The legal research library on the European Public Prosecutor's Office
= EPPO-Regulation
= Relevant iRoP and other annotations
Article 26 | Initiation of investigations and allocation of competences within the EPPO
1. Where, in accordance with the applicable national law, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence within the competence of the EPPO is being or has been committed, a European Delegated Prosecutor in a Member State which according to its national law has jurisdiction over the offence shall, without prejudice to the rules set out in Article 25(2) and (3), initiate an investigation and note this in the case management system.
Article 41 | Decision to initiate an investigation or to evoke a case
(as amended by College Decision 085/2021)
1. Where, following the verification, the EPPO decides to exercise its competence by initiating an investigation or evoking a case, a case file shall be opened and it shall be assigned an identification number in the index of the case files (hereinafter the Index). A permanent link to the related registration under Article 38(1) above shall be automatically created by the Case Management System.
2. The corresponding reference in the Index shall contain, to the extent available:
a) As regards suspected or accused persons in the criminal proceedings of the EPPO or persons convicted following the criminal proceedings of the EPPO,
i. surname, maiden name, given names and any alias or assumed names;
ii. date and place of birth;
iii. nationality;
iv. sex;
v. place of residence, profession and whereabouts of the person concerned,
vi. social security numbers, ID-codes, driving licences, identification documents, passport data, customs and tax identification numbers;
vii. description of the alleged offences, including the date on which they were committed;
viii. category of the offences, including the existence of inextricably linked offences;
ix. the amount of the estimated damages;
x. suspected membership of a criminal organisation;
xi. details of accounts held with banks and other financial institutions;
xii. telephone numbers, SIM-card numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, and account and user names used on online platforms;
xiii. vehicle registration data;
xiv. identifiable assets owned or utilised by the person, such as crypto-assets and real estate.
xv. information whether potential privileges or immunities may apply.
b) as regards natural persons who reported or are victims of offences that fall within the competence of the EPPO,
i. surname, maiden name, given names and any alias or assumed names;
ii. date and place of birth;
iii. nationality;
iv. sex;
v. place of residence, profession and whereabouts of the person concerned;
vi. ID-codes, identification documents, and passport data;
vii. description and nature of the offences involving or reported by the person concerned, the date on which the offences were committed and the criminal category of the offences.
c) as regards contacts or associates of one of the persons referred to in point (a) above,
i. surname, maiden name, given names and any alias or assumed names;
ii. date and place of birth;
iii. nationality;
iv. sex;
v. place of residence, profession and whereabouts of the person concerned;
vi. ID-codes, identification documents, and passport data.
The categories of personal data referred to above under points (a)(x)-(xv) shall be entered in the Index only to the extent practicable, taking into account the operational interest and available resources. The reference in the Index shall be maintained up to date during the investigation of a case file. The Case Management System shall periodically notify the European Prosecutor and the European Delegated Prosecutor concerned if certain categories of information are not entered in the Index.
3. The Case Management System shall notify the supervising European Prosecutor, the Permanent Chamber, and the European Chief Prosecutor.
4. Where the handling European Delegated Prosecutor, or the European Prosecutor conducting the investigation pursuant to Article 28(4) of the Regulation, considers that in order to preserve the integrity of the investigation it is necessary to temporarily defer the obligation to inform the authorities referred to in Articles 25(5), 26(2) and 26(7) of the Regulation, he/she shall inform the monitoring Permanent Chamber without delay. The latter may object to this decision and instruct the European Delegated Prosecutor or, where applicable, the European Prosecutor acting pursuant Article 28(4) of the Regulation, to proceed with the relevant notification immediately.
See Annex I to III of College Decision 029/2021 on the EPPO’s Guidelines on investigation and evocation policy, amended by College Decision 007/2022. The EPPO has published a new consolidated version for information purposes.
2. Where upon verification in accordance with Article 24(6), the EPPO decides to initiate an investigation, it shall without undue delay inform the authority that reported the criminal conduct in accordance with Article 24(1) or (2).
See, however, Article 41(4) iRoP:
Article 41 | Decision to initiate an investigation or to evoke a case
(as amended by College Decision 085/2021)
(…)
4. Where the handling European Delegated Prosecutor, or the European Prosecutor conducting the investigation pursuant to Article 28(4) of the Regulation, considers that in order to preserve the integrity of the investigation it is necessary to temporarily defer the obligation to inform the authorities referred to in Articles 25(5), 26(2) and 26(7) of the Regulation, he/she shall inform the monitoring Permanent Chamber without delay. The latter may object to this decision and instruct the European Delegated Prosecutor or, where applicable, the European Prosecutor acting pursuant Article 28(4) of the Regulation, to proceed with the relevant notification immediately.
3. Where no investigation has been initiated by a European Delegated Prosecutor, the Permanent Chamber to which the case has been allocated shall, under the conditions set out in paragraph 1, instruct a European Delegated Prosecutor to initiate an investigation.
Article 38 | Registration of information
– as amended by College Decision 026/2022 effective 30 August 2022
(…)
5. Based on the content of paragraph 3(d) above, the Case Management System shall notify the appropriate European Prosecutor(s). Additionally, where the assessment of paragraph 3(g) is positive, the Case Management System shall notify the European Chief Prosecutor.
(…)
Article 42 | Decision not to initiate an investigation or not to evoke a case
(as amended by College Decision 085/2021)
1. Where, following the verification, the European Delegated Prosecutor considers not to initiate an investigation or not to evoke a case, he/she shall record the reasons in the Register. The consideration shall be notified to the assigning European Prosecutor and its review shall be assigned to the competent Permanent Chamber.
2. If the College has adopted general guidelines allowing the European Delegated Prosecutors to decide, independently and without undue delay, not to evoke cases concerning specific types of offences, the review of the European Delegated Prosecutor’s decision shall be conducted according to the rules prescribed by those guidelines.
3. The Permanent Chamber, if it feels it is appropriate, may ask for assistance from the staff of the EPPO to further inform their decision.
4. The Permanent Chamber’s review of the consideration not to evoke a case shall be conducted before the expiration of the deadline prescribed by Article 27(1) of the Regulation. The review of the consideration not to initiate an investigation shall be conducted no later than 20 days following the assignment to the Permanent Chamber. The Permanent Chamber may request the European Chief Prosecutor to extend the time available for the review.
5. If the Permanent Chamber instructs the European Delegated Prosecutor to start an investigation or to evoke the case, the European Delegated Prosecutor shall act in accordance with Article 41.
6. If the Permanent Chamber does not instruct the European Delegated Prosecutor before the expiration of the time limit for the review, the consideration of the European Delegated Prosecutor shall be deemed as accepted. Where possible, the authority or person, who reported the criminal conduct shall be notified of the decision.
7. If the decision not to start an investigation is based on the fact that the reported criminal conduct falls outside the competence of the EPPO, the originally received information, along with, where permissible, any information discovered during the verification by the EPPO, shall be referred to the competent national authorities
See on the functions and procedures of the Permanent Chambers in this respect: Annex to College Decision 027/2022, further amended by College Decision 028/2024, in particular its section III.1
4. A case shall as a rule be initiated and handled by a European Delegated Prosecutor from the Member State where the focus of the criminal activity is or, if several connected offences within the competences of the EPPO have been committed, the Member State where the bulk of the offences has been committed. A European Delegated Prosecutor of a different Member State that has jurisdiction for the case may only initiate or be instructed by the competent Permanent Chamber to initiate an investigation where a deviation from the rule set out in the previous sentence is duly justified, taking into account the following criteria, in order of priority:
(a) the place of the suspect’s or accused person’s habitual residence;
(b) the nationality of the suspect or accused person;
(c) the place where the main financial damage has occurred.
5. Until a decision to prosecute under Article 36 is taken, the competent Permanent Chamber may, in a case concerning the jurisdiction of more than one Member State and after consultation with the European Prosecutors and/or European Delegated Prosecutors concerned, decide to:
(a) reallocate the case to a European Delegated Prosecutor in another Member State;
(b) merge or split cases and, for each case choose the European Delegated Prosecutor handling it,
if such decisions are in the general interest of justice and in accordance with the criteria for the choice of the handling European Delegated Prosecutor in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Article.
Article 50 | Reallocation of a case to a European Delegated Prosecutor in another Member State
1. The handling European Delegated Prosecutor, the supervising European Prosecutor or any permanent member of the monitoring Permanent Chamber may propose for a case to be reallocated to a European Delegated Prosecutor in another Member State in accordance with Article 26(5) of the Regulation.
2. The Permanent Chamber may invite the European Prosecutor from the Member State where the case is proposed to be reallocated to, to attend its meeting and may request written observations from the European Delegated Prosecutors concerned. In case the reallocation results in the supervising European Prosecutor also being a permanent member of the monitoring Permanent Chamber, Article 19 shall apply accordingly.
3. The decision of the Permanent Chamber to reallocate a case according to paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be registered in the Case Management System, which shall notify the European Prosecutors and European Delegated Prosecutors concerned. The decision may not be taken by written procedure.
Article 51 | Merging and splitting cases concerning the jurisdiction of more than one Member State
– as amended by College Decision 026/2022 effective 30 August 2022
1. Any handling European Delegated Prosecutor, supervising European Prosecutors or permanent member of the monitoring Permanent Chamber may propose to the Permanent Chamber the merging or splitting of cases falling under the criteria of Article 26(5)(b) and (6) of the Regulation.
2. When the cases to be merged are monitored by different Permanent Chambers, they shall consult each other in order to decide upon the merging of those cases. Where all the Permanent Chambers concerned have decided to merge the cases, the monitoring Permanent Chamber of the first registered case in the Case Management System shall also monitor the merged case, unless the concerned Permanent Chambers jointly decide to deviate from this principle. Where at least one Permanent Chamber refuses to merge the cases or disagrees on the determination of the monitoring Permanent Chamber, the European Chief Prosecutor shall decide.
3. When the monitoring Permanent Chamber decides to split a case, it shall remain competent for all the cases which resulted from the split. If there is a reason to deviate from this rule, the monitoring Permanent Chamber shall inform the European Chief Prosecutor who shall decide. The new case(s) resulting from the split shall receive a new case number, in accordance with Article 41.
4. The decision to merge or split cases, and the choice of allocation to a different Permanent Chamber following a merge or a split of cases shall be registered in the Case Management System.
5. The decision shall also contain the Permanent Chamber’s choice on the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the merged or split cases in accordance with Article 26 of the Regulation. In case of disagreement between the Permanent Chambers, the European Chief Prosecutor shall decide.
See on the merging and splitting of cases concerning the jurisdiction of one Member States (i.e. within one Member State) Art. 51bis iRoP (inserted by College Decision 026/2022).
Article 51bis | Merging and splitting cases concerning the jurisdiction of one Member State
– as inserted by College Decision 026/2022 effective 30 August 2022
1. Where the jurisdiction of one Member State is concerned, the handling European Delegated Prosecutor may decide to merge or split cases in accordance with applicable national law. Article 20(2) does not apply.
2. Where the handling European Delegated Prosecutor decides to merge or split cases in application of paragraph 1, the concerned Permanent Chamber(s) shall be notified of that decision without undue delay.
3. Where several Permanent Chambers are concerned by the decision to merge cases, the handling European Delegated Prosecutor shall indicate in his/her decision which Permanent Chamber should monitor the case resulting from the merge in accordance with the applicable national law. Where the latter does not allow to identify the monitoring Permanent Chamber or where it leaves discretion as to its designation, the monitoring Permanent Chamber shall be the one monitoring the case into which the other case or cases are merged.
4. Where the cases to be merged are handled by more than one European Delegated Prosecutor, the merge and the designation of the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case resulting from it shall be decided in accordance with applicable national law. Where the latter does not allow to identify the handling European Delegated Prosecutor or where it leaves discretion as to its designation, the supervising European Prosecutor shall decide.
5. When the handling European Delegated Prosecutor decides to split a case, the concerned Permanent Chamber shall remain competent for all the cases which result from the split. If there is a reason to deviate from this rule, the Permanent Chamber shall inform the European Chief Prosecutor who shall decide. The new case(s) resulting from the split shall receive a new case number, in accordance with Article 41.
6. Whenever the Permanent Chamber is taking a decision to reallocate, merge or split a case, it shall take due account of the current state of the investigations.
7. The EPPO shall inform the competent national authorities without undue delay of any decision to initiate an investigation.
Copyright © 2022 EPPO-LEX The legal research library on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. All Rights Reserved.