The article reflects on the post-Lisbon framework for EU criminal policy. While the Treaties introduced QMV and co-decision, they also restricted competences to certain procedural and substantive aspects under the principle of conferral. Nilsson warns against legislative lethargy under the “Festina Lente” approach and calls for further work in evaluation, judicial training (including a proposed “Eurotrain”), crime prevention, and harmonisation of offences such as corruption, money laundering, and organised crime. He stresses that fragmented approximation undermines mutual trust and effectiveness, and argues that long-term development will require Treaty change to overcome the casuistic limits of Arts. 82–83 TFEU. Ultimately, the EU must decide between deeper integration towards federal-style criminal law or maintaining fragmented national systems with cautious, piecemeal approximation.

The article analyses how national and international developments have reshaped the roles of the Dutch judge of instruction and the public prosecutor in international judicial cooperation. Traditionally, the judge of instruction controlled preliminary investigations and the use of coercive measures, also in cross-border cases. With the abolition of the preliminary investigation and the expansion of prosecutorial powers, the public prosecutor has become the central authority, particularly in extradition matters, the European Arrest Warrant, and the European Evidence Warrant. The author further discusses the implications of the EPPO initiative, highlighting the risks of political influence over ancillary competence and suggesting that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office should have full competence for offences linked to the protection of the EU’s financial interests.

As explicitly mentioned in the Treaty of Nice,1 and preceded by a provisional unit (“pro-Eurojust”),2 Eurojust was established through a Decision of 28 February 2002.3 The latter was amended by the Decision of 16 December 2008 on the strengthening of Eurojust.4 Shortly after the celebration of its 10th birthday in 2012, Eurojust became the subject of a new reform. On the 17th of July 2013, the Commission presented a proposal for a Regulation on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), based on Art. 85 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU).5 This initiative was… Read more

The article discusses the ECJ’s judgment in Spector Photo Group (C-45/08) on the interpretation of “use of inside information” under Directive 2003/6/EC. The Court held that possession of inside information combined with trading in the related financial instruments suffices to presume use, without proving intent, thus creating an objective definition of insider dealing. While this preventive approach strengthens market integrity, the Court also allowed defendants to rebut the presumption, invoking the principle of defense rights. The author critiques this reasoning as mixing factual presumptions with legal interpretation and questions whether the directive supports such a construction, warning of potential overreach when administrative or even criminal sanctions are applied.

I. The Financial Execution Inquiry As already stated, the FEI is conducted by the Belgian Prosecution Service after a confiscation order has become peremptory. We will examine the purpose of and the reason for establishment of the investigation, and we will examine the role of the actors who take part in the investigation. 1. Purpose and Reason for Establishment a) Purpose The aim of the FEI is to inquire into the assets of convicted criminals who have been sentenced to the confiscation of, in principle, a sum of money that cannot be recovered by means of civil law. Besides confiscated… Read more

In the United States, federal prosecutors routinely employ asset recovery as a tool of law enforcement. The approach takes two forms. In criminal cases, the prosecutor may seek to recover or “forfeit” property as part of the defendant’s sentence, if the defendant is convicted. Alternatively, the prosecutor may commence a civil proceeding, naming the property as the defendant and seeking to forfeit the property independent of any criminal proceeding. This article discusses the American experience with civil, or non-conviction-based, asset recovery. It discusses the prosecutor’s motivations for seeking to forfeit assets, the types of property that may be forfeited, the procedures that govern civil asset forfeiture, the advantages of civil or non-conviction-based asset forfeiture over criminal forfeiture, and the ways in which the United States, through judicial decisions and legislation, has reconciled the non-conviction-based approach with the requirements of basic human rights and civil liberties.