The article summarises the recent references of German criminal courts to the ECJ seeking guidance on the interpretation of the German procedure for penal orders (Strafbefehlsverfahren). Conformity was sought with regard to the EU directives on the right to interpretation/translation and the right to information. The author takes a critical position on the proposed solutions. He argues for better coherence with ECtHR case law on the person's rights and with existing, facilitated MLA procedures on the cross-border notification of judicial documents.

The piece examines how the European Investigation Order (Directive 2014/41/EU) seeks speedy, mutual-recognition-based cross-border evidence gathering while still respecting fundamental rights. It notes explicit safeguards (Art. 1(4); refusal ground via Charter, Art. 11(1)(f); validation by a judicial authority; special rules for privacy-intrusive measures like telecoms interception and bank data) but flags gaps: an overemphasis on privacy versus scant mention of other defence rights; vague refusal criteria; and the optional nature of using less intrusive alternatives (Art. 10). The author expects friction where executing states balance mutual trust with rights protection and urges clearer guidance to avoid divergent transpositions. On remedies (Art. 14), challenges in the issuing state cover substance, while executing-state remedies chiefly safeguard fundamental rights and generally don’t suspend execution—all under the Charter’s effective-remedy guarantee. Protection for third parties (witnesses/experts) is left to national law, a missed harmonisation opportunity.

The article assesses France’s transposition of EU directives on the rights of suspects in criminal proceedings. While reforms have strengthened participation in trials, the right to information, and access to interpretation and translation, implementation often falls short of the directives’ spirit. Access to a lawyer during police investigations remains limited, with restrictions on private meetings and delayed access for detained suspects. Disclosure of case materials is only partially ensured, and the use of self-incriminating statements continues despite ECtHR case law. Gros concludes that France has transposed the directives literally but without ambition, prioritising procedural efficiency and security over robust protection of suspects’ rights, raising questions about the future of the French investigative judge model.

The article examines how the principle of equality must be safeguarded in proceedings of the forthcoming European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). Falletti identifies two main challenges: ensuring equal rights for suspects and ensuring equal handling of cases. Since the EPPO applies both its Regulation and national criminal procedure, differences in procedural safeguards across Member States risk undermining equality, particularly in access to lawyers and defence costs in cross-border cases. On case allocation, fears of forum shopping are addressed by mandatory criteria and oversight by Permanent Chambers, with national courts retaining judicial review. While the system relies heavily on national law and courts, ongoing harmonisation through EU directives and ECJ control should mitigate inequalities. The EPPO’s effectiveness will ultimately depend on practice in balancing European coordination with equal treatment of suspects.

The Italian criminal law system, unlike the systems in many other European countries, allows the defense to carry out defensive investigations on behalf of his/her client. In this contribution, the shortcomings of the recent European legislation on the matter are analyzed, as well as the issue of the validity in Italian criminal proceedings of defensive investigations conducted by the defense council abroad. The admissibility in the criminal case of defensive investigations conducted abroad by an Italian defense lawyer was, in fact, already rejected ten years ago by the Italian Court of Cassation. The Court stated that the official state instruments of international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters must be used if investigations are carried out abroad. The authors argue in this contribution that this position cannot be upheld in a unified Europe and deserves fundamental reconsideration. They also advocate a European solution of defensive investigations abroad – a possible … Read more