Some EU Member States have already adopted broad-ranging whistleblowing legislation because of financial or public health scandals. In this context, the European Parliament suggested a draft directive to protect whistleblowers by offering a “horizontal” approach covering all public and private sectors. In 2018, the European Commission, by contrast, proposed widening the existing EU sectoral approach and including the protection of the financial interests of the European Union in a directive “on the protection of persons reporting on breaches of Union law.” The author argues that this broader sectoral approach − while making a step forward − still raises a number of issues.

Recent scandals, such as Dieselgate, Luxleaks, the Panama Papers, and Cambridge Analytica, came to light thanks to whistleblowers who “raised the alarm” over unlawful activities in the organisation for which they worked. From their position as "insiders," whistleblowers can provide enforcement authorities with key information that can lead to the effective detection, investigation, and prosecution of breaches of law − and they can be crucial sources for investigative journalists − thus contributing to protecting the public from harm.
Yet, whistleblowers very often face many different forms of retaliation for their reporting: they may lose their job and their source of income, and they may suffer damage to their reputation and their health. Fear of such consequences discourages people from coming forward with their concerns. Unfortunately, the protection offered in the EU is fragmented and insufficient. Most EU Member States do not have comprehensive legislation in place that provides whistleblowers with the … Read more

Collaborators with justice and witnesses are the most important impact factors when combatting organized crime and terrorism, since they provide information on the goals of criminal groups, on criminal networks, and on planned or committed crimes. Protective measures can be applied to guarantee the personal safety of collaborators with justice as well as witnesses and their relatives both requiring protection. The efforts of European institutions aim to establish common criteria in this field (protection programmes, protection measures for witnesses and collaborators of justice, etc.). For a few years now, the necessity of European legislative instrument has been under discussion. The Council of Europe whose active role on matter has been proven through their recent suggestions on the modernization of their work on witnesses and collaborators protection, has carefully studied this question.

This article discusses the limits on mutual trust in the context of transfer of sentenced persons following the CJEU’s Aranyosi and Căldăraru judgment. It summarizes the main findings of a recent legal and empirical analysis of mutual recognition cases conducted in five EU Member States: Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Romania, and Poland. The research conducted contends that the presumption of mutual trust existing between the EU Member States is a legal fiction. In the context of transfer of a custodial sentence from one country to another based on mutual recognition and mutual trust, failure of the latter can have very negative effects on judicial cooperation and, consequently, on the fight against crime. Non-compliance with individuals’ fundamental rights can undermine the very essence of judicial cooperation and, with it, the European project. Such failure can only be prevented if the EU endeavours to establish and maintain a truly integrated penal policy … Read more

Since the publication of the Corpus Juris – the fundamental study on the protection of the EU’s financial interests, carried out under the supervision of Professor Mireille Delmas-Mary – the French authorities have considered the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor to be a political goal of utmost importance. The French experts actively participated in the four-year negotiation process and contributed to achieving a balanced and ambitious Regulation. A new chapter was heralded by the adoption of Regulation 2017/1939 on 12 October 2017: the 22 participating Member States must now prepare and adapt their national legal systems and legislation to the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. At this early stage of its implementation, it appears relevant to concentrate on two main aspects of the process.

This article addresses several issues concerning additional measures required for a proper imple-mentation of the EPPO Regulation from the point of view of a Member State with a federal struc-ture. These issues include matters involving Member States’ personnel working for the EPPO, clarification of the relevant national legal framework (in particular as regards the conduct of in-vestigations), and the future cooperation between the EPPO and the national authorities of the (participating) Member States. The article concludes that the hybrid structure and current legal framework of the EPPO will create new challenges for the authorities of the Member States and may certainly stimulate further (academic) debate on the approach chosen by the EU legislator.