Search results

I. Introduction When the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) was created in 1999, it was in a context of determination that criminal behaviour to the detriment of the financial interests of the European Communities should face decisive reaction, but the focus was upon the creation of a body which was conclusively administrative in nature.1 Although the need to address behaviour viewed as harmful and to prevent such behaviour in the future was strongly outlined, the methods chosen to achieve this were explicitly of this regulatory nature. One was not, however, blind to the nature of the territory to which OLAF’s work…

This article outlines the framework of the European Community’s primary and secondary law regarding the protection of its financial interests. It starts in part I with an historical review ranging from the first attempts of the Commission to harmonise the criminal law of the Member States with regards to the fight against fraud detrimental to the EC budget, the development of the Anti-Fraud Coordination Unit (UCLAF) and the embedding of the financial interests in the Maastricht Treaty. The article continues with a presentation of the existing legal framework for the protection of the EC’s financial interests in part II. First,…

The article aims at pointing out the fundamental contributions made by the area of the protection of the financial interests (PFI) of the European Community to the establishment and development of a criminal law system of the European Union; a contribution which still continues.
From …

OLAF is the only Community body whose tasks include administrative investigations on behaviour detrimental to the financial interests of the EU that may have “criminal” and “trans-national” aspects simultaneously. Trans-national European crime requires new solutions to be found in what is commonly referred to as European criminal law. For this reason the protection of financial interests has been the motor of the emerging European criminal law and continues to play a vital role.1 Even before the existence of OLAF, its predecessor, the unit charged with the protection of the financial interests within the Commission (UCLAF), put forward first instruments on…

The German Federal Constitutional Court was asked to decide upon the constitutional compatibility of the changes foreseen by the Treaty of Lisbon and its implementation via various acts of legislation by the German parliamentary organs.1 Above all, the complainants (inter alia, a number of Members of the German Bundestag and the parliamentary group “DIE LINKE”) argued for constitutional breaches because, in their view, the federal government delegated powers to the EU that it was not competent to do and to such an extent as to undermine the authority of the Federal parliamentary organs (the Bundestag and the Bundesrat). The Constitutional…

The author argues that the European Evidence Warrant (EEW) has the potential to speed up national investigations in the areas of the protection of the financial interests of the European Union. This is because the legislator has taken care to include a wide range of related offences, exempting them from the requirement of double criminality. Evidence will have to be produced within 60 days of receipt of the EEW. However, it must be remembered that the EEW only concerns a narrow range of evidence and that further mutual recognition provisions will have to be adopted if a wider range of…

Dear Readers, I am delighted to contribute the editorial to this new issue of eucrim, which covers different aspects of European criminal procedural law and judicial cooperation within the European Union. Cooperation in criminal matters among the Member States tackles various questions of a different nature, spanning legal, political, theoretical, and practical issues. In contrary to the practice in civil matters, cooperation in criminal matters proves to be more difficult, mainly due to the “traditional” approach linked with the sovereignty of each State in respect of its criminal legislation. However, ideas that have been adopted and put into practice in…

I. Creation of an Area of Mutual Recognition of Judicial Decisions in Criminal Matters The adoption of Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions is a next step in the process of creating a common criminal procedural area within the European Union.1 The principle of mutual recognition is fast becoming a foundation of cooperation in criminal matters among the EU Member States. From the present stage of development of the European Union, it has…

Within a relatively short period of time, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has had the opportunity to address the issue of a transnational ne bis in idem principle in several cases in the EU, and a legislative proposal was also put forward on this matter.1 The increased attention paid to the transnational application of the ne bis in idem principle shows that the judicial authorities of the EU Member States are facing a growing number of cases that simultaneously involve several jurisdictions. The present article focuses on the ne bis in idem principle in the context of an Area…

I. Introduction Concerns about the excessive length of proceedings, especially in criminal cases, are not new, although they are still, unfortunately, very current. Already in the Roman law of Justinian, a two-year limit for the duration of criminal cases was established1. However, it was not until the mid-twentieth century when trial within a reasonable time was established as a fundamental right in Europe. As is well-known, Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) enshrined the right to trial within a reasonable time as part of the right to a "fair trial" and, according to Article 13, Member…