Recent scandals, such as Dieselgate, Luxleaks, the Panama Papers, and Cambridge Analytica, came to light thanks to whistleblowers who “raised the alarm” over unlawful activities in the organisation for which they worked. From their position as "insiders," whistleblowers can provide enforcement authorities with key information that can lead to the effective detection, investigation, and prosecution of breaches of law − and they can be crucial sources for investigative journalists − thus contributing to protecting the public from harm.
Yet, whistleblowers very often face many different forms of retaliation for their reporting: they may lose their job and their source of income, and they may suffer damage to their reputation and their health. Fear of such consequences discourages people from coming forward with their concerns. Unfortunately, the protection offered in the EU is fragmented and insufficient. Most EU Member States do not have comprehensive legislation in place that provides whistleblowers with the ... Read more

Collaborators with justice and witnesses are the most important impact factors when combatting organized crime and terrorism, since they provide information on the goals of criminal groups, on criminal networks, and on planned or committed crimes. Protective measures can be applied to guarantee the personal safety of collaborators with justice as well as witnesses and their relatives both requiring protection. The efforts of European institutions aim to establish common criteria in this field (protection programmes, protection measures for witnesses and collaborators of justice, etc.). For a few years now, the necessity of European legislative instrument has been under discussion. The Council of Europe whose active role on matter has been proven through their recent suggestions on the modernization of their work on witnesses and collaborators protection, has carefully studied this question.

This article discusses the limits on mutual trust in the context of transfer of sentenced persons following the CJEU’s Aranyosi and Căldăraru judgment. It summarizes the main findings of a recent legal and empirical analysis of mutual recognition cases conducted in five EU Member States: Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Romania, and Poland. The research conducted contends that the presumption of mutual trust existing between the EU Member States is a legal fiction. In the context of transfer of a custodial sentence from one country to another based on mutual recognition and mutual trust, failure of the latter can have very negative effects on judicial cooperation and, consequently, on the fight against crime. Non-compliance with individuals’ fundamental rights can undermine the very essence of judicial cooperation and, with it, the European project. Such failure can only be prevented if the EU endeavours to establish and maintain a truly integrated penal policy ... Read more

The current institutional set-up to fight EU fraud is considered unsatisfactory. With the creation of the EPPO, the definition of the offences it will investigate and prosecute, and the OLAF Regulation under revision, the EU has carved out a new institutional set-up. The objective, both from an administrative (OLAF) and criminal law perspective (EPPO), is to successfully investigate fraud and corruption affecting the EU’s financial interests. In addition to institutional and legal implementing steps, it is also important to consider what needs to be put in place in order to ensure the future quality of investigations, especially from the training perspective. This article presents some observations from the operational field with regard to what is arguably one of the major tools for enhancing the quality of PIF investigations: interviewing suspects.

This article addresses several issues concerning additional measures required for a proper imple-mentation of the EPPO Regulation from the point of view of a Member State with a federal struc-ture. These issues include matters involving Member States’ personnel working for the EPPO, clarification of the relevant national legal framework (in particular as regards the conduct of in-vestigations), and the future cooperation between the EPPO and the national authorities of the (participating) Member States. The article concludes that the hybrid structure and current legal framework of the EPPO will create new challenges for the authorities of the Member States and may certainly stimulate further (academic) debate on the approach chosen by the EU legislator.