The focus of this article is on the challenge to which extent EU Member States cooperate. It describes the current landscape of judicial criminal cooperation in the EU, taking into account available data. Hence, one can state that cooperation tools are being increasingly used, but this creates imbalances, which naturally crop up in any cooperation system. This is the starting point for addressing a proper understanding of the various possible reactions in order to tackle these imbalances. One reaction relates to the breach of fundamental rights by the issuing Member State. The article outlines that the results of this strategy, however, could be negative in the long term. Merely mentioning fundamental rights will not make Member States more respectful of them. It is further argued that problems involving fundamental rights should be solved with already existing and tailor-made instruments for this purpose and not by altering the cooperation rationale.

In the context of the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ), “the need to strike the right balance” between the effectiveness of criminal prosecution and cooperation in criminal matters, and the protection of fundamental rights, but also between the primacy of EU law and national constitutions, is a core goal. By addressing two precise scenarios, this article attempts to show how the “needed balances” are understood. This analysis will further serve to show whether the EU is moving in the right direction in the field of cooperation matters. The first scenario will focus on the protection of fundamental rights in cross-border investigations within the context of EPPO proceedings under Regulation (EU) 2017/1939. Secondly, a number of aspects regarding the European Arrest Warrant are analysed. The author argues that, even if the AFSJ is advancing in quite a measured way, much can still be done to improve the … Read more

Abstract: The article offers a critical reflection on the ongoing debate over the “Future of Europe” scenarios envisioned in the European Commission’s White Paper of 1 March 2017. Five potential scenarios are described, which enable a peek into the future, and the article explores whether the European Union’s status quo should change towards a new, ambitious vision or just continue muddling through. The desirability and feasibility of the most favoured scenario (“those who want to do more do more” − a multi-speed Europe) will be tested in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). It will be argued that the clash between the three supposedly interlinked notions of freedom, security, and justice is the main obstacle hindering more coherence and uniformity in this area. This will be demonstrated by analysing the “root of the problem,” i.e., prison overcrowding.

On 23 May 2018, the Commission published its Proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) 883/2013 and the accompanying Staff Working Document. This brief article sets out (I) the main outcomes of the evaluation of Regulation 883/2013 completed in late 2017, (II) the objectives and scope of the Commission proposal, and (III) the main proposed changes and their rationale.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) finally delivered a judgment that puts an end to the so-called Taricco saga − at least for the time being. More importantly, this Taricco II judgment (Case C-42/17 – M.A.S. & M.B.) deals with the relationship between the principles of primacy, effectiveness, and direct effect of EU law, on the one hand, and the concept of national (and particularly constitutional) identity of the Member States, on the other. It also addresses the extent of the possibility for Member States not to apply EU law if it conflicts with an overriding principle guaranteed by their national constitution. In this context, the article aims to assess, firstly, whether the Court overruled its Melloni doctrine with this judgment. Secondly, the article analyses whether the Court, at least implicitly, answered the sensitive question of who is the ultimate judge responsible for assessing whether the “identity clause” enshrined in … Read more