EPPO Cooperation with Non-Participating EU States and Third Countries

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) is a supranational body established in 2021 to investigate and prosecute crimes affecting the EU budget — including fraud, corruption, VAT carousel schemes, and money laundering. While EPPO operates within the EU, it increasingly cooperates with non-participating EU Member States and third countries via formal legal assistance frameworks. Understanding EPPO’s reach is critical for individuals and businesses with exposure to EU-connected financial prosecutions.

Which EU Countries Do Not Participate in EPPO?

As of 2026, four EU Member States have not joined EPPO:

• Denmark — opted out under its EU Justice and Home Affairs treaty exemption
• Hungary — declined to join citing sovereignty concerns
• Poland — joined in 2023 after a change in government; previously a non-participant
• Sweden — opted out initially, though accession discussions continue

These non-participating states are not immune from EPPO investigations. EPPO can request mutual legal assistance (MLA), evidence transfer, and asset freezes through bilateral agreements and general EU legal cooperation frameworks. Danish or Hungarian banks, for example, may still receive EPPO evidence requests routed through Eurojust or via Regulation (EU) 2018/1727.

EPPO Cooperation with Third Countries

EPPO’s cooperation with non-EU countries (third countries) is governed by Article 104 of the EPPO Regulation and bilateral or multilateral legal assistance treaties. EPPO has concluded working arrangements with several countries including the UK, Ukraine, Albania, Moldova, and North Macedonia. It is also empowered to conclude further agreements with third countries subject to EU Council approval.

In practice, EPPO can request from third countries:

• Evidence and documents — via MLA requests channelled through national authorities
• Asset freezes and confiscation assistance — where bilateral treaties permit
• Extradition of suspects — via the requesting country’s national extradition framework
• Financial intelligence — via Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) and Egmont Group channels

If EPPO is investigating fraud involving EU funds and a suspect is located in the UAE, UK, or Switzerland, EPPO can initiate parallel proceedings or seek the suspect’s return via formal extradition. In some cases, EPPO coordinates with Interpol, potentially triggering a Red Notice or Diffusion to aid in locating the subject.

Intersection with Interpol Notices and International Arrest Warrants

EPPO does not directly issue Interpol notices — this remains the prerogative of national police forces and Interpol member state NCBs. However, when EPPO coordinates with national authorities in participating states, those national authorities may request Interpol to circulate a Red Notice or Diffusion to assist in locating a suspect who has left EU territory.

This creates a practical risk: an EPPO-led investigation for EU fraud can indirectly result in an Interpol Red Notice issued by, for example, Germany, France, or Italy — countries with active EPPO participation. If you receive such a notice, your challenge must address both the Interpol mechanism (via a CCF Access Request) and the underlying EPPO proceedings.

Defence Considerations for EPPO Cases

Facing EPPO-linked proceedings — whether directly investigated or via a cooperating non-participating state — requires specialist legal representation. Key considerations include:

• Jurisdictional analysis — determining which national authority holds the investigation and whether EPPO’s mandate actually covers your case
• Parallel Interpol challenge — if a Red Notice has been issued in connection with EPPO proceedings, filing a Preventive Request or CCF challenge can halt extradition proceedings
• Asset protection — early action to contest disproportionate asset freezes before they become permanent confiscation orders
• Defence of political or improper motivation — EPPO’s mandate is narrow; investigations that stray into politically motivated territory can be challenged on jurisdiction grounds
• Sanctions exposure — EU fraud investigations may intersect with EU sanctions regimes, requiring coordinated defence

Our lawyers have extensive experience in cross-border financial investigations, Interpol defence, and extradition proceedings in EU and non-EU jurisdictions. Contact us at +357 96 447475 for a confidential consultation.

If you are dealing with an Interpol notice, our Interpol CCF lawyers can help you file an Access Request to the CCF to review and challenge your data in Interpol’s files.