Les débats très vifs sur la création d’un espace judiciaire commun, et tout spécialement les études et les nombreux séminaires organisés à partir de la moitié des années 90 ont finalement porté leurs fruits. Il y a dix ans, les propositions du « Corpus Juris portant dispositions pénales pour la protection des intérêts financiers de l’Union européenne », document dont la première version a été publiée en 19971, ouvrait la perspective audacieuse d’un espace judiciaire pénal commun. L’espace envisagé se fondait essentiellement sur le principe novateur de territorialité unique européenne ainsi que sur la création d’une autorité commune compétente pour… Read more

I. Introduction The idea of a centralised supranational public prosecutor originates from a revolutionary dream of experts envisaged in the renowned Corpus Juris1 project (1997) and its follow-up study2 (2000). The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provided the legal basis for a possible establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO),3 and the concept since then has gained further support inter alia through the Action Plan of the Stockholm programme and the recently conducted EPPO Study.4 The synergies and effects of academic research and political realism over little more than a decade are readily apparent. The… Read more

Arts. 85, 86, and 88 TFUE opened up a rich debate on the construction of the European criminal law area. What role will OLAF play in the future as regards the possibilities offered by these new legal bases? The question may surprise those who are not familiar with OLAF’s activities. Indeed, OLAF carries out administrative, not criminal investigations.1 Its competences do not cover only offences but, in a wider sense, irregularities adversely affecting the financial interests of the EU.2 Above all, Regulation 1073/99 explicitly states that OLAF’s investigations shall not affect the powers of Member States to initiate criminal proceedings.3… Read more

By law of 27 March 2003, the Central Office for Seizure and Confiscation (COSC) was created in Belgium. The new institution, established within the Office of Public Prosecutors, assists the judicial authorities in criminal matters in the areas of seizure of assets, the implementation of criminal procedure with a view to the confiscation of assets, and the enforcement of final and conclusive sentences and orders involving confiscation of assets.1 One of the forms of assistance consists of the management of all cash, seized in criminal matters all over the country. By law of 20 July 2005, a new provision was… Read more

Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties was implemented into German law in October 2010. With this instrument, it is for the first time possible to enforce financial penalties in all Member States of the European Union using a uniform procedure, provided that the Member States have adopted the necessary implementation laws. FD 2005/214/JHA is governed by the principle of mutual recognition, which became a cornerstone of cooperation both in civil and in criminal matters at the Council meeting in Tampere in 1999. In particular, the concept of list offences under Art 5 of the FD, where double criminality is not verified by the executing State, is based upon this principle.
In Germany, the Federal Office of Justice (Bundesamt für Justiz) in Bonn has been designated as the competent authority for incoming and outgoing requests under FD 2005/214/JHA. The following article gives … Read more

The article traces the genesis and content of Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings – the first criminal law measure adopted under the Lisbon Treaty and the initial step in the Council’s Roadmap on procedural rights. It outlines the background of failed earlier initiatives, the political dynamics between the Commission, Member States, and the European Parliament, and the negotiations that led to the final text. The Directive sets common minimum standards for interpretation and translation, including communication between defendants and their lawyers, translation of essential documents, and quality assurance. It represents a landmark in strengthening fair trial rights and an early test case for post-Lisbon EU criminal law legislation.