Resolving jurisdictional conflicts between the EPPO and Spanish investigating courts

Where the same facts affect the financial interests of the Union and, at the same time, constitute offences falling to national jurisdiction, the boundary between the EPPO and the Spanish investigating court must be drawn. This is not an academic debate: the outcome determines which rules govern each measure and which routes to challenge remain open.

The mechanism of Article 25

A procedural window that closes early

That initial indeterminacy is, for the defence, a window that closes quickly. Submissions on jurisdiction must be made while the allocation is being decided; raised later, once the investigation is consolidated, they are usually met with the doctrine of preservation of procedural acts.

The substantive consequences

Determining who investigates is not a formality. It affects the regime for cross-border measures, the court exercising judicial review and the way each measure is challenged. Two investigations into the same facts may afford the accused guarantees of different content depending on the applicable framework.

Practical criterion

The recommendation is constant: before arguing the merits, settle the framework. Identify the basis of jurisdiction invoked, verify whether the conditions of Article 22 of the Regulation are met, and place the defence's position on the boundary on the record. It is unglamorous work that, in these proceedings, conditions everything else.