The steps forward of the European Communities or of the European Union have always been quite associated with the names of the cities where the crucial decisions − very often long prepared in advance in Brussels, Strasbourg or elsewhere − were presumed having been finally taken: Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice, Lisbon… The same is true of the turning points in the field of Justice and Home Affairs after the entry into force, in November 1993, of the Treaty establishing the European Union (the Maastricht Treaty). Immediately after the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, on 1st of May 1999,… Read more

The article reflects on the trajectory of EU criminal law and the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) after the Lisbon Treaty and the Stockholm Programme, in view of the upcoming “Rome Programme” (2015–2020). Herlin-Karnell identifies eight key points for the future: strengthening the rule of law as the backbone of AFSJ; adopting a holistic approach linking criminal law to the wider acquis; building mutual trust through mutual recognition; addressing border control and migration in relation to criminal law; regulating cybercrime and safeguarding data protection; ensuring effective application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; dealing with opt-outs and differentiated integration; and clarifying the external dimension and role of EU agencies. The article concludes that the Rome Programme should serve as an opportunity to reaffirm rule of law and human rights as guiding principles for EU criminal law.

The article traces the genesis, negotiations, and content of Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and European Arrest Warrant (EAW) proceedings. Inspired by Salduz case law, the Directive sets detailed rules on access to a lawyer from the earliest stages of proceedings, including during questioning and investigative acts, and introduces safeguards on confidentiality, derogations, and remedies. It also innovates by granting requested persons in EAW cases the right to appoint a lawyer in the issuing state. The author highlights the political compromises among Member States and with the European Parliament, noting that the Directive constitutes a milestone in the EU roadmap on procedural rights, balancing high protection standards with prosecutorial interests.

The article reflects on the post-Lisbon framework for EU criminal policy. While the Treaties introduced QMV and co-decision, they also restricted competences to certain procedural and substantive aspects under the principle of conferral. Nilsson warns against legislative lethargy under the “Festina Lente” approach and calls for further work in evaluation, judicial training (including a proposed “Eurotrain”), crime prevention, and harmonisation of offences such as corruption, money laundering, and organised crime. He stresses that fragmented approximation undermines mutual trust and effectiveness, and argues that long-term development will require Treaty change to overcome the casuistic limits of Arts. 82–83 TFEU. Ultimately, the EU must decide between deeper integration towards federal-style criminal law or maintaining fragmented national systems with cautious, piecemeal approximation.

The article analyses how national and international developments have reshaped the roles of the Dutch judge of instruction and the public prosecutor in international judicial cooperation. Traditionally, the judge of instruction controlled preliminary investigations and the use of coercive measures, also in cross-border cases. With the abolition of the preliminary investigation and the expansion of prosecutorial powers, the public prosecutor has become the central authority, particularly in extradition matters, the European Arrest Warrant, and the European Evidence Warrant. The author further discusses the implications of the EPPO initiative, highlighting the risks of political influence over ancillary competence and suggesting that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office should have full competence for offences linked to the protection of the EU’s financial interests.