What changed

1. PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECISION

P10_TA(2026)0135

on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for the financial year 2024

Discharge 2024: European Public Prosecutors Office

(2025/2155(DEC))

Committee on Budgetary Control

PE778.067

1. European Parliament decision of 29 April 2026 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for the financial year 2024 (2025/2155(DEC))

The European Parliament,

2. Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

3. Instructs its President to forward this decision, and the resolution forming an integral part of it, to the Administrative Director of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, the European Council, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

2. PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECISION

2. European Parliament decision of 29 April 2026 on the closure of the accounts of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for the financial year 2024 (2025/2155(DEC))

on the closure of the accounts of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for the financial year 2024

(2025/2155(DEC))

The European Parliament,

2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Administrative Director of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, the European Council, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

3. MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

3. European Parliament resolution of 29 April 2026 with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for the financial year 2024 (2025/2155(DEC))

with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for the financial year 2024

(2025/2155(DEC))

The European Parliament,

D. whereas the EPPO is embedded in the national judicial systems of the participating Member States and has a priority competence for investigating and prosecuting the crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union, while other organisations, such as European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), do not have the necessary powers to carry out the relevant criminal investigations and prosecutions;

E. whereas the procedural acts of the EPPO are subject to judicial review by the national courts in line with national laws and the Court of Justice of the European Union (the ‘Court of Justice’) -– by means of preliminary ruling or judicial reviews–reviews -ensures– ensures a consistent application of Union law, in particular the uniform interpretation of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 and Directive (EU) 2017/1371;

F. whereas the EPPO is composed of a central level, with its headquarters in Luxembourg, consisting of the European Chief Prosecutor, 24 European Prosecutors (one per participating Member State following the participation of Poland and Sweden in the EPPO, which took place on 20 March and 19 July 2024, respectively), the Administrative Director, as well as a decentralised, national level consisting of the European delegated prosecutors (EDPs) in the 24 participating Member States;

53. Underlines that the EPPO had indicated a total of 172 EDPs as the target to be appointed by the end of 2024, without considering any additional need resulting from the enlargement to Poland and Sweden; points out that the Union’s budgetary authority agreed to increase the number of EDPs from 140 to 166 only with the allocation of 24 EDPs to Poland and 2 to Sweden; stresses that Union’s budgetary authority continued to grant resources for covering EDPs remunerations corresponding to the payment of 80 % of the AD9 salary, instead of 100 % of the AD9 salary, as decided by the EPPO to make the position more attractive for senior prosecutor having adequate long-lasting professional experience to handle the complex EPPO cases; understands that, because of the financial constraint resulting from this gap in the resources allocated, by the end of 2024 the EPPO was able to deploy, besides the 2 EDPs in Sweden, only 8 EDPs in Poland (instead of the 24 EDPs needed) and 156 EDPs in the other remaining Member States; notes that the slowing down of the intake of additional EDPs negatively affects EPPO’s capacity to direct an increasing number of investigations and prosecutions; further notes that due to the funding gap, the EPPO also had to reduce or postpone investments in the Case Management System, thus preventing the EPPO from improving its ability to direct cross-border investigations; calls on the Commission to assess the situation, in consideration of the increasing workload and of the sensitiveness of the cases handled, and to report to Parliament the results and the possible solutions to cover the financial gap;

54. Maintains that the appointment of EDPs is the shared responsibility of the EPPO and the Member States, because while European Prosecutors are nominated by the Member States and then appointed by the Council, EDPs are nominated by the Member States and appointed by the College; encourages Member States to contribute to the full independence of EDPs and the EPPO; notes that the EPPO has strived to improve the working status of the EDPs in order to make the position more appealing, such as to align the remuneration of EDPs with that of Union officials of equivalent level of responsibility (AD9), rather than 80 % of the salary of Union officials, as originally decided by the Commission, taking into account that the career progression of EDPs in their national systems remains unclear and, in several cases, the national salary of the most experienced national prosecutors was higher than the salary offered for the EDP position, obliging the EPPO to intervene for the implementation of Article 16(1) of the Conditions of Employment of the EDPs, which provides that, in the case of total net remuneration lower than the national salary, a top-up amount is provided to ensure that the remuneration matches the previous level; reiterates its call for foreseeing a clear career progression path for the EDPs and more favourable administrative discipline on social security and health insurance coverage; insists on the creation of a specific EDPs status, consistently with the nature of their judicial function and calls on the Commission to accordingly propose amendments to Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, in the circumstance of its incoming revision, which will also cover the issue of the social security and health insurance coverage gap of the EDPs that has not yet been resolved by all the Member States through legislative or administrative arrangements, even if their adoption is mandatory under Regulation (EU) 2017/1939;

55. Understands that in 2024 the EPPO preferred running internal staff satisfaction survey rather than resorting to an external costly provider under the existing framework contract, but regrets the lack of involvement of the Staff Committee, which would have been more appropriate; notes that recurring issued were raised repeatedly by staff in the survey, mainly focused on work-life balance and the interpretation of the accessibility of teleworking from abroad for family or personal reasons; notes that the EPPO indicates its rigid teleworking discipline to be one of the possible disincentives to recruitment and encourages the EPPO to further explore alternatives that -without bringing prejudice to the effectiveness of its working methods and questioning the corporate culture could offer an increased level of autonomy which, in turn, might bring an higher level of satisfaction among the staff;

85. Is aware that the EPPO occupies part of a building provided rent-free by the host state and that the environmental parameters are managed by the national authorities, in compliance with local environmental requirements; welcomes the actions launched by the Luxembourg authorities to support the EPPO in promoting environmental management resulting in the installation of 20 charging stations for electric vehicles in underground car park and the replacement of energy-saving interior lighting and facade blinds in the entire premises of the EPPO’s central office to enhance the building energy efficiency; notes that water filtering machines have been installed on all floors and this decreases the use of plastic bottles; observes that the EPPO’s central office is integrated in Luxembourg network of free public transport making it easily reachable through low environmental impact means at no cost for staff and visitors and the underground car park provides a dedicated zone for bicycle parking;

86. Notes that the EPPO follows the Commission Decision C(2025) 2495C(2025)2495 – Guide on Missions and Authorized Travel, considering not only green travel solutions for staff carrying out mission but also systematically assessing the need for missions against the feasibility of online meetings;

Interinstitutional cooperation

106. Recalls the several attempts by the Hungarian government to carry out systematic espionage against European Commission and OLAF staff;

107. Stresses that any lack of cooperation with the EPPO by any of the Member States creates niches of immunity and privilege that weakens the defence of the financial interests of the Union making it uneven and inefficient and urges the Commission to initiate infringement proceedings against any Member State that systematically obstructs EPPO-led investigations; calls on the Commission to consider, in the application of the Regulation (EU, EURATOM)Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council, that non-participation in the EPPO may constitute a potential threat to the Union’s financial interests and calls on the Commission to closely monitor Member States’ levels of cooperation with the EPPO; in this vein, strongly regrets the cases, reported in 2024, of exposure to threats by Member States’ governments to OLAF and EPPO investigators in the carrying out of their activities on-the-spot; stresses that such situations undermine the rule of law, constitute a serious breach of mutual trust and loyal cooperation among Member States and Union institutions, and weaken the Union’s actions, calling for the establishment of robust preventive and protective measures to safeguard staff where deployed in situations that put them at risk;

108. Emphasises that the activities of the EPPO must contribute to the protection of the Union’s financial interests and are expected to result in the recovery of amounts disbursed from the Union’s budget that were not used for its intended purpose due to criminal activities; observes that the confiscation process, allowing the recovery of such amounts, lie with the national authorities and that the relevant confiscated amounts, or assets value, resulting from measures adopted by the EDPs in the Member States, should get back into the Union budget, after the deduction of costs incurred by the Member States’ authorities to implement those measures in accordance with Article 38 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 referring to assets or proceeds to be disposed of in accordance with applicable national law without prejudice to the rights of the Union or other victims to be compensated for damage that they have suffered; recalls that Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control has proposed that the potential revenue resulting from seizing and confiscating measures to be accounted for in the Union budget as non-assigned revenue, under a separate budget line created by budgetary amendment; appreciates the EPPO commitment to engaging with the Commission to support any efforts aiming to ensure the implementation of the above; deems it necessary to amend the Article 38 to make possible its effective implementation and monitoring, in order to ensure the protection of the Union’s budget and calls on the Commission to make the necessary arrangements with the relevant national authorities to allow those amounts to enter into the Union’s budget and to propose the necessary legislative solutions to effectively enforce it;

118. Notes that the growing volume of Union financial support to Ukraine, including under the Ukraine Facility, is likely to generate additional investigative demands for the EPPO in the coming years; stresses the importance of anticipating these challenges through adequate staffing, secure digital infrastructure and reinforced cooperation frameworks, in order to protect the Union’s financial interests while supporting Ukraine effectively.

ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

The rapporteur declares under his exclusive responsibility that he did not include in his report input from interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register, or from representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, to be listed in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

5.12.2025

OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS

for the Committee on Budgetary Control

on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the- European Public Prosecutors Office for the financial year 2024

(2025/2155(DEC))

Rapporteur for opinion: Evin Incir

OPINION

The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs calls on the Committee on Budgetary Control, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following into its motion for a resolution:

1.Notes a consequential increase in the caseload of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) reaching 2 666 active investigations in 2024, out of which almost 30% carried a cross-border dimension and the achievement of a substantial increase indictment rates (47%) and asset freezes obtained by European Delegated Prosecutors;

2. Notes that in 2024 the EPPO processed 6 547 crime reports which represents an increase of 56 % compared with 2023 and is mainly driven by a significant rise in reports from private parties (up by 85 %) and national authorities (up by 12 %) and demonstrates improved detection of fraud affecting the Union’s financial interests in participating Member States and greater public awareness of the EPPO’s role;

3. Points to the increasing number of cases related to cross-border VAT fraud, which account for over half of estimated damage in EPPO cases; notes furthermore a substantial increase of investigations relating to the implementation of funding of NextGenerationEU (25% increase);

4. Emphasizes that vast majority of the investigations into fraud and other crimes against the EU budget continue to be hampered by divergent national legislation and uneven enforcement efforts by the Member States;

5. Stresses that its workload was considerably underestimated in the initial budgetary framework, leaving the EPPO structurally underfunded and understaffed; underlines that the increasing volume of investigations cannot be managed without adequate staffing and proper resources in order to ensure that funding is accompanied by stronger accountability mechanisms and periodic performance reviews to guarantee efficient use of EU taxpayers’ money; calls on the Commission to engage with EPPO and provide an updated assessment of EPPO needs in view of the next multiannual financial framework, which should also take into account the extension of the EPPO’s territorial competence to Sweden and Poland; recalls that EPPO is one of the few EU bodies bringing resources for the EU budget in the context of the protection of the EU's financial interests;

6. Emphasises that the review of the legislative framework governing Europol, Eurojust, OLAF and EPPO should offer opportunities to maximise the efficiency in pursuing common objectives in particular in the fight against fraud, financial crime, corruption and other criminal damage to the EU's financial interest, while avoiding duplication of efforts; highlights that closer operational cooperation and shared analytical capacities with other EU agencies such as Europol, Eurojust and OLAF could generate important economies of scale and improve overall efficiency; calls on the EPPO to establish solid cooperation with other agencies pursuing shared objectives and offering high potential of complementarity; points in this regard in particular to the newly established Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) and the future European Customs Authority; stresses that effective detection of fraud and financial crime depends on genuine data-driven cooperation and information-sharing among all actors within the EU’s anti-fraud architecture; stresses that this cooperation needs to operate in full compliance with data protection rules and procedural safeguards;

7. Recalls the commitment of the Commission to accelerate the review of the EPPO's mandate and expects such review to lead an extension of its competence; emphasizes its repeated calls to expand the EPPO's jurisdiction to other areas of the serious crime, such as EU sanctions violation; but stresses that such an expansion must be preceded by a full impact assessment and sufficient budgetary and human resources to ensure operational effectiveness;

8. Acknowledges the need for EPPO to develop, with appropriate resources, autonomous digital systems to deal with increasingly complex cross-border financial crimes, with enhanced sophistication involving emerging digital technologies; expresses concern about delays in the development of its Case Management System; notes the important amount of data EPPO collects during investigations in particular in complex financial, organized crime and money-laundering cases and which remains under-utilized due to the lack of internal analytical capacity; welcomes the adoption of the EPPO cyber-security strategy and cyber-security framework and calls for its swift and comprehensive implementation; encourages the EPPO to prioritise interoperability and data security in its digital transformation, ensuring compatibility with Europol and Eurojust systems while protecting fundamental rights;

9. Urges the Member States that have not yet joined the EPPO to do so without delay, in order to ensure a truly pan-European system of criminal justice capable of protecting the Union’s financial interests and responding effectively to cross-border organised crime and corruption; stresses that the fragmentation resulting from non-participation undermines the coherence and efficiency of the EU’s judicial architecture, and that full participation by all Member States would significantly strengthen the Union’s capacity to detect, investigate and prosecute serious offences affecting the EU budget; recalls that participation in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) represents a cornerstone of the Union’s common judicial and anti-fraud architecture, ensuring the effective protection of the EU’s financial interests and the integrity of its institutions; calls for participation in EPPO to be required of all future Member States as part of the EU accession process, in order to ensure a uniform level of accountability, judicial cooperation and enforcement across the Union;

10. Stresses the need for a continuous and structured dialogue with the Member States already participating in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) in order to address the practical challenges they face in combating breaches of the rule of law and corruption; calls on the European Commission to support these Member States in the concrete implementation of the recommendations contained in the annual Rule of Law Reports and to ensure that the lessons learned within the EPPO framework contribute to a stronger and more coherent Union-wide approach to judicial integrity and accountability.

ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur for opinion declares that she included in her opinion input on matters pertaining to the subject of the file that she received, in the preparation of the opinion, prior to the adoption thereof in committee, from the following interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register, or from the following representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies:

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur for opinion.

Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur declares that she has submitted to the natural persons concerned the European Parliament’s Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION BY THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE