This article examines the judicial cooperation between Europe and Morocco in combatting organised crime and terrorism. Despite Morocco’s strategic role and its expertise in anti-drug and counter-terrorism efforts, there is currently no specific formal legal framework on the part of the European Union that governs judicial cooperation with the Kingdom of Morocco. This article analyses the relevant political and legal instruments, such as the EU-Morocco Association Agreement, the advanced status under the European Neighbourhood Policy, the EuroMed Justice and Police programmes, and initiatives by Eurojust and Europol. The analysis reveals how mutual trust is gradually being established through the convergence of Euro-Moroccan judicial and police practices. However, it also identifies structural limitations, including the heterogeneity of bilateral agreements with EU Member States and procedural divergences. While EU-Morocco judicial cooperation lacks a binding legal framework at the Union level, recent operational developments are promoting a pragmatic and effective partnership. This is … Read more

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.

At the core of every successful cross-border operation are robust legal foundations that facilitate cooperation between the parties. Along with multilateral, bilateral, and national instruments, the EU's major Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) agencies – Europol, Frontex, Eurojust, and, more recently, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office – have established and revised cooperation agreements and working arrangements over the years with aspiring third countries, in turn fostering a more enabling and cooperative environment for the latter. This article explores the relevant legal bases that constitute the multi-layered cooperation framework between JHA agencies, EU Member States, and accession countries, using official secondary data, with a particular focus on Albania’s path to EU membership. Overall, the article indicates that the legal mechanisms for cooperation must be combined in order to accommodate jurisdictional complexities in practice. Accession countries benefit greatly from participating in bilateral cooperation agreements, notably through the opportunity to post their liaison … Read more

On 15 October 2025, the Italian Supreme Court (Corte Suprema di Cassazione) halted the surrender of a former Ukrainian military officer from Italy to Germany. The requested person was sought by the German authorities for “sabotage” in connection with the attacks on the Nord Stream gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea in 2022. The Supreme Court annulled the decision of the Bologna Court of Appeal, which had previously authorised surrender. The judges in Rome expressly rejected the approach according to which the executing authority in a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) proceeding may reclassify the issuing authority’s designation of a “list offence” under Art. 2(2) of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant for purposes of determining domestic custodial or procedural measures. This article explains the reasoning of the Supreme Court’s ruling and comments on its implications. The author concludes that the Court’s approach paradoxically strengthens, rather than diminishes, the … Read more