The article traces the genesis and adoption of Directive (EU) 2016/343 on the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at trial, the fourth measure under the Roadmap on procedural rights. Cras and Erbežnik outline the political debates in Council and Parliament, the compromise reached in trilogues, and the Directive’s main provisions: protection against premature public references to guilt, rules on presentation of suspects, allocation of the burden of proof, the right to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself, safeguards on trials in absentia, and remedies for violations. The Directive largely codifies ECtHR case law while setting EU minimum standards, balancing mutual trust with respect for national legal traditions.

The article explains the genesis and content of Directive (EU) 2016/800 on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused in criminal proceedings, the fifth measure of the Roadmap on procedural rights. Cras outlines the legislative negotiations and comments on selected provisions: scope and definition of children, the right to information, mandatory assistance by a lawyer with legal aid, individual assessment, medical examination, audio-visual recording of questioning, safeguards during deprivation of liberty, protection of privacy, and participation in court hearings. The Directive, inspired by international standards such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, introduces binding EU minimum rules and strengthens child-friendly justice, though compromises mean that some protections remain limited.

In the aftermath of the economic crisis, that began in 2007 in the U.S.A. and spread to the European economy, weakening the EU, every discussion about its causes and how to address them was linked to the absence of a suitable supervisory1 framework. The EU has been accused of lacking sufficient legal tools both at a precautionary level as well as for crisis management.2 Even though the internal market of financial services had been making progress, up until 2007 there were no truly centralized3 mechanisms and tools to supervise financial activities, identify their complexity, their risks and the interconnections between… Read more

The article examines the concept and scope of criminal (and punitive administrative) liability of heads of business in protecting the EU’s financial interests. While the 1995 PIF Convention innovatively introduced such liability, the subsequent PIF Directive dropped it, leaving a fragmented legal landscape across Member States. Ligeti contrasts this with developments in the financial sector, where post-crisis reforms (e.g., the UK Senior Managers’ Regime, CRD IV) strengthen individual liability of senior officials. She argues that inconsistent national approaches create enforcement gaps and undermine legal certainty for managers operating across borders. The article calls for a coherent EU framework that balances effective enforcement of PIF offences with the legal protection of individual heads of business.

The Evolving Nature of Financial Regulation Until the early 1970s, the various national systems of banking regulation had largely monetary objectives. Controls on commercial banking activity (including administratively set interest rates, quantitative limits on credit expansion, and reserve requirements) were imposed for the purpose of preventing the over- or under-expansion of the money and bank credit supply. In addition, in many countries, including the UK and France, the state sought to direct the flow of available credit towards certain economic areas and activities, and away from others. Another policy concern related to the conditions of competition within the banking industry;… Read more