This article analyses the European Union’s evolving counterterrorism framework in light of recent attacks and the changing nature of the terrorist threat. It traces the EU’s “event-driven” approach since 9/11, the Madrid and London bombings, and the development of the 2005 EU Counterterrorism Strategy with its four pillars: Prevent, Protect, Pursue, and Respond. The authors focus on the integration of risk-based thinking, distinguishing between measures to reduce threats (e.g. radicalisation prevention, intelligence sharing) and those to reduce vulnerability (e.g. legal cooperation, crisis response mechanisms). They argue that an effective EU framework requires a balance between these approaches, deeper cooperation among Member States, and alignment with transatlantic partners.

The article examines the prospects for automatic mutual recognition of judicial decisions in EU criminal matters, focusing on freezing and confiscation orders. It outlines the legal basis for mutual recognition under the Lisbon Treaty, contrasts it with harmonisation, and reviews existing instruments and their shortcomings. Drawing lessons from the European Arrest Warrant, the authors argue that mutual recognition can enhance efficiency while preserving legal diversity, provided fundamental rights and proportionality are safeguarded. They conclude that no Member State should become a safe haven for criminals exploiting free movement to shield unlawfully gained assets.

The article analyses OLAF’s position as a supranational EU body in relation to national judicial authorities, focusing on the sharing of information in fraud and corruption investigations affecting the EU’s financial interests. It outlines the advantages of OLAF’s supranational status—such as recognised competence, speed, and established networks—while detailing legislative limitations stemming from its hybrid nature and reliance on Member States to act on its judicial recommendations. The author examines operational practices, data protection constraints, cooperation with third countries, and the interplay between formal legal frameworks and informal working relationships, concluding with lessons for the future European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

This article examines the Council of Europe’s role in addressing the threat of foreign terrorist fighters through the Draft Additional Protocol to the 2005 Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism. Developed in response to UN Security Council Resolution 2178 (2014), the protocol supplements the “Mother Convention” by requiring State Parties to criminalize conduct such as participation in terrorist associations, receiving terrorist training, travelling abroad for terrorism purposes, and related funding or facilitation. It outlines the scope, definitions, and human rights safeguards built into these offences, situating them within existing international and EU counter-terrorism instruments.

This paper was commissioned in order to contribute to the crucial research conducted by the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal law in the field of the financing of terrorism. It presents in a systematic way the main legal framework and counter-terrorism policies in Greece, as well as the activities of criminal justice authorities, police agencies, and other (private) actors involved in the fight against the financing of terrorist activity. It shows that Greece has implemented most of the major international counter-terrorism provisions in a coherent yet not uncritical way as far as their content is concerned, despite the ongoing controversy regarding the role of the traditional protective principles of criminal law in these fairly new fields of criminal investigation and prosecution.
It has not, however, been possible to avoid the sometimes unfeasible parallel existence of multiple legal norms, such as the substantive penal rules defining terrorism and … Read more