EPPO Dashboard

Authorization of surrender of requested person to the European Delegated Prosecutor of the EPPO in Hamburg (Germany) for fraud offences. In response to an objection of the defence that the issuing authority was not competent to issue an EAW, because there was no legal basis designating it as such, the District Court ruled that Article 33 of the EPPO Regulation itself contains a legal basis for European Delegated Prosecutors to issue an EAW.

Complaint against a European freezing order. Remarkably, the European Delegated Prosecutors collaborated on the basis of a mutual recognition instrument. On the basis of a European Freezing Order issued by an Italian European Delegated Prosecutor, the European Delegated Prosecutor in the Netherlands has seized funds that were placed in Dutch bank accounts. The investigating judge issued mandates to execute these seizures. No grounds for refusal under Article 8 of the Framework Decision on the European Freezing Order apply. According to the District Court, whether there is recovery frustration perpetrated by third parties is a substantive test that is reserved to the issuing authority. The complaint unfounded.

Complaint against seizure by the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO). In order to implement a cross-border investigative measure under Article 31 of the EPPO Regulation of the handling European Delegated Prosecutors in Italy, a number of goods have been seized under the complainant in the Netherlands. The court declares the complaint unfounded. The court's review in these proceedings is limited to aspects of the implementation of the measure. The relevant law in this regard consists of the EPPO Regulation and the formalities and requirements in national law. There is no legal basis for the review requested by the complainant with regard to the legality of the seizure and whether the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity have been complied with, unless there are special circumstances relating to the administration of justice in the Member State of the handling European Delegated Prosecutor judicial that make it urgently necessary that there is a possibility for review in the Member State of the assisting European Delegated Prosecutor.

Authorization of surrender of requested person to the European Delegated Prosecutor of the EPPO in Hamburg (Germany) for fraud offences.

Dismissal of the complaint against the seizure by the EPPO among three complainants under Dutch criminal law. The seizure was lawfully made. There is sufficient suspicion of a crime for which a fine may be imposed. The interests of criminal procedure oppose the lifting of the conventional seizure on the business records and a telephone (for the purpose of ascertaining the truth) and the lifting of the prejudgment attachment on a house and two cars (for the purpose of imposing a possible fine or a claim for deprivation of property). The requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity have been met. The EPPO offered practical solutions to the complainants, such as providing copies of parts of the administration and a least burdensome removal from the seized house.

Complaint against a European freezing order on four vehicles issued by Belgian Authorities and executed in Hoofddorp. The Amsterdam District Court considered itself incompetent as jurisdiction shall be established following Art. 552a, para 4., Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure, i.e., the court of the district within which the seizure took place. Hence, the competent court is the District Court of North Holland, sitting in Haarlem.

Investigation on VAT fraud, money laundering, and forgery (Art. 3, para. 2, point d; Art. 4, para.1 Directive 2017/1371 read in conjunction with Art.1, para.3, Directive 2015/849) for offences committed in the Netherlands and in Belgium. The complaint regarded a European freezing order issued by Belgian authorities on a cash amount of 7,000 € which had earlier been seized by Dutch authorities at the suspect’s house in Tilburg. The search was conducted following an order of cross border investigative measure coming from the Belgian European Delegated Prosecutor with approval of the Dutch European Delegated Prosecutor. The Dutch EDP imposed the EBO and the amounts were frozen (in fact, there were two separate orders, as the Rotterdam Court had ordered the restitution of the sum on 7 March 2025. The order was not executed. The Dutch EDP imposed a second seizure on17 March 2025). The Court declared that the EBO was lawfully executed by Dutch authorities and that it was lawfully authorised by the Dutch EDP. Interestingly so, the Court affirmed that the fact that there had been an order of restitution of the sums which was not executed did not impact the lawfulness of the EBO. It declared itself not competent to judge the merits of the EBO (specifically proportionality and subsidiarity) according to the issuing states’ law.

searches conducted at a business premise in execution of a cross-border investigative measure ordered by Portugal. The information on the search was not shared with the defense due to confidentiality. During the searches, digital records and data were seized by means of copying data on digital data carriers. The Court held that it is competent to rule on whether the seizure was lawful and whether confidential documents were permitted to be seized since they are matters that related to the implementation/execution of the measure (and not on its adoption).  

European Freezing Order coming from the Lithuanian European Prosecutor against a logistics service provider involved in the Port of Rotterdam. The seizure regarded unlawfully obtained profits regarding a tax evasion scheme. The claimant asked the court to order that the (Dutch) European Prosecutor lift the freezing order and subject to a penalty payment and to pay the costs of the proceedings. The Court affirmed that the European Prosecutor does not have legal personality but is a body of the EPPO, so the claim is inadmissible. The claim is also rejected on the merits, since the voorzieningenrechter does not have jurisdiction on assessing substantively the order (so it cannot deal with matters related to Article 94a, paragraphs 4 and 5, of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure).

EPPO commenced a criminal investigation in to alleged large scale VAT fraud, money laundering and document forgery, wherein fictitious offices in Belgium were allegedly used to recover VAT across the border, by Dutch entities. Several goods were seized in light of Article 94 of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure, in addition to a European Freezing Order, including funds. The complainant seeks the return of all seized goods, claiming that the seizure of funds is outside the scope of the decision of the EDP. The EPPO argued that the complaint should be declared unfounded as the execution of the search was lawful and the funds indicated a high spending pattern. The court determined that the granted investigative powers did not provide a basis for the seizure of cash. The presence of cash does not in itself indicate a high spending patttern. Thereby, the EDP exceeded its authority.

Furthermore, the finding that the sum of money was unlawfully seized is not only for the member state of the EDP handling the case to determine, as the assisting EDP exceeded its competence in carrying out the measure granted. However, the justification/ determination of a measure itself would be reserved for the Member State of the EDP handling the case.

In April 2025, a European Freezing Order was issued in connection with an investigation in to a tax evasion construction, which the appellant is suspected of orchestrating. Subsequently, the appellant demanded that the European Delegated Prosecutor lift the attachments made on two banking accounts. This was preliminarily declared inadmissible. In the judgment, it was found that the European Delegated Prosecutor is an organ of the EPPO but does not have legal personality (in contrast to the EPPO which does have legal personality). This judgment was appealed.

On appeal, it was found that, though the European Delegated Prosecutor has certain powers on behalf of EPPO, this doesn’t translate to the ability to act as a party in civil proceedings. Furthermore, the applicant had argued that in civil proceedings, a criminal attachment can be lifted upon a weighing of interests. However, the court found that a special legal procedure is prescribed for the lifting of attachments which does not vary for civil procedures apart from the possible shorter period. The appeal failed on all grounds.

The interlocutory judgments addressed the legal basis and requirements for the EAW, including applicable grounds for refusal and detention conditions. They sought clarification from the German authorities on the EAW authorization and proportionality, concluding that the EAW could be judicially reviewed in Germany. The defence complained that no effective judicial protection existed on a national level because the German national court was not involved in the issuing of EAW. He also claimed that the requirements in the German Code of Civil Procedure relates only to the execution, and does not touch upon the proportionality of the EAW, and that German law does not allow for the possibility of reviewing an EAW even at the request of the person prior to their surrender.

The public prosecutor stated that effective judicial protection is fulfilled because the German court knew that the person did not reside in Germany and a European search had to follow. The German court is aware that the only reason to issue a national arrest warrant is to issue a European one afterwards. The issuing of an EAW can be submitted to a German court prior to surrender and an appeal is possible. Following the reasoning of the Court of Appeal of Celle, proportionality would still be established since the SIS and EAW are connected and entry in the SIS is not possible without an EAW. Checking the proportionality of one is enough to establish that of the other.

The EAW was issued on 22 May 2026 by Germany. Under German law, the offence committed by the claimed person was punishable by a custodial sentence of at least three years. The claimed person invoked the guarantee of Article 6 OLW. Since the centre of his family life and interest existed in the Netherlands, the court considered it a suitable country for the sentence. The Public Prosecutor in Frankfurt am Main guaranteed that after his surrender, the person will be allowed to fulfil the sentence in the Netherlands, which was considered a sufficient guarantee for compliance with Article 2 OLW.

On 20 October 2025, the European Prosecutor in Munich issued a European Arrest Warrant. Later, an interim ruling was issued in which the Court reopened the investigation to enable additional questions to be asked regarding the effective legal protection of the person. Therein, three questions were posed, relating to the undetermined presence of a proportionality assessment of the European Arrest Warrant by the national court of the issuing country. This interlocutory decision reopened, then suspended the investigation indefinitely, to enable the public prosecutor to submit the aforementioned questions to the issuing authority. It additionally ordered the summoning of the requested individual.

A second aspect of this case concerned the ground for refusal of Article 19(1)(a), based on the possible overlap between the offences suspected of in this context and an ongoing criminal investigation occurring in the Netherlands. Here, the court found that this ground for refusal applies as the facts may be prosecuted in both Member States. However, it refrained from applying this ground for refusal, in part due to the early phase of the investigations in both states, and therefore the possibilities to avoid overlap.