The piece examines how the European Investigation Order (Directive 2014/41/EU) seeks speedy, mutual-recognition-based cross-border evidence gathering while still respecting fundamental rights. It notes explicit safeguards (Art. 1(4); refusal ground via Charter, Art. 11(1)(f); validation by a judicial authority; special rules for privacy-intrusive measures like telecoms interception and bank data) but flags gaps: an overemphasis on privacy versus scant mention of other defence rights; vague refusal criteria; and the optional nature of using less intrusive alternatives (Art. 10). The author expects friction where executing states balance mutual trust with rights protection and urges clearer guidance to avoid divergent transpositions. On remedies (Art. 14), challenges in the issuing state cover substance, while executing-state remedies chiefly safeguard fundamental rights and generally don’t suspend execution—all under the Charter’s effective-remedy guarantee. Protection for third parties (witnesses/experts) is left to national law, a missed harmonisation opportunity.

The article assesses France’s transposition of EU directives on the rights of suspects in criminal proceedings. While reforms have strengthened participation in trials, the right to information, and access to interpretation and translation, implementation often falls short of the directives’ spirit. Access to a lawyer during police investigations remains limited, with restrictions on private meetings and delayed access for detained suspects. Disclosure of case materials is only partially ensured, and the use of self-incriminating statements continues despite ECtHR case law. Gros concludes that France has transposed the directives literally but without ambition, prioritising procedural efficiency and security over robust protection of suspects’ rights, raising questions about the future of the French investigative judge model.

The article examines how the principle of equality must be safeguarded in proceedings of the forthcoming European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). Falletti identifies two main challenges: ensuring equal rights for suspects and ensuring equal handling of cases. Since the EPPO applies both its Regulation and national criminal procedure, differences in procedural safeguards across Member States risk undermining equality, particularly in access to lawyers and defence costs in cross-border cases. On case allocation, fears of forum shopping are addressed by mandatory criteria and oversight by Permanent Chambers, with national courts retaining judicial review. While the system relies heavily on national law and courts, ongoing harmonisation through EU directives and ECJ control should mitigate inequalities. The EPPO’s effectiveness will ultimately depend on practice in balancing European coordination with equal treatment of suspects.

The article traces how Directive (EU) 2016/1919 on legal aid—adopted 26 Oct 2016—completed the 2009 Procedural Rights Roadmap. It recounts why “measure C” (access to a lawyer + legal aid) was split, the Commission’s 2013 proposal (initially focused on provisional legal aid), and the political split between “northern” states seeking flexibility/cost control and “southern” states/Parliament pushing broader coverage. After trilogues (2015–16), a compromise replaced “provisional” with legal aid, set a scope of “deprivation of liberty plus” (also covering mandatory-lawyer situations and key investigative acts), and anchored eligibility in combined means and merits tests, with a safety net guaranteeing aid when detention is decided or ongoing. The Directive also covers EAW proceedings, and adds rules on decisions, quality, and training. Member States must transpose by 25 May 2019.

The article analyses the EU’s anti-money laundering (AML) framework under Directive 2015/849 (the fourth AML Directive) and the Commission’s July 2016 proposal for amendments. Met-Domestici explains how the reforms respond to terrorist financing risks and evolving laundering methods by broadening the scope of obliged entities (including virtual currency exchanges and gambling providers), adding tax crimes as predicate offences, tightening rules on prepaid cards, and focusing on politically exposed persons and high-risk third countries. The proposal also strengthens customer due diligence, beneficial ownership transparency, central registers, and cooperation between Financial Intelligence Units. While these measures mark significant progress, the author argues that long-term effectiveness requires further integration, including the possible establishment of a European FIU and extending the EPPO’s jurisdiction to money laundering and terrorism.

The article critiques recent EU AML moves—4AMLD and the Commission’s 2016 package—through five lenses: scope, ECDD, beneficial ownership, FIUs, and criminalisation. It welcomes extending coverage to gambling and lowering the cash threshold, but flags gaps (e.g., construction/property developers; ambiguity on letting agents) and says virtual-asset gatekeepers belong inside the regime (as the 2016 proposal suggests). The Commission’s mandatory enhanced CDD list for high-risk third-country dealings may curb forum-shopping but risks cost, de-risking, and lost intelligence; a smarter calibration of the risk-based approach is urged. Beneficial ownership registers are innovative yet fragile without verification and clear sanctions, and wider/public access raises unresolved data-protection questions. Expanding FIU powers (direct access to obliged-entity data; bank-account registries) could speed analysis but needs tighter legal limits to avoid incoherence and privacy problems. On criminalisation, the piece cautions against over-broad predicate catalogues and negligence-based offences; it argues for careful treatment of self-laundering and prioritising robust enforcement … Read more