CHD ¦ Bill 8431: Luxembourg Narrows the Routes for Challenging EPPO Investigations

Luxembourg closes the procedural gaps that slowed EPPO investigations

Bill 8431, adopted by the Chamber of Deputies on 22 January 2026, repairs the rules under which the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) investigates in Luxembourg. The law of 22 July 2022 adapted the Code of Criminal Procedure to Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, but two years of practice exposed gaps that could be used to delay cases: an extra appeal route against orders of the investigating judge, nullity actions without any time limit for most applicants and cassation appeals that held up cross-border requests. The adopted text removes those routes, sets short deadlines for the courts and gives a single court the task of settling conflicts of competence. The vote was 59 in favour, with no votes against and no abstentions. On 3 February 2026 the Council of State agreed to waive the second constitutional vote, which concluded the parliamentary procedure.

What the EPPO does in Luxembourg

The EPPO investigates and prosecutes offences against the EU’s financial interests as defined in the PIF Directive (EU) 2017/1371. In practice these include VAT fraud, corruption affecting the EU’s financial interests, misappropriation of EU funds, certain customs offences and money laundering connected with such offences, as well as offences inextricably linked to them. European Delegated Prosecutors have the same investigative and prosecutorial powers as national prosecutors and present the case in court, under the supervision of the European Prosecutor for their member state.

Luxembourg’s system adds a complication. Searches and seizures, special surveillance measures and provisional measures against legal persons have to be ordered by an investigating judge at the request of the delegated prosecutor, who stays in charge of the investigation and executes the measures. The investigating judge checks only legality, not whether the measure is opportune. The 2022 law tried to mirror ordinary criminal procedure as closely as possible, and where it did not, defendants and third parties found room to multiply challenges.

Bastian Schwind-Wagner _Follow

"Luxembourg hosts the EPPO, and its own procedural rules had become a place where European fraud cases could stall. The adopted bill 8431 closes the most obvious openings: an appeal route that existed nowhere else, nullity actions with no time limit and cassation appeals in cross-border cases.

For banks and other firms that receive EPPO measures, the practical message is about time. Challenges now have to be filed within days, so notifications must reach legal counsel immediately and the decision whether to contest a measure has to be taken quickly."

An appeal route that existed nowhere else

Article 136-48(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure allowed the delegated prosecutor and “any person concerned with a legitimate interest” to appeal the investigating judge’s decision ordering or refusing a requested measure. Ordinary procedure has no equivalent. A search order there is not a judicial decision open to appeal, and third parties may appeal only council chamber orders on seizures, expert reports and nullity.

Delegated prosecutors faced appeals against search and seizure orders from people with no role in the investigation, usually filed alongside a nullity action on the same grounds before the district court’s council chamber. Two courts then handled the same complaint, and the nullity action had to wait until the appeal was decided. Counsel also asked the Court of Appeal to review the entire procedure on its own motion, which would have bypassed the first instance and deprived the parties of a level of jurisdiction. The reform deletes this appeal route. Appeals against the investigating judge’s orders now follow only Article 136-65, the counterpart of Article 133 in ordinary procedure, and the delegated prosecutor notifies and executes the orders under the procedure specific to each measure.

Nullity actions get a deadline

Under the 2022 law, only a charged person faced a time limit for seeking the nullity of an investigative act. Third parties whose premises were searched, civil parties and suspects who had not yet been charged could challenge an act at any time. Because annulment extends to every later act that follows from the void one, a late challenge could undo months or years of investigation. In an order of 3 May 2023, the district court’s council chamber admitted a third party’s nullity request precisely because no deadline applied.

The government first proposed to combine the ordinary rules for preliminary enquiries and judicial investigations, with a two-month period and five-day periods depending on whether a person had been charged. The Council of State issued two formal objections for legal uncertainty, and the Luxembourg district court also found the two-month rule hard to apply. Parliament chose another model and treats EPPO investigations as a whole like judicial investigations under Article 126. A nullity request must be filed during the investigation within five working days of learning of the act. A charged person may also act within five working days of being charged, and a defendant who was never charged can still raise nullity before the trial court ahead of any other defence. The delegated prosecutor may now apply for nullity too, and a complaint against a judge of the Court of Appeal goes to that court’s council chamber. The Council of State lifted both objections on 2 December 2025.

Cross-border cases: ten days, twenty days, no cassation

Under Articles 30 and 31 of the regulation, a delegated prosecutor handling a case in another member state can ask a Luxembourg colleague to carry out a measure here. The 2022 law gave people ten days to ask for the return of items seized in such cases, after which the items could be sent to the requesting prosecutor. In practice the defence filed nullity actions, which had no deadline, and requested restitution as a consequence of annulment, so the automatic transfer could not be used. EPPO investigations in the other participating member states were regularly delayed while proceedings were pending in Luxembourg.

New Article 136-62bis aligns the nullity deadline with the restitution deadline. The request must be filed within ten days of notification of the act to the person where the measure was executed and signed by a lawyer admitted to the Luxembourg bar, as under the existing rules on mutual legal assistance and the European Investigation Order. At the Council of State’s suggestion, Parliament also set decision deadlines: twenty days for the court ruling on restitution, twenty days for the district court’s council chamber on nullity in cross-border cases, and twenty days for the Court of Appeal’s council chamber on appeals in those cases. The Superior Court of Justice proposed 30 days or 20 working days instead but did not oppose the amendment. Judgments of the Court of Appeal’s council chamber in cross-border cases can no longer be taken to the Court of Cassation, as is already the rule for mutual legal assistance, European Investigation Orders and the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders.

Secrecy, restitution appeals and electronic filing

The secrecy of investigations under Article 8 now expressly covers investigations by a delegated prosecutor or by the European Prosecutor. The Council of State thought this partly duplicated Article 108 of the regulation but accepted the clarification. Anyone who claims a right over a seized item can now appeal a council chamber decision on restitution, which corrects an omission in the 2022 law and gives that person two levels of jurisdiction. Appeals may also be lodged by email with the registry of the Luxembourg district court, as in ordinary criminal procedure since the law of 29 July 2023.

Article 136-68 now makes clear that the full rights of parties in a judicial investigation apply once charging is mandatory or has taken place. Read literally, the old text gave people under EPPO investigation more procedural rights than people investigated by national prosecutors without a judicial investigation, which the government said was never intended.

One court to settle conflicts of competence

When a national prosecutor refused to hand a case over to the EPPO, the Public Prosecutor General designated the competent magistrate. When an investigating judge refused, the Court of Appeal’s council chamber decided. The European Commission found Luxembourg only partly compliant with Articles 25(6) and 42(2) of the regulation, because the Public Prosecutor General is not a court that can refer questions to the Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU. All such disputes, including a failure to act, now go to the Court of Appeal’s council chamber, which designates the competent magistrate within eight days of receiving the file.

What it means for firms and their advisers

Banks, fund administrators and other service providers in Luxembourg can find themselves as third parties to an EPPO search or seizure, whether in a domestic VAT fraud or corruption case or in a measure carried out for a delegated prosecutor abroad. They and their counsel now have short windows. In a cross-border case, a nullity request must be filed within ten days of notification and signed by a Luxembourg lawyer. In other cases the period is five working days from learning of the act. Late or parallel challenges will no longer hold up the transfer of seized documents to investigators in other member states. Firms should make sure that notifications of EPPO measures reach legal counsel on the day they arrive.

Dive deeper

• CHD ¦ Projet de loi 8431 – Projet de loi modifiant le Code de procédure pénale en vue d’adapter certaines dispositions relatives au Parquet européen ¦ Link