Abuse of office & EU funds.
Defence in abuse-of-office (art. 297) and European-funds cases, including EPPO investigations, before DNA, EPPO and the courts. From the first summons we test whether the facts cross the criminal threshold at all, or are an administrative irregularity.
EPPO or DNA has opened a case involving European or national funds
You are investigated for the offence of abuse of office
You are accused of misusing or diverting EU or public funds
Assets have been seized in a public-funds case
Mapping the facts
We separate an administrative irregularity from genuine criminal conduct.
Threshold test
We test the constitutional limits on the offence of abuse of office: a specific legal provision must have been breached.
Defence on the merits
We challenge the legal classification of the offence, the real damage and the scope of the seizure.
EPPO has opened a case against me: what does that mean?
The European Public Prosecutor’s Office investigates offences affecting the EU’s financial interests. The procedure has specific features and cross-border reach, and the defence must be built with that in mind. See our extradition and European Arrest Warrant practice.
When is abuse of office actually a crime?
The Constitutional Court (Decision 405/2016) narrowed it: the act must breach a specific legal provision, not merely be a defective or inopportune decision. That threshold is often where the defence is won.
What is the difference between an irregularity and EU-fund fraud?
Not every error in using funds is a crime. Intent and an actual breach of the rules must be proved; many situations are corrected on the administrative side alone.
Can the seizure on my assets be limited?
Yes. A measure of this kind can be contested and its scope tied to the actual damage, to protect ongoing activity.
Don’t wait for the first hearing.
Who assists you from day one matters.