The European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO): Competence, Structure, and Operations

Introduction

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), established under Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, is the first supranational criminal prosecution body in EU law. Operational since 1 June 2021, the EPPO is responsible for investigating, prosecuting, and bringing to judgment crimes against the EU budget — including fraud, corruption, and cross-border VAT fraud exceeding €10 million. The EPPO represents a paradigm shift: for the first time, an EU body exercises direct criminal law enforcement powers, acting as a single prosecutor’s office with competence over participating Member States, while respecting national procedural frameworks and fundamental rights.

Legal Basis and Establishment

The EPPO was established under Article 86 TFEU, introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, which empowers the Council to establish a European Public Prosecutor’s Office from Eurojust to combat crimes affecting the Union’s financial interests. The Regulation was adopted under enhanced cooperation (Article 86(1) TFEU) after unanimity proved unattainable. As of 2026, 24 Member States participate; Denmark, Ireland, Hungary, and Poland are non-participants, each for distinct constitutional or political reasons.

The EPPO’s competence is defined by reference to the PIF Directive (Directive 2017/1371): fraud affecting EU expenditure and revenue, including procurement fraud, non-competitive award of EU contracts, customs fraud, and cross-border VAT fraud causing damage of at least €10 million. The EPPO exercises exclusive competence over these offences within participating Member States (Article 22 EPPO Regulation), meaning that national authorities may not exercise jurisdiction over the same facts.

Structure and Organisation

The EPPO operates as an indivisible, collegiate body with a dual-level structure. At the central level, the College (composed of the European Chief Prosecutor and one prosecutor from each participating Member State) sets strategic priorities, adopts internal rules, and ensures consistency across the organisation. The Permanent Chambers — three-judge panels chaired by a European Prosecutor — direct investigations and prosecutions, deciding whether to bring a case to trial, apply simplified procedures, or dismiss charges.

At the operational level, European Delegated Prosecutors (EDPs) are embedded within national prosecution services of each participating Member State. EDPs conduct investigations on the EPPO’s behalf, exercising both national prosecutorial powers and the specific powers conferred by the EPPO Regulation. Approximately 170 EDPs operate across the 24 participating states, supported by case analysts, legal advisors, and administrative staff. The European Chief Prosecutor (Laura Codruța Kövesi, appointed 2019) represents the EPPO externally and chairs the College.

Competence and Exercise of Jurisdiction

The EPPO’s competence is both exclusive and ancillary. Exclusive competence means that national authorities may not investigate or prosecute PIF offences within the EPPO’s scope unless the EPPO decides not to exercise its competence (Article 25). Where an offence affects both EU financial interests and other national interests, the EPPO and national authorities cooperate under Article 27.

The EPPO exercises its competence through a priority rule: where the EPPO considers that an offence falls within its competence, it informs the competent national authority and may decide to exercise its power of evocation (Article 25(4)). The national authority must abstain from further investigation or prosecution if the EPPO decides to act. The conflict of jurisdiction rules favour the EPPO where the damage to the EU budget exceeds that to national interests, or where the offence is cross-border in nature.

Cross-Border Investigations

The EPPO’s cross-border investigative powers are one of its most significant innovations. An EDP in Member State A may instruct an EDP in Member State B to execute investigative measures without the need for mutual recognition instruments, legal assistance requests, or intermediate authorisation. The EDP in the executing state must carry out the requested measure as if instructed by a national authority (Article 31), subject only to the executing state’s procedural law.

The Regulation provides for a minimum list of investigative measures (Article 30) that each participating Member State must make available to EDPs: (a) search of premises and seizure; (b) production of documents; (c) freezing of assets; (d) interception of telecommunications; (e) covert surveillance; and (f) tracking and tracing of objects. These cross-border measures are subject to the executing state’s procedural conditions, including judicial authorisation where required by national law.

Procedural Rights and Safeguards

The EPPO Regulation establishes a comprehensive framework of procedural rights for suspects and accused persons (Articles 32–38): (a) the right to a lawyer (including in EPPO cross-border proceedings); (b) the right to interpretation and translation; (c) the right to remain silent; (d) the right to be presumed innocent; (e) the right to access the case file; and (f) the right to have evidence obtained in violation of fundamental rights excluded.

The Regulation incorporates by reference the national procedural rules of the Member State where the EDP operates, creating a dual system of procedural rights: the EPPO Regulation’s autonomous guarantees supplemented by national procedural law. Where the Charter of Fundamental Rights provides greater protection than national law, the Charter prevails. The principle of proportionality governs all investigative measures: EDPs must choose the least intrusive means consistent with the investigation’s objectives.

Evidentiary Framework

Article 37 EPPO Regulation establishes the mutual admissibility of evidence: evidence presented by the EPPO in the trial court of a participating Member State is admissible if the court considers its admission would not unfairly prejudice the defendant’s rights or violate the fairness of the proceedings. This rule avoids the requirement for EDPs to comply with 24 distinct national evidence codes, while leaving ultimate admissibility to the trial judge.

Trial and Adjudication

The EPPO does not exercise judicial functions — it prosecutes before national courts of competent jurisdiction. The case is tried in the Member State determined by Articles 26–27: generally the state where the main criminal activity occurred, where the bulk of the financial damage was sustained, or where the suspect resides. The trial court applies its national procedural law, subject to the EPPO Regulation’s guarantees and the Charter.

Relationships with National Authorities and EU Bodies

The EPPO cooperates closely with OLAF (under a 2021 working arrangement), Eurojust, Europol, the European Anti-Fraud Office, and the European Court of Auditors. OLAF may not investigate facts that the EPPO is investigating, and must refer cases to the EPPO without delay (Article 25 OLAF Regulation). The EPPO may request Europol to provide analytical and operational support, and Eurojust may facilitate coordination in cases involving non-participating Member States or third countries.

Operational Impact and Challenges

By 2025, the EPPO had registered over 4,000 investigations, with an estimated financial impact of over €18 billion in uncovered fraud. Cross-border VAT fraud — particularly carousel fraud exploiting the MTIC (Missing Trader Intra-Community) mechanism — represents the largest category of cases. The EPPO’s operational challenges include: divergent national criminal procedure rules, limited resources relative to the scale of PIF fraud, linguistic and legal diversity across 24 jurisdictions, and the political constraints of operating in Member States with different judicial cultures and levels of corruption.