EU Court overturns Court of Auditors' refusal to allow staff testimony in European Public Prosecutor's Office investigation
The Court of the European Union has invalidated a decision by the European Court of Auditors that prevented the European Public Prosecutor's Office from hearing twelve officials as witnesses in an investigation into alleged irregularities.
EU Court overturns Court of Auditors' refusal to allow staff testimony in European Public Prosecutor's Office investigation
The Court of the European Union has invalidated a decision by the European Court of Auditors (ECA) that blocked investigators from the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) in their attempts to question twelve members of the institution's staff. These individuals were to be heard as part of an investigation into alleged irregularities within the Court of Auditors.
The matter dates back to 2022, when the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) reported potential dysfunctions in the recruitment of a senior official at the ECA. The European Public Prosecutor's Office then opened proceedings and determined that sufficient evidence justified continuing the investigation.
Throughout 2023 and 2024, the Luxembourg-based institution resisted the Prosecutor's requests. It notably refused access to its premises and argued that the magistrates had not provided sufficient detail to justify questioning its staff.
The dispute between the two bodies stems from revelations in 2021. The newspaper Libération had then disclosed that several leaders of the ECA, including former president Klaus-Heiner Lehne, were receiving a residence allowance in Luxembourg equivalent to around 15 per cent of their remuneration, despite spending the majority of their time outside the country.
The ECA maintained that the Prosecutor's Office had not provided "sufficient information and evidence regarding suspicions of criminal offences". It also claimed that allowing officials to testify would amount to circumventing the decision not to lift the immunity of the persons concerned.
The magistrates of the EU Court rejected this line of argument. They emphasised that the twelve officials involved "enjoy no particular immunity under European Union law". The institution had made an error in confusing the confidentiality obligations of its employees with the immunity of individuals under investigation.
The judges also found that no valid decision had ever been taken on immunity. "There is no such decision in the file addressed to the Chief European Prosecutor," they specified. At the hearing, the ECA itself acknowledged that "no explicit decision to refuse to lift immunity [...] had been adopted".
The Court of Auditors had invoked Article 19 of the Statute of Officials, which provides for a clause relating to the "interests of the Union". The EU Court rejected this justification, finding that the auditors had demonstrated no interest of "considerable and vital importance to the European Union". According to a statement from the EPPO published on Wednesday, confidentiality rules "are designed to protect the proper functioning of institutions, and not to prevent the establishment of the truth".
In a statement made public on Wednesday on the website of the anti-fraud enforcement institution, European Prosecutor Laura Kövesi welcomed this decision. She stated that it confirms that institutions cannot impose their own thresholds on investigations by the European Public Prosecutor's Office.
"The EU Court of Justice has said it with the greatest clarity: the EPPO's investigations are conducted in the interest of the Union, and institutions that receive requests for lifting immunities cannot determine the conditions under which the EPPO is authorised to conduct these investigations," she stated.
The verdict compels the ECA to reconsider the Prosecutor's request and allows the magistrates to resume their efforts to hear the twelve officials. The Court has also confirmed that the EPPO may continue gathering evidence and, if necessary, submit a new request for lifting immunity.
The Court of Auditors retains the possibility of lodging an appeal, but the ruling takes effect immediately.
Source: Luxembourg Times
Source: Luxembourg Times