I. Introduction: Context of the Evaluation of Regulation 883/2013 In 1999, the Commission established the European Anti-Fraud Office – OLAF – to give a deterrent answer to fraud, corruption, and other illegal activities detrimental to the financial interests of the Union.1 OLAF’s primary instrument to provide such deterrence is its ability to conduct administrative investigations in the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies (during internal investigations) and in the Member States (during external investigations).2 Initially OLAF conducted its investigations under the overarching framework of Regulations 1073/1999 and 1074/1999: the former covered the EC; the latter covered Euratom.3 After a number... Read more

I. Introductory Remarks: OLAF and the Setting of the EPPO There were certain periods in the past that brought expectations of change in the legal position and powers of OLAF (hereinafter also referred to as “the Office”) together with the entire layout of the system of protection of the Union’s financial interests. Since establishment of the Office, the expected changes seemed to be inextricably linked with the destiny of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (the “EPPO”). The first proposals concerning the project of the European Prosecutor1 were later rejected, however, and had no effect on functioning of OLAF. Discussions affecting... Read more

I. Introduction Directive 2014/41/EU regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters1 was approved in April 2014 and regulates a new instrument for the obtaining of evidence. The main features of the European Investigation Order (hereinafter EIO) are: It covers all types of evidence; It contains time limits for the enforcement of mutual legal assistance requests; It limits the grounds for refusal; It can be used either to carry out investigatory measures in the executing state or to obtain evidence that is already in the state’s possession.2 The obtaining of evidence in criminal proceedings is a highly sensitive matter from... Read more

Introduction The suspect is the key figure in procedural criminal law. To some extent, he is the reason for being of all criminal procedure, since the latter aims at setting up rules in order to protect him from unfounded accusations and arbitrariness. In line with the Stockholm Programme of 2010, the last few years have seen the EU strengthening the rights of suspects and accused persons.1 It adopted a number of directives with the purpose of providing suspects with the means to understand, participate in, and complain about criminal proceedings, so that they are able to defend themselves effectively, in... Read more

Introduction After years of negotiations, the adoption of the Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter EPPO) is near. Even if no unanimity can be reached in the Council of the European Union, there seems to be a strong political will amongst most Member States to set up the EPPO, if necessary through an enhanced cooperation procedure.1 The current draft Regulation already provides insight into how the EPPO would take shape.2 The Regulation foresees that the EPPO will be a European prosecution office that is in many ways subject to national courts and legislation. Nevertheless, the... Read more

I. Introduction On 26 October 2016, the European Parliament and the Council adopted Directive (EU) 2016/1919 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European Arrest Warrant proceedings. The Directive is the sixth legislative measure that has been brought to pass since the Council adopted its Roadmap on procedural rights seven years ago. The Directive, which completes the roll-out of the Roadmap,1 was a difficult measure to negotiate in view of its potentially considerable financial implications. The final text of the Directive has been welcomed by practitioners, academics, and other interested parties.... Read more