While the right to lawyer-client confidentiality has long been recognised as a fundamental right enshrined in the right to legal assistance and the right of defence, its practical implementation does not seem to provide adequate safeguards. Many EU Member States still lack clear rules on how to ensure that privileged communications are not captured during the interception of communications and the search/seizure of computers during criminal investigations. Also, OLAF investigations struggle with deficiencies in safeguarding the lawyer-client privilege. Taking the case law of the European Court of Human Rights as a starting point to identify common standards on the lawyer-client privilege in criminal proceedings, this article argues that there is a need for the European Union to take legislative action to ensure the effective protection of this right.

This article discusses access to a lawyer via videoconferencing for detained suspects and accused persons. In today’s digital age, the introduction of videoconferencing leads to enhance the right of access to a lawyer for suspects and accused persons under Directive 2013/48/EU. The article first provides an overview of the current provisions of the Directive, then analyses the situation in Germany (which has already introduced access to a lawyer by means of videoconference), and lastly shows the benefits of access to a lawyer via videoconference. A revision of Directive 2013/48/EU in order to enshrine this right is proposed in the last section.

On 21 December 2023, the CJEU delivered its first judgment in response to the preliminary reference concerning the extent of judicial review in the context of the EPPO’s cross-border investigations. The questions referred to the CJEU aimed to shed light on two crucial aspects of the respective legal framework. They address both the forum before which the suspect, or another person negatively affected by an investigative measure of the EPPO, may challenge the substantive reasons for adopting the measure and the scope of judicial scrutiny to be performed by the national court. This article first calls to mind the facts of the case and the legal framework on cross-border investigations laid down in Arts. 31 and 32 of the EPPO Regulation. Next, it analyses the Advocate General’s opinion and the findings of the Court and then provides an assessment of the judgment, taking into account the negotiation history of the … Read more

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office, being the largest project in the history of European Criminal Law, is based on Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 (“the EPPO Regulation”) but has nevertheless required substantial adjustments to national criminal law in order to function. This article presents the results of a compliance study commissioned by the European Commission to assess whether the national legislation of the 22 Member States participating in the EPPO is in conformity with the EPPO Regulation.

This article outlines the new Directive on the violation of Union restrictive measures (EU sanctions), adopted on 24 April 2024. This legislation, initiated by the European Commission in the aftermath of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, above all aims to harmonise across the Member States criminal offences and penalties for the violation of EU sanctions, to strengthen the enforcement of EU sanctions, and to facilitate the confiscation of assets subject to EU sanctions. Lastly, the article examines the possible extension of the competence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) to the criminal offences harmonised by the new Directive.