Latest editorials All articles
Recent scandals, such as Dieselgate, Luxleaks, the Panama Papers, and Cambridge Analytica, came to light thanks to whistleblowers who “raised the alarm” over unlawful activities in the organisation for which they worked. From their position as "insiders," whistleblowers can provide enforcement authorities with key information that can lead to the effective detection, investigation, and prosecution of breaches of law − and they can be crucial sources for investigative journalists − thus contributing to protecting the public from harm.
Yet, whistleblowers very often face many different forms of retaliation for their reporting: they may lose their job and their source of income, and they may suffer damage to their reputation and their health. Fear of such consequences discourages people from coming forward with their concerns. Unfortunately, the protection offered in the EU is fragmented and insufficient. Most EU Member States do not have comprehensive legislation in place that provides whistleblowers with the ... Read more
Editorial Guest Editorial eucrim 3/2018
Many recent scandals, such as Dieselgate, Luxleaks, the Panama Papers, and Cambridge Analytica, might never have come to light if “insiders” had not had the courage to speak up about wrongdoing occurring in their workplaces. These are only a few examples of how whistleblowers help detect, investigate, and remedy violations of law that can seriously damage the public interest and the welfare of our citizens and societies. Those who help uncover illegal activities should not have to suffer any personal or professional disadvantages or even be punished because of their actions. With its proposal of 23 April 2018 for a “Directive on the protection of persons reporting on breaches of Union law”, the Commission sets out a much needed legal framework for robust protection of whistleblowers across the EU.Read more
La confiance mutuelle sous pression dans le cadre du transfert de personnes condamnées au sein de l’Union Européenne
This article discusses the limits on mutual trust in the context of transfer of sentenced persons following the CJEU’s Aranyosi and Căldăraru judgment. It summarizes the main findings of a recent legal and empirical analysis of mutual recognition cases conducted in five EU Member States: Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Romania, and Poland. The research conducted contends that the presumption of mutual trust existing between the EU Member States is a legal fiction. In the context of transfer of a custodial sentence from one country to another based on mutual recognition and mutual trust, failure of the latter can have very negative effects on judicial cooperation and, consequently, on the fight against crime. Non-compliance with individuals’ fundamental rights can undermine the very essence of judicial cooperation and, with it, the European project. Such failure can only be prevented if the EU endeavours to establish and maintain a truly integrated penal policy ... Read more
État des lieux des programmes de protection des témoins et des collaborateurs de justice dans le domaine du crime organisé et du terrorisme
Regard croisé du système pénal français à la lumière des instruments internationaux
Collaborators with justice and witnesses are the most important impact factors when combatting organized crime and terrorism, since they provide information on the goals of criminal groups, on criminal networks, and on planned or committed crimes. Protective measures can be applied to guarantee the personal safety of collaborators with justice as well as witnesses and their relatives both requiring protection. The efforts of European institutions aim to establish common criteria in this field (protection programmes, protection measures for witnesses and collaborators of justice, etc.). For a few years now, the necessity of European legislative instrument has been under discussion. The Council of Europe whose active role on matter has been proven through their recent suggestions on the modernization of their work on witnesses and collaborators protection, has carefully studied this question.Read more
Editorial Guest Editorial eucrim 2/2018
Almost a year has passed since the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). Activities aimed at setting up this new important European body are in full swing.
The creation of a strong, efficient, and independent EPPO, which will be able to rapidly carry out its investigative functions, represents a priority for the European Commission and, in particular, for the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), which I have the honour of directing since August 2018.
Setting up the EPPO is a complex task, which requires the contribution of many actors. The Commission has already put a number of steps in place, and many more are being prepared. The Commission is however not alone in this process: Member States participating in the EPPO are called on to ensure that the EPPO operates smoothly and effectively in their legal and judicial ... Read more
Since the publication of the Corpus Juris – the fundamental study on the protection of the EU’s financial interests, carried out under the supervision of Professor Mireille Delmas-Mary – the French authorities have considered the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor to be a political goal of utmost importance. The French experts actively participated in the four-year negotiation process and contributed to achieving a balanced and ambitious Regulation. A new chapter was heralded by the adoption of Regulation 2017/1939 on 12 October 2017: the 22 participating Member States must now prepare and adapt their national legal systems and legislation to the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. At this early stage of its implementation, it appears relevant to concentrate on two main aspects of the process.Read more