Background
YS, a Greek court-of-appeal judge, applied in 2022 to be one of Greece’s three nominees for European Prosecutor at the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). The Greek Supreme Council of Civil and Criminal Justice rejected his application because Greek implementing legislation required candidates to be public prosecutors. It then nominated three other candidates, one of whom the Council later appointed as Greece’s European Prosecutor.
YS challenged the Greek decision before Greece’s Council of State. Separately, he asked the General Court to annul the Council’s appointment decision, arguing that the Greek eligibility rule unlawfully excluded judges contrary to Article 16 of Regulation 2017/1939. He also alleged that the Commission had unlawfully failed to bring infringement proceedings against Greece. The General Court dismissed the action as inadmissible.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Justice dismissed YS’s appeal. It held that the nomination of three EPPO candidates is a national stage of a composite appointment procedure in which the Member State has exclusive authority to choose which candidates to propose. Neither the selection panel nor the Council may substitute its assessment for that national choice or consider applicants whom the Member State did not nominate.
Although the selection panel verifies whether nominated candidates satisfy Article 16(1) and the Council chooses among eligible nominees, that discretion does not extend to reviewing the national procedure or reasons for excluding other applicants. Any challenge to the Greek authority’s rejection of YS’s application therefore belongs before the Greek courts, which may refer questions of EU law to the Court of Justice if necessary. YS’s challenge to the General Court’s alternative finding on his interest in bringing proceedings was ineffective because the jurisdiction ground independently supported the dismissal. The Court also upheld the dismissal of the failure-to-act claim and ordered YS to pay costs.
Key Takeaways
- Member States exclusively nominate the three candidates for their EPPO European Prosecutor position.
- The Council and the selection panel may assess only nominated candidates; they cannot review an excluded applicant’s national selection process.
- Challenges to national nomination-stage decisions must be brought before national courts, subject where appropriate to preliminary references on EU law.
Why It Matters
The judgment clarifies judicial-review boundaries in EPPO appointments. The EU Courts review the Council’s final appointment act, but they do not thereby acquire authority over a prior national nomination decision that binds the EU institutions as to the pool of candidates.
For unsuccessful applicants, the practical forum for contesting exclusion from a national EPPO selection process is the national court system, not an annulment action against the Council’s subsequent appointment decision.