This article introduces the EU Commission’s Anti-Fraud Strategy (CAFS) adopted in April 2019 and explains its background, main features and objectives. The Commission introduced the new CAFS in order to meet the new challenges brought forward by a changing institutional and legislative anti-fraud environment and to adhere to relevant recommendations urging for a more robust anti-fraud system. The article discusses the CAFS’s main challenges and concludes that the new Strategy is designed to pave the way for the creation of a more effective anti-fraud policy for the protection of the EU’s financial interests. However, a strong commitment and continuous effort by the relevant stakeholders is necessary for an effective implementation.

The EPPO was established by Regulation 2017/1939, which entered into force on 20 November 2017, under enhanced cooperation to fight crimes affecting the Union budget. The Office is currently in the set-up phase with the aim of becoming operational at the end of 2020. On 12 September 2018, the Commission published a Communication on the extension of the EPPO’s competences to cross-border terrorist crimes and invited the European Council to take this initiative forward at the informal summit in Sibiu on 9 May 2019. As a single, decentralised European prosecution office, the EPPO could become an effective tool in investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgement terrorist crimes and add a European dimension to the current efforts. Compared to the present horizontal, multinational approach, the EPPO would create a vertical, European relationship amongst the Member States and Union actors. This could be a decisive qualitative improvement, which would help overcoming the … Read more

After implementation of Directive 2014/41 by the EU Member States (bound by the Directive) in 2017 and the first half of 2018, the European Investigation Order (EIO) has become the core instrument for obtaining evidence located in another EU Member State. The EIO simplifies and accelerates cross-border investigations, but practical and legal challenges remain. Such challenges as well as first experiences and best practices in the application of the EIO were discussed among practitioners at a meeting organised by Eurojust in September 2018. This article summarises the main results of the meeting.
Participants acknowledged the need to interpret national law in light of EU law, in line with the principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust, but also underlined the challenge of constantly searching for legally sound and practically feasible solutions between different national legal systems. They agreed on the importance of an overall pragmatic and flexible approach. Views diverged … Read more

The European Investigation Order (EIO) is a major step forward in judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the EU. It has become the main legal tool to gather trans-border evidence, replacing the traditional MLA conventions mainly used for this purpose so far. It co-exists with other instruments, however, which can also be used under certain conditions. This article analyses the EIO Directive and draws rules that guide practitioners as to when EIOs are necessary, when they are merely convenient, and when they cannot be used at all. The article defines a Basic Rule, a Replacement Rule, and a Compatibility Rule, which aim at making the legal scenario easier for practitioners to navigate. In an excursus, the article also deals with the question whether the speciality principle as known in tradition mutual legal assistance cooperation is also applicable to the EIO. The author argues that the speciality principle has not been … Read more

The right of access to the case materials (Art. 7 of Directive 2012/13/EU) is crucial to enable an effective defence and ensure equality of arms in criminal proceedings. However, when it comes to the pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings, Art. 7 of Directive 2012/13/EU is not clear about the timing of access, the scope of access, and about the possible derogations from providing access to suspects and their counsel.
This article outlines the questions that, in our opinion, should most urgently be posed to the CJEU concerning the interpretation of Art. 7 in the context of pre-trial proceedings, e.g.: What are the documents that are “essential for challenging effectively” the lawfulness of arrest and detention under Art. 7(1)? Do the grounds for derogation under Art. 7(4) apply to Art. 7(1)? How should the derogation grounds under Art. 7(4) be understood? Do Art. 7(2) and (3) apply at the pre-trial stages … Read more