Author: Luca Zappaterra
Committee: Academic Committee
Date: 05/06/2026
On 16 April 2026, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in Case C-328/24, Mincu Pătrașcu Brâncuși. This ruling has a significant impact on the debate around the compatibility of Article 42 of the EPPO Regulation with primary law, which was finally confirmed by the Court.
The case concerns a Romanian citizen, Mr. Mincu Pătrașcu Brâncuși, prosecuted by the EPPO for establishing an organised criminal group (Article 367 of the Romanian Criminal Code) and for complicity in the offence of using or presenting false, incorrect, or incomplete statements or documents, which resulted in the unlawful acquisition or retention of funds from the EU budget (§17).
Mr. Mincu Pătrașcu Brâncuși filed an action with the General Court on 7 July 2023, seeking the annulment of the EPPO’s decision to bring his case to judgment. According to him, the exclusive jurisdiction granted to national courts over EPPO’s procedural acts producing effects against third parties (Article 42(1) of the EPPO Regulation) is in breach of the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, and jeopardises the Court’s jurisdiction on the validity of EU acts (§23).
That argument was not espoused by the General Court, which dismissed the action on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, by Order of 25 February 2024 (T-385/23).
That order was upheld on appeal by the Court of Justice, which confirmed the validity of Article 42(1) of the EPPO Regulation.
According to the Court, Article 86(3) TFEU empowers the EU legislature to lay down the rules governing the judicial review of procedural measures adopted by the EPPO. This provision takes into account the specific legal framework governing the EPPO’s tasks (§68). The EU legislature exercised this power through Article 42(1) of the EPPO Regulation, which stipulates that “procedural acts of the EPPO that are intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties shall be subject to review by the competent national courts in accordance with the requirements and procedures laid down by national law”. Under this provision, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial is ensured by the national courts.
Furthermore, the latter remain under an obligation to refer the questions of validity of EPPO acts for preliminary ruling, pursuant to Article 42(2)(a) of the Regulation (§86).
In conclusion, the ruling adds some crucial considerations to the previous Court’s judgments on judicial remedies in the context of EPPO actions.
While the core principle of due process is upheld, the diversity of national procedural rules across Member States may nonetheless ensure only an asymmetric form of judicial review.