The function of the Controller of procedural guarantees was established in 2020 to ensure that the effectiveness in investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) does not come at the expense of fundamental rights and procedural guarantees. The Controller examines in an independent manner complaints submitted by persons concerned in OLAF investigations. This complaints mechanism has proved to be an effective remedy for persons concerned and also aims to increase the transparency and accountability of OLAF’s activities.
In an effort to shed light on the function of the Controller of procedural guarantees, the complaints mechanism, and the delicate balance struck between procedural fairness and investigative effectiveness, this article reflects on the work carried out during Prof. Dr. Julia Laffranque’s nearly four-year mandate as the first Controller of procedural guarantees. She presents some of the main achievements of the function and shares the lessons learnt from handling the complaints mechanism, … Read more

Over more than two decades, the EU’s area of criminal justice has been built instrument by instrument — a forest of interdependent legal tools. Yet the ecosystem is out of balance: enforcement powers and prosecutorial instruments have grown vigorously while the procedural safeguards designed to protect individuals remain underdeveloped, poorly harmonised, and increasingly strained by digital evidence, cross-border investigations, and the widening operational role of EU justice and home affairs agencies. This system must be improved, and the European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA) outlined its vision in its Agenda for European Criminal Justice, prepared for the 2025 High-Level Forum on the Future of EU Criminal Justice (HLF). This article summarises that intervention. Drawing on the Agenda, it presents both a short-term programme to improve existing instruments and a long-term vision envisaging for a coherent, rights-based European criminal justice framework grounded in genuine equality of arms. It pays particular attention to … Read more

The procedural rights of defendants in the EU have evolved through a combination of legislative harmonisation and judicial interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Following the 2009 Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings, key directives on the right to information, access to a lawyer, and the presumption of innocence established minimum standards to support the mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters. This article analyses how the CJEU has interpreted these instruments teleologically, thereby expanding, inter alia, their scope and the understanding of effective remedies while limiting derogations and preserving national procedural autonomy. Throughout this process, the CJEU has avoided EU rules on admissibility of evidence. The author argues that this development amounts to a “case law constitution” of EU criminal procedure, albeit one characterised by ongoing tensions. These notably concern the absence of common exclusionary rules … Read more

In 2013, the German Institute Taipei and the Taipei Representative Office in Germany reached a joint declaration on the transfer of convicted persons and on cooperation in the enforcement of criminal judgments (→ R. Riegel and F. Fülle, “Vollstreckungshilfe zwischen Deutschland und Taiwan auf neuer Grundlage”, (2016) eucrim, 61–64). This declaration led to the successful transfer of a number of prisoners and the enforcement of sentences. In 2023, the German Institute Taipei and the Taipei Representative Office in Germany signed a further declaration on cooperation in the field of mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, which has been applicable since 11 June 2025. This article outlines the basis for cooperation between Germany and Taiwan and explains the content of the joint agreement. The German version of the joint declaration is reproduced at the end.

The 2025 High-Level Forum on the Future of EU Criminal Justice, aimed at developing a shared vision for the Union’s future criminal-policy agenda, brought together over one hundred participants, including the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) and the European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA).
In this context, the CCBE submitted an extensive proposal, arguing that mutual recognition and judicial cooperation can only function sustainably if they are based on robust procedural safeguards that can be effectively enforced. To this end, the CCBE proposed the adoption of a new roadmap on procedural rights on the basis of Art. 82 TFEU, setting out a detailed legislative programme across four areas: (i) judicial cooperation and mutual recognition, (ii) procedural safeguards, (iii) EU agencies and bodies, and (iv) the digitalisation of criminal justice.
This article systematically presents the main strands of this proposal. In particular, it examines the reforms proposed for the European … Read more

The surveillance of citizens by government agencies is an issue that can affect many areas of everyday life. It regularly provokes controversy, particularly in public discourse. Strikingly, in discussions about the existing powers of security authorities, their possible extension, or even the introduction of entirely new and additional surveillance powers, little or nothing is usually known about which surveillance measures are actually used in daily practice, how often they are used, and under what circumstances. Surveillance of any kind always has a high degree of social relevance and touches the very core of the liberal constitution. The execution of such measures is therefore relevant not only to those directly affected, but – due to their potential intrusiveness – can affect a large number of persons. As the frequency of these (often covert) measures increases, so does the actual and perceived risk of becoming a target of police, prosecutorial, or other … Read more