The EncroChat investigation marks a turning point in European criminal justice, revealing unprecedented legal and technical challenges that arose from the hacking of encrypted communication devices (“cryptophones”). The operation originated in France and escalated with the deployment of Trojan-style malware, which enabled the collection of data from over 66,000 cryptophone users worldwide. This article provides a detailed timeline of the case, tracing its development from national proceedings to significant rulings by the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. It examines the former’s interpretation of the Directive on the European Investigation Order and the latter’s rejection of challenges arising from the European Convention on Human Rights. By bridging French and European case law and literature, this article fills a gap in existing literature and contributes to ongoing discussions on digital surveillance, privacy, and procedural safeguards in transnational criminal investigations.

ANOM was an undercover law enforcement operation in which the American FBI distributed encrypted mobile phones with a hidden backdoor, allowing authorities to monitor previously untraceable criminals’ communication in real time. Many details of the operation were kept confidential by law enforcement. The intelligence gathered led to hundreds of arrests worldwide, major drug seizures, and disruption of organised crime networks.
Continuing the discussion initiated by Lassalle and Lannier (→ related link), who retrace the EncroChat police operation in France, this article analyses two rulings by Germany’s highest courts (the Federal Court of Justice and the Federal Constitutional Court) that approved the use of chat data obtained from the ANOM operation. Despite many differences between EncroChat and ANOM, both courts saw no reason to depart from the evidence-friendly case law they had each already established in the German EncroChat cases. The author argues that the approach adopted by the courts with regard … Read more

This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the Poland-Indonesia Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. The Treaty was signed on 19 September 2025 and opens a new chapter in the relationship between both countries with regard to combating crime. It also includes modern forms of assistance, such as the possibility of conducting hearings by videoconference. Robust provisions on data protection and confidentiality are among the safeguards for the individual.

On 8 April 2025, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered its second judgment interpreting the EPPO Regulation: EPPO v. I.R.O. and F.J.L.R. (Case C-292/23). This is the Court’s first ruling on Art. 42(1) of the Regulation, which addresses the scope of ex post judicial review of EPPO procedural acts before national courts. The case arose from a Spanish preliminary reference concerning the compatibility of Ley Orgánica 9/2021 (the Spanish law implementing the EPPO Regulation) with Art. 42(1). In particular, the reference dealt with the Spanish law’s limitations on judicial review of acts carried out by Spanish European Delegated Prosecutors.
The ECJ’s judgment clarifies which acts undertaken by the EPPO must be subject to review by national courts. More broadly, it has implications for the effective judicial protection of individual rights in EPPO proceedings. This article first outlines the relevant background of the case and then the … Read more

A corruption case in Croatia (the Beroš case) recently reached the political level, leading to a positive conflict of competence between the Croatian prosecutorial authorities and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). The circumstances surrounding the debate bear a striking resemblance to the conflict that emerged in 2022 regarding the so-called Ayuso case in Spain. Both cases underpin the shortcomings in the regulatory framework of the EPPO’s competences, which have already been highlighted in legal literature. The prompt resolution of these shortcomings is crucial, as the current legal framework may have serious rule-of-law implications, potentially leading to harmful consequences for the defendant’s rights. With its analysis of both the Croatian Beroš case and the Spanish Ayuso case, this article aims to demonstrate the regulatory challenges related to the conflict of jurisdiction within the EPPO’s legal framework.