The EU’s General Court ruled in favour of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), annulling the European Court of Auditors’ (ECA) refusal to allow 12 staff members to testify in a fraud investigation involving former ECA president Klaus-Heiner Lehne. This landmark decision could strengthen EU prosecutors’ hands against institutional immunity claims and redefine cooperation between EU watchdogs in criminal investigations.
Court Ruling Strengthens EU Prosecutors’ Hand
As reported by Simon Van Dorpe of FTM (Spinwatch), the European Public Prosecutor’s Office sued the ECA last year for refusing to allow a dozen of its staff to testify in an ongoing fraud investigation involving Klaus-Heiner Lehne, the auditor’s ex-president. On Wednesday, the EU’s General Court ruled in favour of the EPPO, with the court stating it annulled the ECA’s position communicated in December 2024 to refuse testimony from 12 staff members.
The judgement represents a rare clash between two EU watchdogs and could serve as a warning to other EU bodies which are increasingly invoking immunity to shield their members and employees from scrutiny as prosecutors ramp up probes into graft.
ECA Refused Cooperation Over Reputation Concerns
As reported by Simon Van Dorpe of FTM, the EPPO had accused the ECA of misusing its powers and repeatedly preventing prosecutors from making progress in their fraud investigation. The ECA, meanwhile, said during a hearing in March that it refused the EPPO’s request in order to protect its reputation, claiming that the prosecutors’ criminal probe was not sufficiently substantiated.
Yet in its ruling, the bloc’s second highest court said the ECA’s justification did not meet the benchmark under EU law that such refusals be in the “vital interests” of the union. A previous General Court judgment cited by the ECA in its defence
“did not find that possible harm to the functioning or reputation of an institution could constitute a justification for refusing to lift the duty of discretion of the official in question on the basis of protecting the interests of the Union,”
the court said.
ECA Faces Deadline to Appeal Decision
As reported by Simon Van Dorpe of FTM, unless the ECA appeals the decision, it will now have to allow its staff to be heard as witnesses by EPPO prosecutors in Luxembourg. While the judges limited their ruling to the narrow question of witness testimony, the ECA – set up to audit EU finances and promote public trust – also faces increased pressure to grant full access to its buildings and archives, and to waive the immunity of the suspects.
In its court filing, the EPPO said the people it wants to question in the case are distinct from the suspects under investigation, noting that only the latter can be protected by immunity.
“The European Court of Auditors takes note of the judgment,”
an ECA spokesperson said on Wednesday morning.
“It will analyse the grounds for the judgment in detail to draw the necessary conclusions.”
The ECA has until mid-August to file an appeal to the EU’s highest court, the European Court of Justice. The EPPO is yet to comment on the ruling.
Long-Running Dispute Over Lehne Expenses
As reported by Simon Van Dorpe of FTM, the court judgement is the latest development in a standoff that’s been simmering for years. An investigation by French newspaper Libération in 2021 found that Lehne – then president of the ECA – was not actually living in Luxembourg as required, and identified several examples of expense abuses that could potentially qualify as EU budget fraud.
Lehne rented a flat in Luxembourg with three members of his cabinet – which also allowed them to benefit from an expat allowance – but was hardly ever there, Libération reported. Days after the investigation was published in November 2021, Lehne denied the allegations in the European Parliament.
The reporting
“relied essentially on unproven and untrue statements and on a false interpretation of the applicable rules,”
he said at the time.
“It is my private business where and with whom I live in Luxembourg.”
EPPO Opened Probe Following OLAF Referral
As reported by Simon Van Dorpe of FTM, the EPPO opened a probe in 2022 following a referral from the EU anti-fraud office OLAF, but soon encountered resistance from the ECA. The auditors didn’t allow prosecutors to lift the immunity of several staff members – including Lehne – and denied access to its electronic archives.
Only after the ECA formally refused, on 9 December 2024, to let its staff testify, did the EPPO have grounds to take the case to court.
“This repeated lack of cooperation from the European Court of Auditors has prevented the EPPO from making any progress in its investigation,”
the EPPO said when filing the challenge in April last year.
Broader Pattern of EU Institutions Pushing Back
As reported by Simon Van Dorpe of FTM, the ECA’s refusal to cooperate in the investigation reflects a broader response among EU institutions as the EPPO increases its caseload and Belgian prosecutors pursue investigations into several corruption scandals at the European Parliament. Just last week, the Parliament refused to lift the immunity of three of four EU lawmakers sought by Belgian prosecutors in connection with alleged bribery involving lobbyists for the Chinese tech giant Huawei.
Referring to that probe, European Parliament President Roberta Metsola said last year that she wouldn’t accept the “targeting and tarnishing” of EU lawmakers without a solid basis. The Parliament last month shielded German MEP Angelika Niebler from a criminal investigation by European prosecutors into the alleged misuse of EU funds.
Another case that frustrated the EPPO involved the European Commission’s former transport chief Henrik Hololei. The EU’s anti-fraud agency OLAF found that he had passed confidential information to the CEO of Qatar Airways, but decided last year not to refer the case to the EPPO.
Legal Experts Identify Fundamental Tension
As reported by Simon Van Dorpe of FTM, ultimately, it is something of a chicken-and-egg issue. Prosecutors say they need to investigate to establish whether there is enough evidence to bring charges, while EU institutions question why they should cooperate with probes when evidence is still limited.
According to Michele Caianiello, professor of criminal law at the University of Bologna, the standoff between the ECA and the EPPO reflects this fundamental tension.
“The ECA’s position was essentially: first show us what evidence you have, and then we will decide what we are prepared to give you,”
Caianiello told FTM.
“That position is not acceptable. The EPPO, like any investigative body, needs a degree of secrecy to protect the integrity of its investigation.”
Implications for EU Institutional Cooperation
The court ruling could redefine how the bloc’s institutions cooperate with criminal investigations involving their representatives and staff. A court ruling against the European Court of Auditors could strengthen the hand of EU prosecutors, and make it harder for Brussels institutions to push back against criminal investigations into corruption and fraud.
This win for EU prosecutors comes in a year-long legal battle with the European Court of Auditors and represents a significant development in the ongoing tension between investigative bodies and EU institutions claiming immunity protections.
The collection is part of “The EU Files” project by FTM, which continues to track developments in EU corruption and fraud investigations. The journalism is supported by paying members of the organization, which funds independent investigative reporting on European institutional matters.
