The article examines the evolution of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) over the past 25 years from its establishment in 1999 to its current role as a pivotal player in the fight against fraud affecting the EU’s financial interests. It starts by tracing OLAF's origins to its predecessor, the Unit for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF), and the circumstances surrounding OLAF’s creation as a response to major corruption scandals. The article goes on to analyse the legal framework underpinning OLAF’s mandate, in particular Regulation (EU, Euratom) No. 883/2013 and Directive 2017/1371 on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law, which expanded OLAF's scope and facilitated its cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). Furthermore, OLAF's evolving relationship with the EPPO is explored and significant case law that has shaped OLAF’s investigative powers and procedural safeguards highlighted. The article concludes by reflecting … Read more

The protection of fundamental rights and procedural guarantees in administrative investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has constantly evolved since its creation in 1999.

First, the catalogue of procedural rights and guarantees embedded in the successive regulations governing the conduct of OLAF’s investigations was significantly expanded. Second, the existing mechanisms to ensure their protection were reinforced by the creation of the new function of the Controller of procedural guarantees and a new complaints mechanism.

As a result, the legal framework under which OLAF operates at present is significantly more protective of fundamental rights and procedural guarantees than it was 25 years ago.

This article sheds light on these two key developments: the progressive codification of fundamental rights and procedural guarantees applicable to OLAF’s investigations and the reinforcement of their protection by the creation of the new Controller and the new complaints mechanism.

Current technology enables drug traffickers and other criminals to live like digital nomads and direct global operations from any location in the world. That said, this surge of technology also provides law enforcement with new tools. Large datasets allow us to change the way we conduct investigations, making a data-driven law enforcement approach possible. No data-driven investigation can ignore the international dimension of organised crime. In this article, the authors analyse some of the challenges and achievements they see in cross-border data-driven investigations, in the light of the standards of the Law Enforcement Directive.

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly being used by justice professionals to improve the speed and the efficiency of legal proceedings and to alleviate administrative burdens. Digital and AI tools may be a game changer in enhancing the quality of justice and allowing justice professionals to concentrate on more substantive tasks. Digitalisation and the use of AI in justice bring about significant benefits but can also present certain risks, thus requiring a clear regulatory framework. The last few years have brought about a considerable number of new rules agreed at EU level that cover different aspects of the digital developments experienced by our society and economy.
This article presents the main elements of two of these acts: the AI Act and the Regulation on digitalisation of judicial cooperation, focusing on the aspects with the most relevance for the justice sector. It explains which AI practices are prohibited and the approach … Read more

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the convening of “virtual” and “hybrid” meetings through videoconferencing technology has become a common practice. This trend has also reached the sphere of criminal justice, as more and more jurisdictions, such as Hungary, are authorising hearings and trials to be held without the physical presence of all persons involved. At the same time, yet other criminal justice systems, such as that in Germany, are highly sceptical about any weakening of the requirement that the accused be physically present in the courtroom.
Recently, a Latvian court requested guidance from the CJEU as to whether criminal trials employing videoconferencing technology may be held across intra-EU borders, in particular when use of the European Investigation Order (EIO) is made. On procedural grounds, the CJEU, in its judgement of 6 June 2024, refrained from deciding issues relating to the interpretation of Directive 2014/41/EU in different but authentic languages … Read more