62024CJ0328_RES
Case C‑328/24 P
Constantin Mincu Pătrașcu Brâncuși
v
European Public Prosecutor’s Office
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 April 2026
(Appeal – Institutional law – Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 – European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) – Article 42(1) – Procedural acts of the EPPO intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties – Judicial review carried out by national courts – Plea of illegality – Admissibility – Exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union to review the legality of EU acts – Article 86(2) and (3) TFEU – Exercise of the functions of prosecutor in the national courts – Power of the EU legislature to determine the rules applicable to the judicial review of procedural acts of the EPPO – Derogation not authorised in Article 263 TFEU – None – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to effective judicial protection – Infringement – None – Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court)
Appeal – Grounds – Admissibility – Conditions – Submission of arguments also raised before the General Court
(Art. 256 TFEU (1), second subpara.; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2))
(see paragraphs 38-40)
Action for annulment – Admissibility criteria – Jurisdiction of the EU Courts – Matter of public policy – Plea of illegality seeking to demonstrate an infringement of EU primary law – Act of secondary legislation excluding the jurisdiction of the EU Courts – Obligation for the EU Courts to examine that plea before declaring that it has no jurisdiction in respect of the main action
(Arts 256(1), second subpara., and 263 TFEU; Council Regulation 2017/1939, Art. 42)
(see paragraphs 53, 58-61)
Action for annulment – Jurisdiction of the EU Courts – Action brought against the decision of a Permanent Chamber of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to bring the case concerning the applicant to judgment – Procedural act of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office – Lack of jurisdiction – Jurisdiction of the national courts – Right to effective judicial protection – Infringement – None
(Art. 19(1) and (3) TEU; Arts 86(1) to (3), 263, fourth para., 267 and 277 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 48; Council Regulation 2017/1939, recitals 83, 85, 86, 87, first para., and 88 and Arts 10(2), 13(1), 28(1), 30(5), 31(3), 36, 37(2), 41 and 42(1) to (3) and (8))
(see paragraphs 64-91, 96-100)
Appeal – Grounds – Procedural irregularity – Decision to reserve a plea of inadmissibility for the final judgment – Discretion of the General Court
(Article 256 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 130(1) and (7))
(see paragraph 106)
Résumé
Hearing an appeal, which it dismisses, the Court of Justice clarifies the relationship between the judicial system established by the Treaties and Article 42(1) of Regulation 2017/1939, (
1
) under which procedural acts of the EPPO intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties are subject to review by the competent national courts.
Following an investigation by the EPPO, a permanent chamber of the EPPO decided to bring the appellant before a Romanian criminal court. He brought an action for annulment of that decision before the General Court, together with a plea of illegality directed against Article 42 of Regulation 2017/1939. The General Court held that it lacked jurisdiction, on the ground that the judicial review of procedural acts of the EPPO is a matter for the national courts.
Findings of the Court of Justice
The Court of Justice holds that the General Court erred in law in finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the action, brought against a procedural act of the EPPO, within the meaning of Article 42(1) of Regulation 2017/1939, without examining whether primary EU law precluded such a finding.
Since jurisdiction is a matter of public policy which must, where appropriate, be raised of its own motion, the General Court cannot declare that it has no jurisdiction to hear and determine an action without first examining the merits of all the arguments relied on before it, which seek specifically to establish its jurisdiction in that regard. More specifically, the settled case-law according to which the inadmissibility of the main action leads to the inadmissibility of the plea of illegality raised in support of that action cannot authorise the General Court to declare that it has no jurisdiction to examine, in the light of primary EU law, the validity of a provision of secondary law, on the ground that it lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the main action, where, specifically, it relies on that provision in order to conclude that it lacks jurisdiction. Thus, it follows from the case-law that, where a plea of illegality is raised before the General Court in respect of a provision of secondary law which removes from all judicial review the decision of an EU body challenged before it, on the ground that that provision is incompatible with Article 263 TFEU, it must ascertain whether that plea of illegality is well founded and, if appropriate, declare that it has jurisdiction to review the legality of that decision on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, in order to ensure effective judicial review.
However, the Court holds that, by conferring on national courts the power to carry out judicial review of procedural acts of the EPPO intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties, the EU legislature did not undermine its powers provided for in Article 19 TEU and Article 263 TFEU.
In that regard, the Court notes that the division of jurisdiction between the national courts and the EU Courts in Article 42 of Regulation 2017/1939 in no way constitutes an unauthorised derogation from the exclusive jurisdiction of the EU Courts to review the legality of acts of bodies, offices or agencies of the European Union, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU. By subjecting to judicial review by national courts only procedural acts of the EPPO intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties, with the exception of decisions to dismiss the case, and by providing for the jurisdiction of the Court in other cases, the EU legislature did not exceed the power conferred on it by Article 86(3) TFEU to lay down the ‘rules applicable to the judicial review of procedural measures’ of the EPPO.
In addition, having regard to the particular nature of the tasks conferred by the TFEU on the EPPO and the scope of the powers conferred by that Treaty on the EU legislature to determine the institutional and procedural framework within which the EPPO performs its tasks, the expression ‘rules applicable to the judicial review of the procedural measures [of the EPPO]’ must be interpreted as meaning that it may include not only the establishment of the specific conditions and detailed rules governing actions against those procedural measures, but also, where appropriate, of specific rules of jurisdiction.
Within this institutional and procedural framework, the legal effects that procedural acts of the EPPO produce vis-à-vis third parties are, to a large extent, determined by national law. In addition, procedural acts of the EPPO constitute a step in criminal proceedings, whose outcome falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the national courts, which have discretion to assess the evidence. In those circumstances, the jurisdiction of national courts to carry out such a judicial review does not constitute an unauthorised derogation from Article 263 TFEU. Moreover, the general scheme of Article 42 of that regulation confirms that division of powers.
Furthermore, the Court recalls that Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union cannot establish jurisdiction for the Courts of the European Union where the Treaties exclude it, or change the system of judicial review laid down by them, in particular the rules relating to the admissibility of direct actions. In any event, Article 42(1) of Regulation 2017/1939 respects the right to effective judicial protection.
First, interpreted in the light of Article 41 of Regulation 2017/1939 and its recitals, the judicial review of procedural acts intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties ensures that the EPPO observes fundamental rights. In addition, effective remedies must be guaranteed by the Member States.
Secondly, since its first paragraph must be read in the light of its general scheme, Article 42 is fully consistent with the complete system of legal remedies and procedures designed to ensure judicial review of the legality of EU acts. In particular, it is linked to paragraph 2, under which the preliminary ruling mechanism is applicable to the judicial review of procedural acts of the EPPO, thereby ensuring that the Court is able to examine any question concerning the interpretation or validity of the EPPO’s procedural acts challenged before the competent national court and concerning the regulation at issue.
(
1
)	Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (‘the EPPO’) (OJ 2017 L 283, p. 1).