Requirements Regarding the Legality of the Administration of Evidence in Case Files Investigated by the European Public Prosecutor`s Office

Abstract

This paper examines the requirements concerning the legality of the administration of evidence in cases handled by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), with particular emphasis on the practical issues arising from the application of the European and national legal framework in Romania. The scholarly analysis proceeds from the premise that, although Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 and Law no. 6/2021 have established a complex institutional mechanism for the protection of the financial interests of the European Union, several aspects concerning the functional competence of European Delegated Prosecutors, the procedure for the allocation of cases, and the administration of evidence remain insufficiently regulated, thereby generating uncertainties with a direct impact on the right of defence. The paper is structured into four main sections, preceded by an analysis of preliminary aspects concerning the handling of cases by EPPO. The first section examines the applicable legal framework and the competence of EPPO, highlighting the types of offences falling within its remit, as well as the mechanisms of cooperation with national authorities, including the procedure for evocation. The nature of the five-day time limit laid down in Article 27 (1) of the Regulation is also analysed. The second section addresses the central issue of the functional competence of European Delegated Prosecutors, considered in relation to the territorial offices in which they perform their duties (Bucharest, Cluj-Napoca, Iasi and Timisoara). The third section is devoted to an analysis of criminal prosecution conducted by a European Delegated Prosecutor to whom the case was not allocated by a decision of the Permanent Chamber, pursuant to Article 10 (4) (d) of the Regulation. Finally, the fourth section addresses the right of the defence to consult the register containing the information obtained by EPPO pursuant to Article 24 of the Regulation, emphasising that such information becomes an integral part of the case file and must be made available to the defence and transmitted to the court together with the act by which the case is committed for trial. It is concluded that, where such information is missing, the preliminary chamber judge must order the completion of the case file.