Changes from plenary report to adopted text

Change 1

Removed2. PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECISION

Added2. European Parliament decision of 29 April 2026 on the closure of the accounts of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for the financial year 2024 (2025/2155(DEC))

Removedon the closure of the accounts of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for the financial year 2024

Change 2

Removed3. MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

Added3. European Parliament resolution of 29 April 2026 with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for the financial year 2024 (2025/2155(DEC))

Removedwith observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for the financial year 2024

Change 3 under “3. European Parliament resolution of 29 April 2026 with observations forming an integral part of the decisio…”

ChangedE. whereas the procedural acts of the EPPO are subject to judicial review by the national courts in line with national laws and the Court of Justice of the European Union (the ‘Court of Justice’) -– by means of preliminary ruling or judicial reviews–reviews -ensures– ensures a consistent application of Union law, in particular the uniform interpretation of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 and Directive (EU) 2017/1371;

Change 4 under “3. European Parliament resolution of 29 April 2026 with observations forming an integral part of the decisio…”

Changed54. Maintains that the appointment of EDPs is the shared responsibility of the EPPO and the Member States, because while European Prosecutors are nominated by the Member States and then appointed by the Council, EDPs are nominated by the Member States and appointed by the College; encourages Member States to contribute to the full independence of EDPs and the EPPO; notes that the EPPO has strived to improve the working status of the EDPs in order to make the position more appealing, such as to align the remuneration of EDPs with that of Union officials of equivalent level of responsibility (AD9), rather than 80 % of the salary of Union officials, as originally decided by the Commission, taking into account that the career progression of EDPs in their national systems remains unclear and, in several cases, the national salary of the most experienced national prosecutors was higher than the salary offered for the EDP position, obliging the EPPO to intervene for the implementation of Article 16(1) of the Conditions of Employment of the EDPs, which provides that, in the case of total net remuneration lower than the national salary, a top-up amount is provided to ensure that the remuneration matches the previous level; reiterates its call for foreseeing a clear career progression path for the EDPs and more favourable administrative discipline on social security and health insurance coverage; insists on the creation of a specific EDPs status, consistently with the nature of their judicial function and calls on the Commission to accordingly propose amendments to Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, in the circumstance of its incoming revision, which will also cover the issue of the social security and health insurance coverage gap of the EDPs that has not yet been resolved by all the Member States through legislative or administrative arrangements, even if their adoption is mandatory under Regulation (EU) 2017/1939;

Change 5 under “3. European Parliament resolution of 29 April 2026 with observations forming an integral part of the decisio…”

Changed86. Notes that the EPPO follows the Commission Decision C(2025) 2495C(2025)2495 – Guide on Missions and Authorized Travel, considering not only green travel solutions for staff carrying out mission but also systematically assessing the need for missions against the feasibility of online meetings;

Change 6 under “3. European Parliament resolution of 29 April 2026 with observations forming an integral part of the decisio…”

Changed107. Stresses that any lack of cooperation with the EPPO by any of the Member States creates niches of immunity and privilege that weakens the defence of the financial interests of the Union making it uneven and inefficient and urges the Commission to initiate infringement proceedings against any Member State that systematically obstructs EPPO-led investigations; calls on the Commission to consider, in the application of the Regulation (EU, EURATOM)Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council, that non-participation in the EPPO may constitute a potential threat to the Union’s financial interests and calls on the Commission to closely monitor Member States’ levels of cooperation with the EPPO; in this vein, strongly regrets the cases, reported in 2024, of exposure to threats by Member States’ governments to OLAF and EPPO investigators in the carrying out of their activities on-the-spot; stresses that such situations undermine the rule of law, constitute a serious breach of mutual trust and loyal cooperation among Member States and Union institutions, and weaken the Union’s actions, calling for the establishment of robust preventive and protective measures to safeguard staff where deployed in situations that put them at risk;