I. Introductory Remarks Since its establishment in 1999, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has had the purpose of increasing the effectiveness of the fight against fraud and other illegal activities detrimental to the financial interests of the Union.1 It also has the double task of carrying out administrative investigations concerning fraud, corruption, and any other illegal activity affecting the EU’s financial interests and of acting as Commission service responsible for developing EU anti‑fraud policies. In its investigative function, OLAF has been operating under a legal framework that has evolved over time. OLAF conducts external investigations into areas of EU expenditure... Read more

I. Introduction: Context of the Evaluation of Regulation 883/2013 In 1999, the Commission established the European Anti-Fraud Office – OLAF – to give a deterrent answer to fraud, corruption, and other illegal activities detrimental to the financial interests of the Union.1 OLAF’s primary instrument to provide such deterrence is its ability to conduct administrative investigations in the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies (during internal investigations) and in the Member States (during external investigations).2 Initially OLAF conducted its investigations under the overarching framework of Regulations 1073/1999 and 1074/1999: the former covered the EC; the latter covered Euratom.3 After a number... Read more

I. Introductory Remarks: OLAF and the Setting of the EPPO There were certain periods in the past that brought expectations of change in the legal position and powers of OLAF (hereinafter also referred to as “the Office”) together with the entire layout of the system of protection of the Union’s financial interests. Since establishment of the Office, the expected changes seemed to be inextricably linked with the destiny of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (the “EPPO”). The first proposals concerning the project of the European Prosecutor1 were later rejected, however, and had no effect on functioning of OLAF. Discussions affecting... Read more

Data protection is one of today's most important challenges. Cross-border crime, terrorist risks, and new technologies all contribute to an increase in the collection and movement of personal data. This contribution first gives an overview of the content of the recently reformed European data protection law, i.e. the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It also provides an analysis of Directive 2016/680, which regulates the specific protection of personal data in the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences as well as the enforcement of criminal penalties. The article further outlines current projects and new developments regarding data transmission between intelligence agencies and prevention/prosecution authorities. It also focuses on the principle of limitation for the purpose of data use as well as the "compatibility" of operation purposes as rules for restricting data processing. The paper concludes by recommending the creation of harmonised and clear rules for data transmission with the … Read more

The article summarises the recent references of German criminal courts to the ECJ seeking guidance on the interpretation of the German procedure for penal orders (Strafbefehlsverfahren). Conformity was sought with regard to the EU directives on the right to interpretation/translation and the right to information. The author takes a critical position on the proposed solutions. He argues for better coherence with ECtHR case law on the person's rights and with existing, facilitated MLA procedures on the cross-border notification of judicial documents.

I. Introduction Directive 2014/41/EU regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters1 was approved in April 2014 and regulates a new instrument for the obtaining of evidence. The main features of the European Investigation Order (hereinafter EIO) are: It covers all types of evidence; It contains time limits for the enforcement of mutual legal assistance requests; It limits the grounds for refusal; It can be used either to carry out investigatory measures in the executing state or to obtain evidence that is already in the state’s possession.2 The obtaining of evidence in criminal proceedings is a highly sensitive matter from... Read more