross-border execution with correct authorisations), the EU minimum-rights directives, and the end-game tracks under Articles 34/36/39/40 (referral, prosecution, dismissal, simplified procedures). In Romania, do not ignore the ANABI layer: measures on assets are often as consequential as the “EU” side of the case. (EUR-Lex)

Source kit (for your own verification)