It is certainly true that the juridical system on the protection of human rights in Europe is rather complex. This is for two main reasons; firstly, the Charter serves as a clear legal basis for the CJEU to rule on fundamental rights issues and, second-ly, the EU’s intensive legislative activity in criminal matters has produced a great amount of cases that most often impinge upon sensitive human rights issues. This has necessarily re-sulted in the CJEU dwelling on what has so far been an ex-clusive domain of the ECtHR and national courts. Against this background, the current article highlights issues with respect to the sharing of competence over fundamental rights by the two courts.

I. Preliminary Remarks Of the most significant innovations of the Treaty of Lisbon, one must refer to the conferral to the EU of a competence in criminal matters,1 according to which the national legislator, in some cases, is under the obligation to adopt criminal provisions implementing measures regulating criminalization decided at the supranational level. Indeed, according to Art. 83 TFEU, the EU legislative bodies – European Parliament and Council in co-decision − “establish, by means of directives adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions.” Such a competence is conferred… Read more

The article examines the prospects for automatic mutual recognition of judicial decisions in EU criminal matters, focusing on freezing and confiscation orders. It outlines the legal basis for mutual recognition under the Lisbon Treaty, contrasts it with harmonisation, and reviews existing instruments and their shortcomings. Drawing lessons from the European Arrest Warrant, the authors argue that mutual recognition can enhance efficiency while preserving legal diversity, provided fundamental rights and proportionality are safeguarded. They conclude that no Member State should become a safe haven for criminals exploiting free movement to shield unlawfully gained assets.

The article analyses OLAF’s position as a supranational EU body in relation to national judicial authorities, focusing on the sharing of information in fraud and corruption investigations affecting the EU’s financial interests. It outlines the advantages of OLAF’s supranational status—such as recognised competence, speed, and established networks—while detailing legislative limitations stemming from its hybrid nature and reliance on Member States to act on its judicial recommendations. The author examines operational practices, data protection constraints, cooperation with third countries, and the interplay between formal legal frameworks and informal working relationships, concluding with lessons for the future European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

This article examines the Council of Europe’s role in addressing the threat of foreign terrorist fighters through the Draft Additional Protocol to the 2005 Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism. Developed in response to UN Security Council Resolution 2178 (2014), the protocol supplements the “Mother Convention” by requiring State Parties to criminalize conduct such as participation in terrorist associations, receiving terrorist training, travelling abroad for terrorism purposes, and related funding or facilitation. It outlines the scope, definitions, and human rights safeguards built into these offences, situating them within existing international and EU counter-terrorism instruments.