This article sheds light on the compensation for unjustified detention that occurred while carrying out the European Arrest Warrant. First, the article exposes the reality of the lack of regulation of this matter and the necessity of having a normative reference at the level of the European Union. Second, it highlights the relationship between compensation and the fundamental rights of the detained person and therefore with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Third, it also outlines the frequently occurring difficulty of establishing the unjust or arbitrary nature of detention, especially when it comes to the enforcement of an extradition request. Fourth, the article describes some of the problems related to determining the Member State that should assume the compensation and reflects on the appropriate compensation procedure.

This special contribution outlines the recent Commission proposals on digitalisation of EU justice systems. On 1 December 2021, the European Commission adopted three initiatives that will make digital communication channels the default channel in cross-border judicial cases, thus translating one of the priorities set out in last year's Communication on the Digitalisation of Justice into action.

“Reform commitments in the Italian Recovery and Resilience Plan modernize the criminal justice system and increase the effectiveness and efficiency of criminal protection against EU fraud, in line with constitutional rights and guarantees.”

Until the European Public Prosecutor’s Office was set up, the competence for investigating and prosecuting criminal offenses against the financial interests of the EU in Romania belonged to the specialized anticorruption prosecution office, the DNA (National Anti-Corruption Directorate). The DNA looks back on 18 years of experience in tackling this type of criminality, which has resulted in a significant number of court decisions. An analysis carried out by the DNA in 2019, which was based on data obtained from convictions handed down during the period 2015-2018, brought to light the main typologies of EU fraud. The study revealed that the most frequently occurring cases of fraud concerned the claims for payment of agricultural subsidies and the implementation of projects with non-reimbursable financing. Most defendants involved in these cases operated in the private sector. However, even civil servants from the responsible authorities or mayors were also convicted for participating in EU … Read more

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) are the two investigative bodies at the EU level that together will effectively detect, investigate, and protect the EU’s financial interests by combining the strengths of an administrative investigation with those of a criminal investigative approach. This article outlines in concrete terms how this cooperation is being organised. It illustrates how both offices have been equipped to follow the trail of money irregularly spent on criminal organisations, fraudsters, and corrupt individuals. It also explains the links between the two offices, the new legal framework at the basis of their cooperation, and their operational relationship. Lastly, the authors give a preview of future challenges and opportunities, with a view to outlining improvements that will contribute to the common goal of both bodies: the protection of the EU’s financial interests.

This article reflects on the negotiations concerning Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law (the “PIF Directive”) and discusses some of the controversial issues at that time from a criminal law policy perspective. Germany’s approach to the transposition of the PIF Directive is explained, and the article also presents the corresponding amendments made to the German Criminal Code as well as the provisions in the newly created Act to Strengthen the Protection of the EU‘s Financial Interests (EU-Finanzschutzstärkungsgesetz).