Short answer
The authorities have different legal functions. The European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) investigates and prosecutes crimes affecting the EU's financial interests in participating Member States. National prosecutors handle crimes outside EPPO competence, cases in non-participating States and matters the EPPO leaves or refers to them. OLAF conducts administrative anti-fraud investigations and recommends financial, disciplinary, administrative or judicial action. Europol supplies information, analysis and operational support to law-enforcement authorities but cannot itself apply coercive investigative measures. Eurojust helps prosecutors and judges coordinate serious cross-border cases; it does not replace the authorities conducting them. Sector regulators supervise their own regimes and may investigate administrative infringements, impose or propose regulatory measures, and refer suspected crime.
When the same facts engage several mandates, there is no universal “first authority wins” rule. The EPPO Regulation contains a priority mechanism for the same criminal conduct: potential EPPO cases must be reported, the EPPO decides whether to initiate or evoke them, and national authorities stop exercising competence over that conduct if it does. OLAF normally must not open a parallel administrative investigation into the same facts while the EPPO investigates, but may support or complement the EPPO on request. Other criminal and regulatory work can continue where it has a distinct legal object, subject to cooperation, defence rights, data rules and the prohibition on double punishment.
Start with the legal character of each track
Coordination begins by separating five questions:
- Is there a possible offence affecting EU revenue, expenditure or assets under Directive (EU) 2017/1371 as implemented nationally?
- Which participating or non-participating Member States and third countries are involved?
- Which national crimes are the same conduct, inextricably linked or genuinely separate?
- Which administrative or sector rules may also have been infringed?
- Which authority can investigate, which can prosecute, and which only supports or coordinates?
A regulatory document request, OLAF inspection, Europol analysis and EPPO criminal search do not rest on the same powers or produce identical evidence.
EPPO has prosecutorial responsibility for PIF offences
Under Articles 4 and 22 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, the EPPO investigates, prosecutes and brings to judgment perpetrators and accomplices to offences affecting the Union's financial interests. Its material competence includes PIF fraud, relevant corruption, misappropriation and money laundering, plus participation in a criminal organisation focused on such offences and certain inextricably linked crimes. VAT fraud enters the PIF regime only where the statutory cross-border and EUR 10 million conditions are met. National direct-tax offences are excluded.
EU institutions and competent Member State authorities must report without undue delay criminal conduct over which the EPPO could exercise competence. A national judicial or law-enforcement authority that starts such an investigation must inform the EPPO so it can decide whether to evoke the case. The usual decision period is five days after receipt of relevant information, extendable by another five days in a specific reasoned case. Urgent national preservation or investigative measures remain possible during that interval.
If the EPPO exercises competence, national authorities must stop exercising competence over the same criminal conduct. —
This is not priority over every offence in a file. Article 25 contains thresholds for mixed cases. The EPPO may have to refrain where a non-PIF offence carries the same or a more severe maximum sanction, or likely damage to another victim exceeds EU financial harm, subject to exceptions. A designated national authority decides specified competence disputes. The EPPO can refer dismissed or non-competence matters elsewhere.
European Delegated Prosecutors operate within the EPPO but prosecute before national courts. National law supplies procedure where the Regulation does not. The EPPO is therefore a single Union office with a decentralised structure embedded in participating national systems.
OLAF protects the budget through administrative investigation
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 authorises OLAF to investigate fraud, corruption, conflicts of interest and other illegal activity affecting EU financial interests. OLAF can conduct internal investigations within EU institutions and external administrative investigations involving economic operators and EU-funded activity. It does not prosecute. Its final report may recommend recovery, disciplinary action, administrative measures or referral for judicial action; the receiving authority decides the consequence under its law.
The EPPO-OLAF boundary is deliberately complementary. Article 101 of the EPPO Regulation provides that OLAF must not open a parallel administrative investigation into the same facts while the EPPO conducts a criminal investigation. The EPPO may nevertheless ask OLAF to provide information, forensic analysis, expertise or operational support, coordinate administrative authorities, or conduct a complementary administrative investigation. Where the EPPO declines or dismisses a case, it may provide information so OLAF can consider appropriate administrative action.
OLAF must report suspected criminal conduct within EPPO competence, while consultation and case-management checks reduce duplication. An OLAF financial-recovery inquiry may still be needed alongside prosecution, but its scope and timing should be agreed so that interviews, inspections, disclosure or recovery action do not compromise the criminal case.
Europol supports; it does not prosecute
Europol's mandate under Regulation (EU) 2016/794 is law-enforcement cooperation against serious cross-border crime, terrorism and related offences. It collects, processes and exchanges information, produces operational and strategic analysis, supports joint investigation teams and can request that competent national authorities initiate, conduct or coordinate an investigation.
Europol officers have no autonomous power to arrest, search, seize or compel evidence. National authorities undertake coercive measures. EPPO Regulation Article 102 allows requests for Europol information and analysis. Europol may reveal links between PIF crime, organised crime and sanctions evasion without becoming the charging authority.
Eurojust coordinates judicial authorities
Eurojust supports and strengthens coordination between national investigating and prosecuting authorities where serious crime affects two or more States or requires prosecution on common bases. It can organise coordination meetings and centres, facilitate mutual legal assistance and European Investigation Orders, support joint investigation teams, identify parallel proceedings and help authorities agree which jurisdiction is better placed.
Its current governing text is Regulation (EU) 2018/1727. For offences affecting EU financial interests, its competence is adjusted to the EPPO framework. Eurojust remains particularly important for non-participating Member States, third-country cooperation, related offences outside EPPO competence and execution channels the EPPO cannot use directly. Article 100 of the EPPO Regulation permits information sharing and Eurojust support for cross-border transmission and execution.
Eurojust generally proposes and facilitates. A coordination recommendation is not a judicial warrant or decision to prosecute.
National prosecutors and sector regulators retain distinct work
National prosecutors remain responsible where the EPPO lacks territorial, personal or material competence, refrains from exercising it, or refers a matter. They also handle separate national offences, subject to the rules for inextricably linked conduct and avoiding conflicting investigations. Authorities should record whether two files concern the same conduct, overlapping evidence or only the same persons.
Tax, customs, competition, financial, sanctions, environmental, data-protection and procurement regulators act under sector-specific law. They may preserve markets, recover funds, withdraw licences, impose administrative penalties or refer suspected crimes. Their administrative mandate is not automatically displaced by an EPPO case, but coordination may require staged interviews, restricted access to a criminal file, confidentiality controls or a pause in a particular measure.
Information exchange needs a legal basis. Purpose limitation, professional secrecy, personal-data rules, privilege and restrictions on onward disclosure continue to apply. “The authorities are cooperating” is not itself authority to share an entire file.
Parallel proceedings require procedural safeguards
An administrative and criminal track can coexist, but labels are not decisive. A formally administrative penalty may be criminal in nature for Charter Articles 47 to 50. Authorities must assess the ne bis in idem rule, proportionality of any permitted duplication, presumption of innocence and privilege against self-incrimination. Public announcements by regulators or EU bodies should not describe an unconvicted person as guilty.
In G.K. and Others, C-281/22, the Court addressed cross-border EPPO investigations. Where a handling European Delegated Prosecutor assigns a measure to a prosecutor in another participating State, judicial review in the assisting State may be limited to enforcement aspects. The justification and adoption of the assigned measure must be reviewable beforehand in the handling State where the measure seriously interferes with Charter rights, subject to properly defined urgency exceptions.
Dividing operational tasks across borders must not leave the underlying decision without effective judicial review. —
OLAF also must respect procedural guarantees. In Vialto Consulting, C-650/19 P, the Court confirmed that an economic operator may refuse OLAF access during an on-the-spot check; OLAF cannot itself compel access and must use the legal mechanisms for national assistance. Coordination must therefore map not only institutional mandates but the source and limits of each concrete power.
A workable coordination record
For a multi-authority case, create a live responsibility matrix recording the facts, suspected offences or infringements, affected budgets and jurisdictions, responsible authority, legal basis, reporting deadline, evidence holder, coercive powers, information-sharing basis and next decision. Name a coordination lead without suggesting that it controls bodies outside its mandate.
Record EPPO notifications and evocation deadlines, OLAF consultation, Eurojust or Europol support requests, regulator referrals, preservation measures, planned interviews and disclosure restrictions. Reassess after every material new fact: competence can change when damage, territorial links or connected offences become clearer.
Conclusion
Responsibility follows mandate, not institutional prestige. The EPPO prosecutes qualifying PIF crime; national prosecutors cover the remaining criminal field; OLAF investigates administratively; Europol supplies law-enforcement intelligence and analysis; Eurojust coordinates judicial cooperation; regulators enforce sector rules. The same facts may justify several tracks, but the EPPO priority rules, OLAF non-duplication duty, precise information-sharing powers and Charter safeguards determine how those tracks fit together.
Sources
This article provides general legal information, not advice for a specific matter. Laws, facts and procedural deadlines may change the result. Follow the linked primary sources and obtain local advice before acting.