Ruling [EGC] ¦ General Court Backs EPPO Access to Witness Testimony in Court of Auditors Investigation

A ruling with direct relevance for EU financial crime enforcement

On 10 June 2026, the General Court annulled a statement of position by the European Court of Auditors that had refused to lift the duty of confidentiality of 12 EU officials whom the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) wanted to hear as witnesses in a criminal investigation.

The case, EPPO v European Court of Auditors, Case T‑99/25, sits at the intersection of EU institutional law, criminal investigations, professional confidentiality and the protection of the Union’s financial interests. For financial crime practitioners, the judgment is important because it confirms that EU institutions cannot use internal confidentiality rules or unresolved immunity issues to block investigative steps without carrying out a proper legal assessment.

The background: an EPPO investigation linked to recruitment irregularities

The dispute arose after OLAF reported possible irregularities to the EPPO in July 2022 concerning the recruitment and establishment of a person who later became an official of the Court of Auditors. After reviewing the information, the EPPO concluded that there was evidence of an offence falling within its competence under Regulation 2017/1939, the regulation establishing the EPPO.

A European Delegated Prosecutor in Luxembourg opened an investigation in December 2022. Because the investigation concerned persons who benefited from EU immunities, and because the Court of Auditors enjoys inviolability of its premises, buildings and archives under Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, the EPPO sought cooperation from the Court of Auditors.

The European Chief Prosecutor repeatedly asked the President of the Court of Auditors to lift the inviolability of premises and archives and to lift the immunity of the persons under investigation. The President of the Court of Auditors did not grant those requests, stating that the EPPO had not provided sufficient information.

In September 2024, the European Delegated Prosecutor took a further investigative step. He asked the Court of Auditors to provide documents and to lift the duty of confidentiality of 12 EU officials so that they could be heard as witnesses. That request was made under Article 19 of the EU Staff Regulations, which governs the disclosure by officials of work-related information in legal proceedings.

The Court of Auditors refused. It said that the EPPO had not provided enough information to justify the request and that lifting the duty of confidentiality would be contrary to the interests of the Union. It also argued that allowing the 12 officials to testify would effectively circumvent the fact that the immunity of the persons under investigation had not been lifted.

The EPPO challenged that refusal before the General Court.

Bastian Schwind-Wagner _Follow

"The General Court’s judgment confirms that EU institutions cannot rely on confidentiality rules to block EPPO investigative steps without a proper and separate legal assessment. The refusal to allow 12 officials to testify was annulled because the Court of Auditors misapplied the concept of the interests of the Union.

The ruling strengthens the EPPO’s ability to collect evidence in investigations affecting the EU’s financial interests. It also makes clear that immunity issues concerning persons under investigation do not automatically prevent witness testimony from other officials."

The refusal was a challengeable act

The Court of Auditors first argued that the EPPO’s action was inadmissible because the contested statement of position was not a challengeable act under Article 263 TFEU. It claimed that the statement merely explained its position and did not produce binding legal effects.

The General Court rejected that argument. It found that the statement did more than recount prior correspondence. It refused to lift the duty of confidentiality of the 12 officials. Without that authorisation, the EPPO could not obtain their witness testimony for the purposes of its investigation.

The Court therefore held that the refusal produced legal effects vis-à-vis the EPPO, because it deprived the EPPO of the possibility to exercise investigative powers under Article 28(1) of Regulation 2017/1939.

This point matters for financial crime enforcement. The judgment confirms that when an EU institution refuses to authorise officials to testify in an EPPO investigation, that refusal can be reviewed by the EU Courts. Institutions cannot shield such decisions from judicial scrutiny by describing them as informal positions or internal employment law matters.

The EPPO had a continuing legal interest

The Court of Auditors also argued that the EPPO had no legal interest in bringing the case because the immunity of the persons under investigation had not been lifted. In its view, even if the 12 officials testified, their evidence could not be used to prosecute the persons concerned.

The General Court again disagreed.

A key factual point was that the Court of Auditors had not adopted a formal decision refusing to lift immunity. Its President had sent several letters, but the Court accepted at the hearing that no explicit refusal decision had been adopted by the competent authority. The General Court also rejected the suggestion that a letter of 13 October 2023 amounted to an implied refusal.

The Court then addressed the wider legal argument. It held that Article 39 of Regulation 2017/1939 does not mean that a refusal to lift immunity automatically and definitively prevents the EPPO from continuing investigative work. Nor does it prevent the EPPO from seeking additional evidence that may support a renewed or supplemented request to lift immunity.

In practical terms, the EPPO was entitled to seek witness testimony from the 12 officials to assess whether to support its immunity request further, continue the investigation, or conclude that the matter should not proceed. That was enough to give the EPPO a legal interest in challenging the refusal.

Confidentiality and immunity are separate legal issues

The most important part of the judgment concerns the distinction between the duty of confidentiality of witnesses and the immunity of persons under investigation.

The EPPO argued that the Court of Auditors had confused two different matters. The persons under investigation benefited from immunity under Protocol No 7. The 12 officials whom the EPPO wished to hear as witnesses did not enjoy that immunity in the same way. They were simply bound by duties of confidentiality under the Staff Regulations.

The General Court agreed with the EPPO. It held that the request to lift the duty of confidentiality concerned only the 12 officials as potential witnesses. It did not concern the persons under investigation and did not have the same purpose or consequences as a request to lift immunity.

Because of that distinction, the Court of Auditors could not simply rely on the unresolved immunity issue to refuse the witness confidentiality request. It had to carry out a separate assessment under Article 19 of the Staff Regulations.

The “interests of the Union” must be read narrowly

Article 19 of the Staff Regulations allows an EU institution to refuse permission for an official to disclose work-related information in legal proceedings only where the interests of the Union so require.

The General Court stressed that this concept must be interpreted restrictively. The interests capable of justifying refusal must be interests of considerable importance that are vital to the European Union.

The Court found that the Court of Auditors had applied the wrong test. Its view that witness testimony would circumvent the immunity of the persons under investigation did not amount to a vital Union interest. Nor could the Court of Auditors use the immunity issue as a general basis for blocking the EPPO’s ability to collect evidence.

The judgment also makes clear that the interests of the Union are not served by preventing the EPPO from gathering evidence in a lawful investigation. On the contrary, allowing the EPPO to collect evidence, including testimony from EU officials, supports the Union’s interest in the effective investigation of offences affecting its financial interests.

A warning against institutional gatekeeping

The judgment contains an important institutional message. If the Court of Auditors’ argument had been accepted, any EU institution receiving an immunity request could indirectly control the scope of an EPPO investigation by refusing related witness testimony.

The General Court rejected that approach. It held that allowing institutions to assess the substance of suspected offences and decide when the EPPO may gather evidence would risk depriving the EPPO of the powers granted to it by Regulation 2017/1939.

That is significant for investigations involving EU bodies, staff, procurement, recruitment, grants, expenses or other areas where financial crime concerns may arise inside institutional structures. The ruling supports the EPPO’s operational independence and limits the ability of institutions to obstruct evidence gathering through broad reliance on confidentiality or reputational concerns.

The outcome

The General Court annulled the Court of Auditors’ statement of position of 9 December 2024. It held that the refusal to lift the duty of confidentiality of the 12 officials infringed Article 19 of the Staff Regulations, because the Court of Auditors had misapplied the concept of the interests of the Union.

The Court did not need to rule on the EPPO’s other pleas, which included misuse of powers, infringement of sincere cooperation under Article 13(2) TEU, and alleged breaches of Regulation 2017/1939.

Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, since the EPPO had not requested a costs order.

Why financial crime teams should pay attention

This judgment strengthens the practical effectiveness of EPPO investigations. It confirms that witness testimony from EU officials cannot be blocked merely because a related immunity request is pending or unresolved. It also confirms that institutional confidentiality under the Staff Regulations is not a broad shield against criminal investigative measures.

For compliance, investigations and financial crime professionals, the case is a reminder that internal institutional protections must be balanced against the Union’s interest in detecting and prosecuting offences affecting EU finances. Confidentiality remains important, but it cannot be used as a default barrier to lawful evidence gathering by the EPPO.

The ruling is therefore likely to be cited in future disputes where EU bodies resist cooperation with EPPO investigations on the basis of confidentiality, immunity or institutional interests.

Dive deeper

• EUR-Lex ¦ Case case:T-99/25 ¦ Link
• EUR-Lex ¦ Regulation 2017/1939 EPPO ¦ Link
• EUR-Lex ¦ Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union ¦ Link
• EUR-Lex ¦ Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations ¦ Link
• EUR-Lex ¦ Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) ¦ Link
• EUR-Lex ¦ Treaty on European Union ¦ Link