How can the European Union be efficiently compensated for damage inflicted by criminal offences affecting its financial interests? The EU’s legislative framework, in particular the EPPO Regulation, states that EU Member States must take the necessary steps to confiscate, for the benefit of the Union, the proceeds of such criminal offences and to compensate for the damage caused by them. Given the binding force of the Regulation, these are even positive legal obligations for the Member States. According to the author, a minor adjustment in supranational and Member State legislation would suffice to achieve these objectives in a more efficient manner. He proposes, inter alia, including the proceeds of confiscation in the traditional own resources of the Union’s budget. He also examines how Belgian legislation could be adapted such that the Union is effectively compensated for the damage it suffers from criminal offences affecting its financial interests.

The new EU Regulation on electronic evidence in criminal proceedings not only aims to enhance cross-border access to electronic evidence but also raises concerns regarding privacy, fundamental rights, and accountability. This article focuses on three key issues.
First, it is argued that the establishment of a direct cooperation framework between the issuing state and private service providers regarding data of citizens from other Member States reinterprets Art. 82 TFEU and circumvents the traditional review and scrutiny by the judicial authorities of the enforcing state, compromising transparency and individual rights.
Second, the rules in the Regulation that eliminate the requirement of dual criminality for certain categories of electronic evidence potentially lead to the collection of data for conducts that may not be criminalized in the enforcing state. In addition, the absence of the principle of speciality allows for the unintended use of evidence acquired through cooperation.
Third, the individuals' rights to privacy and … Read more

In April 2021, the European Commission put forward a proposal for a Regulation to harmonise rules on artificial intelligence (AI) across the EU, including AI in the context of law enforcement. Its horizontal character raised concerns in the police community, prompting a response by some Member States arguing for a separate legal act on the use of AI by law enforcement agencies. Two controversial components that have drawn the attention of the Council of the EU and the European Parliament are remote biometric identification and emotion recognition technologies. While the Council’s general approach aligns with the Commission’s proposal to balance law enforcement and human rights protection, the European Parliament pursues a narrower approach, advocating for the prohibition of real-time remote biometric recognition and emotion inference applications. It goes without saying that the outcome of the ongoing inter-institutional negotiations (trilogue) between the EU co-legislators and the Commission is being anticipated by … Read more

Electronic evidence (e-evidence) is necessary and relevant with regard to many cases of serious, organised, or cross-border crime. This is also true for cases investigated by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). This article outlines the current legal framework, procedures, and mechanisms available to the EPPO for the collection of e-evidence in different case scenarios. It also takes into account the requirements for the protection of personal data, in particular arising in the transfer of operational data to authorities and private parties in third countries.

The first preliminary ruling request concerning the EPPO Regulation raises several interesting questions regarding the interpretation of its Art. 31 on cross-border investigations. Advocate General Ćapeta presented her Opinion and proposals to the Court of Justice of the European Union on 22 June 2023. Her analysis shows the difficulties that the Court will presumably face when trying to find proper answers to the questions raised by the Higher Regional Court of Vienna (Austria), as it is difficult to reconcile the wording and context of its provisions and its legislative history with the Union legislator’s presumed objectives, namely, to establish an efficient system for cross-border cooperation. The author concludes that a proper solution will in any case require an amendment of Art. 31 by the Union legislator. In particular, it should be up to the legislator to clarify the scope of review to be undertaken in the course of any ex … Read more

In EU Member States, tax administrations are the public organs that make most use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) systems to perform State prerogatives. At least 18 EU Member States frequently use AI tax enforcement systems. In certain areas of taxation, such as value-added tax, AI and ML are already used throughout the EU. These systems perform a relatively broad range of tasks, reflecting the wide array of prerogatives of the administration itself. Generally, these different systems can be categorized into two archetypes: coercive and non-coercive AI systems. While non-coercive AI tax systems do not generate significant risks of conflict with taxpayers’ fundamental rights, coercive AI tax systems used for tax enforcement bring about serious risks of conflict with taxpayers’ fundamental rights and tax procedure as a whole. These risks have already materialised in a number of cases and have even led to serious scandals, such as … Read more