Distinctive specialisation
Lawyer specialising in the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO)
Regulation (EU) 2017/1939
The European Public Prosecutor's Office introduced a figure with no real precedent in Spanish criminal procedure: a prosecutor who investigates under an EU regulation but acts, in practice, with the tools of national procedural law. That dual nature is the main difficulty — and, for the defence, also the opportunity.
The firm treats this field as a line of doctoral research, not merely a practice area. That makes it possible to anticipate risks at the earliest stages of the investigation, which is where these proceedings are decided.
For the company under investigation, the risk is not just the penalty: it is the disruption to the business, the reputational damage with clients and investors, and the personal exposure of whoever made the decisions.
Where the technical conflict lies
Directly applicable, but incomplete
EU regulations apply directly: unlike directives, they need no strict transposition. This one, however, still required each Member State to adapt its own procedural law to accommodate a figure that did not exist before — the European Delegated Prosecutor.
Two incompatible procedural models
In Spain, an ordinary criminal investigation is directed by an investigating judge under the Criminal Procedure Act. The European model gives the investigation to the prosecutor instead. This is not a detail: they are two different architectures for the same stage of the process.
The fix: Organic Law 9/2021
To resolve that clash, Spain passed Organic Law 9/2021, which creates the figure of the reviewing judge (juez de garantías): a judge who does not investigate and only authorises measures that restrict fundamental rights — interception of communications, searches of premises. The result is a hybrid, exceptional criminal procedure inside the Spanish system.
The grey areas
That is where the recurring questions come from: which court has jurisdiction when national offences are mixed with offences affecting the financial interests of the Union, how decisions of the prosecutor are challenged, and which procedural safeguards prevail while evidence is being taken.
The cross-border dimension
Where a fraud affects funds in Spain but moves assets through Germany or France, the investigation does not go through slow traditional letters rogatory: the delegated prosecutors cooperate directly with one another, each applying their own national law.
In practice, defending or prosecuting a European Public Prosecutor's Office case means harmonising four layers of law at the same time: Union law, the national implementing act, Spanish procedural law, and the law of the Member State where each investigative measure is actually carried out.
Scope of work
- Defence in investigations led by European Delegated Prosecutors
- Challenging investigative measures before the reviewing judge
- Jurisdictional conflicts between the EPPO and national investigating courts
- European Investigation Orders and cross-border evidence gathering
- Legal opinions and co-counsel work for other law firms
When to call
- The investigation is led by a European Delegated Prosecutor rather than a national investigating court
- The matter affects EU funds or the Union's financial interests
- Investigative steps have been carried out in more than one Member State
- Your firm is handling the case and needs technical support on the EU dimension
Frequently asked questions
If the Regulation applies directly, why does this need a specialist?
Because directly applicable does not mean uniformly applied. Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 does not displace national procedural law: it relies on it for almost everything that happens in practice. Organic Law 9/2021 resolved the institutional fit in Spain, but it left grey areas where the rule governing a specific measure — and therefore the remedy and the time limit — depends on a classification that has to be argued for. On top of that, transnational measures bring in the law of the Member State where the measure is executed. Coordinating those four sources is the technical work these cases demand.
How does this differ from an ordinary Spanish investigation?
The framework is dual: Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 and national procedural law apply side by side, and working out which rule governs each particular measure is the defence's first technical task. Who investigates, which body exercises judicial oversight, and how each measure can be challenged also change. Two investigations into the same facts can offer materially different safeguards depending on which framework applies.
Before whom is a decision of the European Delegated Prosecutor challenged?
Article 42 of the Regulation refers judicial review to the national courts under domestic law, and Spanish Organic Law 9/2021 assigns that oversight to a reviewing judge (juez de garantías). In practice, the defence must translate the European act into its corresponding category under Spanish procedural law in order to identify the right remedy and the applicable time limit. A wrong classification at this stage cannot be corrected later — it simply closes off the remedy.
Who decides whether a case is handled by the EPPO or by a Spanish court?
Article 25 of the Regulation governs the exercise of jurisdiction and provides for consultation with national authorities where the allocation is unclear; together with the right of evocation under Article 27, this creates a system in which jurisdiction is not always settled from the outset. For the defence, that is a window that closes early: submissions on jurisdiction must be made while the allocation is still being decided.
Do you work alongside other law firms on these cases?
Yes, and it is a significant part of the practice. Involvement can take the form of joint defence, white-label Of Counsel consultancy, or direct referral. In every case, a written non-competition undertaking is signed in respect of the referring firm's clients, and the firm's involvement is limited to the specific matter entrusted to it.