With recommendations to the Commission on future Revision of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (’the EPPO’)

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

with recommendations to the Commission on the future Revision of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (’the EPPO’)

(2026/2125(INL))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to Article 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

– having regard to Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

– having regard to Rules 47 and 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 7, 8 and 47 to 50,

– having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’), as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/2153, in particular Articles 119 and 120 thereof,

– having regard to Commission Decision (EU) 2018/1094 of 1 August 2018 confirming the participation of The Netherlands, Commission Decision (EU) 2018/1103 of 7 August 2018 confirming the participation of Malta, Commission Decision (EU) 2024/807 of 29 February 2024 confirming the participation of Poland, Commission Decision (EU) 2024/1952 of 16 July 2024 confirming the participation of Sweden, and Commission Decision (EU) 2026/1701 of 10 July 2026 confirming the participation of Hungary, in the enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the EPPO, and to the Commission notice concerning the effects of Decision (EU) 2026/1701 on Regulation (EU) 2017/1939,

– having regard to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/856 of 25 May 2021 determining the date on which the EPPO assumed its investigative and prosecutorial tasks,

– having regard to Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law, as amended by Directive (EU) 2026/1021 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2026 on combating corruption,

– having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2026/1743 of 10 July 2026 amending Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 as regards access by the EPPO and OLAF to value added tax information at Union level,

– having regard to Directive (EU) 2024/1226 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 on the definition of criminal offences and penalties for the violation of Union restrictive measures, Directive (EU) 2024/1260 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 on asset recovery and confiscation, Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2024 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, Directive (EU) 2024/1640 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2024 on the mechanisms to be put in place by Member States for the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing and Regulation (EU) 2024/1620 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2024 establishing the Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism,

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and of the free movement of such data , in particular Chapter IX thereof, and to the Commission’s proposal of 24 June 2026 for its revision (COM(2026)314),

– having regard to Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty, Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, Directive (EU) 2016/800 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings and Directive (EU) 2016/1919 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings,

– having regard to the communication of the Commission of 12 September 2018 entitled “A Europe that protects: an initiative to extend the competences of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to cross-border terrorist crimes”, in particular the Annex thereto containing a Commission initiative for the possible adoption of a European Council decision amending Article 86(1) and (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) with a view to extending the EPPO’s competence to terrorist offences affecting more than one Member State;

– having regard to the study commissioned by the Commission on the compliance of Member States to adapt their systems to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 (JUST/2022/PR/JCOO/CRIM/0004, September 2023) and to the subsequent Evaluation of the implementation and impact of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), and of the effectiveness and efficiency of the EPPO and its working practices,

– having regard to the communication of the Commission of 16 July 2025 entitled “White Paper for the Anti-fraud Architecture Review” (COM(2025)0546) and to the communication of the Commission of 16 July 2025 entitled “A dynamic EU budget for the priorities of the future - The Multiannual Financial Framework 2028–2034” (COM(2025)0570),

– having regard to the Special Reports of the European Court of Auditors on the protection of the Union’s financial interests 26/2025 and on the recovery of funds 07/2024,

– having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of 21 December 2023 in Case C-281/22 and of 8 April 2025 in Case C-292/23,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A100000/2026),

A. whereas Parliament’s early and detailed contribution is particularly necessary under the special legislative procedure provided for in Article 86 TFEU; whereas Parliament must therefore set out its priorities before the Commission proposal and the Council’s position have been established, so as to exercise meaningful democratic scrutiny, to safeguard the institutional balance and to ensure that its recommendations are duly reflected throughout the legislative negotiations;

B. whereas the EPPO has successfully addressed cross-border fraud not previously investigated or left unprosecuted at the national level, uncovering systemic vulnerabilities and cross-border networks and has demonstrated its operational necessity in prosecuting fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union;

C. whereas prosecutorial independence must be protected against political influence, retaliatory measures and operational obstruction, and must be accompanied by judicial control and democratic accountability;

D. whereas the Union’s financial interests include its revenue as well as its expenditure, and investigative priorities should reflect that scope; whereas Article 325(1) TFEU requires the Union and the Member States to counter fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the Union without drawing any distinction between the two sides of the budget, and whereas Article 310(1) TFEU requires all items of revenue and expenditure to be shown in the budget;

E. whereas the EPPO, established under Article 86 TFEU to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union, is an essential component of the Union’s Anti-Fraud Architecture (AFA), whose activities are complemented by OLAF’s administrative investigations and measures taken by other AFA actors; whereas strengthening the AFA requires improved governance, closer operational coordination, enhanced cooperation and information-sharing between the EPPO and other AFA actors, as well as a modernised legal framework to ensure more effective recovery of Union funds, while fully respecting the EPPO’s independence and fundamental procedural safeguards; whereas the revision of the AFA complements the work of the next multiannual financial framework (MFF);

F. whereas the fragmentation of reporting channels within the AFA hampers effective information-sharing and coordination between the EPPO, OLAF and other relevant actors; whereas complex and time-consuming assessments of the EPPO’s competence by reporting authorities may lead to delays, duplication and inconsistent handling of potential fraud cases; whereas insufficient information-sharing between the EPPO and OLAF risks creating information gaps and missed opportunities for precautionary measures, undermining the timely protection of the Union’s financial interests;

G. whereas criminal investigation, administrative recovery, law-enforcement analysis and judicial coordination are complementary functions requiring clear responsibilities and lawful information exchange;

H. whereas five years of operational experience have revealed structural weaknesses in Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 which cannot be remedied by internal rules of procedure, College decisions or working arrangements;

General considerations

1. Requests the Commission, pursuant to Article 225 TFEU, to submit a proposal to amend Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, on the basis of Article 86 TFEU, following the detailed recommendations in the Annex to this resolution; requests that, where a proposal has already been submitted, those recommendations be addressed through the Commission’s legislative proposal and, where appropriate, an amended proposal;

2. Welcomes the results achieved by the EPPO during its first five years of operation, which have demonstrated that a Union prosecution body with a decentralised structure can function in practice, has generated a level of prosecutorial activity in relation to fraud affecting the Union’s financial interests that far exceeds the aggregate performance of national authorities before 2021, and has become an indispensable component of the Union’s AFA and a unique actor in the Union’s criminal justice area;

3. Considers that the core revision of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 should strengthen operational effectiveness, independence, judicial review and defence rights as mutually reinforcing requirements, while in parallel consistently ensuring that the EPPO is granted commensurate resources with its role, mission and tasks in the MFF for 2028-2034;

EPPO’s material competence (Articles 22 and 23 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939)

4. Considers that the violation of Union restrictive measures, as defined in Directive (EU) 2024/1226, falls within the objectives of the EPPO and, insofar as it concerns frozen assets destined for or connected to the Union budget or Union-managed funds; calls on the Commission to prepare, in accordance with Article 86(4) TFEU, a proposal for a decision of the European Council extending the EPPO’s powers to the criminal offences defined in that Directive, and invites the European Council to adopt such a decision;

5. Stresses that the EPPO contributes to the fight against organised crime where criminal organisations are involved in offences affecting the Union’s financial interests; invites the Commission to assess the possibility of extending the EPPO’s mandate to other serious crimes with a cross-border dimension, as referred to in Article 83(1) TFEU, including environmental crime and terrorism, while taking into account the need to preserve its focus and expertise on the protection of the Union’s financial interests, to avoid overlaps with existing national and Union authorities, and to ensure adequate resources; recalls that any such extension must comply with the procedures laid down in the Treaties, in particular Article 86(4) TFEU;

Organisational structure and decision-making, status of European Prosecutors, European Delegated Prosecutors and governance (Articles 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 91 to 96 and 114 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939)

6. Calls for Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 to establish the status of the members of the EPPO, stating their independence, the executive character of their appointment, and, for European Delegated Prosecutors, the guarantee of their national status, career and reinstatement at a level at least equivalent to that held at the time of appointment;

7. Calls for Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 to be amended so as to set a minimum number of European Delegated Prosecutors per participating Member State determined by objective criteria such as volume of supervised Union funds, reports submitted and caseload;

8. Notes the Commission’s evaluation findings regarding the need to align the status of the EPPO’s judicial leadership with its institutional rank; calls for the Commission to put forward, on the appropriate legal basis, a proposal bringing the European Chief Prosecutor and the European Prosecutors within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2016/300 on terms comparable to those applicable to members of the Court of Justice;

9. Notes that European Delegated Prosecutors, although engaged and remunerated by the EPPO under Article 96(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, remain members of their national prosecution service or judiciary; stresses that this dual status must not affect their independence; invites the Commission, to propose targeted adjustments limited to simplifying their allowances and setting common, transparent principles for their remuneration;

10. Considers that the budgetary status of the EPPO should reflect its independence and judicial character of its functions; invites the Commission to consider treating the EPPO as an institution for the purposes of Regulation (EU) 2024/2509, with its own section of the general budget, its own estimates and discharge on the institutional track, and amending Articles 91 to 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 accordingly;

Exercise of competence, reporting by national authorities and by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, immunities (Articles 23, 24, 25, 27 and 29 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939)

11. Considers that the rules on the exercise of competence in Article 25(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 based on “damage”, produce arbitrary outcomes in mixed cases and should be replaced by a rule allowing the EPPO to retain competence where the offence against the Union’s financial interests (‘PIF offence’) is the predominant offence, while taking into account the gravity of the offences, their investigative complexity and interest of the persons concerned;

12. Considers the five days limit for evocation, extendable by further five days as insufficient for the EPPO to assess adequately the cross-border dimension of a case and to consult the authorities of other Member States while leaving national authorities the power to take urgent measures which cannot be deferred or where national investigation has reached an advanced stage;

13. Calls for Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 to be amended so that the requests of the European Chief Prosecutor for lifting national immunity or privilege are decided within a fixed period and by reasoned decision on the same conditions and with the same effects as those submitted by national prosecution authorities and subject to judicial review;

Cross-border investigations, judicial review, procedural safeguards (Articles 31, 32, 37 and 42 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939)

14. Calls for the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to be extended to disputes concerning the interpretation of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 as regards decisions on the allocation and referral of cases; calls for Article 25(6) and Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 to be amended so that decisions of the authority designated under Article 25(6) of that Regulation are subject to review before a court of the Member State concerned at the request of the EPPO or of the national prosecution authority, within a period not exceeding 15 days;

15. Calls for Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 to establish cross-border execution deadlines (Article 32), rules on admissibility of evidence (Article 37), allowing evidence lawfully obtained by the EPPO at central level or in one participating Member State and not denying such evidence admission on the sole ground that it originates from another Member State, as well as rules on the method of collection and formal requirements of evidence, with a possibility for the accused person to challenge the legality, authenticity, integrity and probative value of that evidence;

Recovery (Articles 38 and 39 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939)

16. Considers that effective recovery is a key indicator of the protection of the Union budget; notes that Article 38 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 provides that confiscated assets are to be disposed of in accordance with national law; invites the Commission to consider amending Directive (EU) 2024/1260 and Regulation (EU) 2024/2509 so that confiscated proceeds attributable to damage to the Union budget are returned to it and recorded transparently; suggests that the Commission clarify the interaction between criminal confiscation and administrative financial corrections, to allow for timely and effective measures to protect the Union budget;

17. Recalls that, under Article 4 and Article 13(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, European Delegated Prosecutors are responsible for cases until their final disposal; calls on the Commission to develop, in cooperation with the EPPO, a systematic and standardised notification mechanism to ensure that the Commission without undue delay, as long as it does not jeopardise the criminal investigations, is informed of its decisions to prosecute, to apply a simplified procedure or to dismiss a case, as well as of the final judgments by national courts affecting the Union budget, with a view to facilitating recovery, monitoring and administrative follow-up following criminal proceedings; invites the Commission to assess, together with the EPPO, whether wider use of simplified procedures under Article 40 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 could improve recovery and procedural efficiency and free investigative capacity for complex cases;

Relations with OLAF, Eurojust, Europol and AMLA (Articles 99-105 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939) and access to information held by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union (Article 43)

18. Calls for Article 43(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 to be amended so that the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union grant the EPPO direct and immediate access to databases and registers held by them, to the extent necessary for a specific investigation, subject to adequate safeguards;

19. Stresses that differences between the respective investigative mandates and procedures of the EPPO and OLAF, including the procedural treatment of information upon receipt, should not, in themselves, prevent early cooperation and the sharing of relevant information between the EPPO and OLAF from the moment that the information is received by either of them; calls for that principle to be duly reflected in the revisions of the relevant legal frameworks; calls on the Commission to explore, in consultation with the EPPO and OLAF, the feasibility of a mechanism facilitating information-sharing at an entry stage, and strengthening coordination among AFA actors, while fully respecting their respective mandates, investigative confidentiality and procedural safeguards;

20. Calls on the Commission to enhance the information systems of the EPPO and the other AFA actors, including through common data standards, common entity identifiers and secure query mechanisms while respecting the independent and procedural guarantees of each actor and the confidentiality and data protection requirements;

21. Notes that parallel investigations by the EPPO and OLAF raise concerns regarding evidence integrity, procedural rights and the principle of ne bis in idem; observes, however, that effective protection of the Union’s financial interest benefits from the coordinated deployment of both criminal investigations and administrative measures; acknowledges the need to ensure effective cooperation while respecting their respective mandates; invites the Commission to assess, in consultation with the EPPO and OLAF, whether the current framework provides sufficient flexibility to address those concerns on a case-by-case basis, in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights while fully safeguarding the integrity of criminal investigations and the rights of the persons concerned;

Accountability and scrutiny (Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939)

22. Calls for the EPPO’s accountability measures towards Parliament to be reinforced; calls, accordingly, for Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 to provide for a minimum content of the Annual Report, including per-Member-State data on reporting under Article 24(1), (2), (3) and (5), disagreements under Article 25(6), resources made available to European Delegated Prosecutors, and amounts frozen, confiscated and recovered, as well as obstacles which can be attributed to national law or practice;

23. Calls for Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 to provide for a structured annual dialogue between the European Chief Prosecutor and the competent committee of the European Parliament; calls on the Commission to inform Parliament systematically of infringement procedures concerning the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 and the transposition of Directive (EU) 2017/1371; considers that an annual inter-parliamentary meeting bringing together the European Parliament, national parliaments and the European Chief Prosecutor could be organised to discuss the EPPO’s annual report, general activities, strategic priorities and resource needs;

24. Calls for Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 to provide, as a general rule, for the EPPO’s participation in the AFA, including in an annual high-level meeting of its actors on best practices, aggregate results and strategic priorities, with the details set out in a working arrangement; stresses that such participation must exclude individual cases and be without prejudice to Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, to confidentiality and to the EPPO’s budgetary procedure; calls for the EPPO’s aggregate and standardised data to feed into the consolidated AFA annual report and for the next evaluation to assess the EPPO’s contribution to the AFA;

Cooperation with non-participating Member States and third countries (Article 57 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939)

25. Calls for explicit recognition by the participating Member States of the EPPO as competent authority for mutual legal assistance and mutual recognition instruments, for the EPPO to be able to cooperate with the competent authorities in Member States which do not participate in the EPPO under conditions no less favourable than those applicable to national prosecution authorities in comparable cross-border cases; considers that where the Union negotiates agreements with third countries or international organisations concerning such instruments it shall seek to ensure that the EPPO is designated as the competent authority;

Procedural considerations

26. Calls on the Council to keep Parliament fully informed at all stages of its deliberations on the proposal, to transmit to Parliament any documents made available to national parliaments in the context of such deliberations and to invite the Presidency to report to the competent committee of Parliament;

27. Calls on the Commission to keep Parliament fully informed at all stages of its deliberations on the proposal, to report to Parliament at its request after each meeting of the relevant working party discussing the proposal and transmit any related documents such as draft proposals or its positions to Parliament without undue delay;

28. Instructs its President to forward this resolution and the accompanying recommendations to the Commission and the Council and to the national parliaments.