Search results

On 22 March, the CJEU (Grand Chamber) delivered two important judgments on the duplication of proceedings and penalties of a criminal nature in competition law. The Court specified the protection against double jeopardy provided in Art. 50 CFR. It clarified that the ne bis in idem guarantee has limits and is not absolute. In essence, criteria for the duplication of punitive proceedings developed in 2018 rulings are applied in competition law cases.

On 5 May 2022, the CJEU ruled on the limits of the ne bis in idem principle enshrined in Art. 50 CFR under the French legal system. Accordingly, EU law does not preclude a duplication of criminal penalties and administrative sanctions with a criminal nature if it is determined by national provisions and foreseeable settled case-law of the supreme court.

In the case C-804/21 PPU (C and CD), the CJEU had the opportunity to decide on the consequences of the time limits set out in Art. 23 of the Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant (FD EAW). Pursuant to Art. 23 …

In a judgment of 19 May 2022, the CJEU clarified when an accused can be tried in his/her absence and a decision in absentia taken against him can be enforced.The case (C-569/20) concerns a situation before the Specialised Criminal Court in …

In a landmark ruling of 21 June 2022, the CJEU (Grand Chamber), upheld the EU’s regime to collect and use records of travellers, provided that it is strictly interpreted in line with the EU’s fundamental rights. In addition, indiscriminate processing of the data in cases of flights carried out only within the EU is banned unless there is a threat of terrorism. In general, the passengers’ data must also be deleted after six months at the latest.

On 5 April 2022, the CJEU added another chapter to the long history of the admissibility of data retention in the EU. In a case concerning the data retention law in Ireland, the CJEU confirmed that general and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data relating to electronic communication is contrary to Union law even if it intends to combat serious crime.

The first case concerning the interpretation of Regulation 2017/1939 on the establishment of the EPPO is at the CJEU. In a reference for preliminary ruling by an Austria court guidance by the CJEU is sought as to which extent judicial review can be carried out in the assisting Member State if it comes to cross-border investigations within the EPPO regime.

On 7 June 2022, Regulation (EU) 2021/784 on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online became applicable. From now on internet companies in the EU must take swift measures to prevent the misuse of their services for dissemination of terrorist content.

In its Special Report 14/2022 (published on 4 July 2022), the European Court of Auditors (ECA) examined different patterns of fraud in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the appropriateness of the Commission’s responses to the fraud risks in agricultural spending. CAP is the largest …

An ECA report concluded that the limitations of the legal framework hampered the Commission’s supervision of free movement restrictions imposed by the Member States during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020/2021. Furthermore, the Commission did not exercise proper scrutiny to ensure that internal border controls complied with the Schengen legislation.