Search results

Dear Readers, EU money must not be pocketed by criminals. We have a federal budget – with money coming from the 28 EU Member States – and, as a consequence, we also need federal laws to protect this budget. This is why the European Commission proposed a Directive on the protection of the EU’s financial interests in July 2012. The new EU-wide rules aim to achieve two objectives: First, to introduce common definitions of fraud throughout the EU, making sure that fraud against the EU budget is considered a crime everywhere in the EU. Second, to set a minimum level…

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 …

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,…

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 …

Dear Readers, When the Union prepares itself to negotiate and adopt new strategic guidelines on the basis of Art. 68 TFEU, probably already in June 2014, it could be useful to consider what the Union should do for the development of its criminal policy (provided it could be said the Union has one). Looking back on the development of the EU criminal law since the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam on 1 May 1999, some useful conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, the EU criminal law is a very recent phenomenon in the development of EU law in…

In spring of 2014, the Court of Justice published two rulings that are remarkable for different reasons and share one common trait: both judgments fall short of expectations. One of the tasks of the Court of Justice is interpretation of EU legal acts by means of preliminary rulings. National judges may request the Court to clarify provisions of EU law or even the validity of an EU legal instrument. In the past decades, this has led to several landmark rulings that have shaped EU law.1 Through its jurisprudence, the Court has established a number of fundamental principles by giving elaborate…

I. Introduction About ten years ago, the Netherlands changed its extradition procedure governing the relationship with other EU Member States. Since 11 May 2004, extradition with other EU Member States is regulated under the Surrender of Persons Act (Overleveringswet).1 Since that date, requests for extradition by other EU Member States that have implemented the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant2 fall under a specific structure that is different from the classic structure laid down in the Dutch Extradition Act (Uitleveringswet).3 Under this classic structure, a request for extradition is dealt with by the Dutch Minister of Safety and Justice.…

The judicial control of the activities of prosecutors within criminal proceedings constitutes an important issue in every legal system. It is particularly important at the pre-trail stage of proceedings, when the prosecutor is responsible for many actions, and of lesser importance at the judicial stage of the proceedings, when the court takes over. However, the issue of judicial control of prosecutors’ actions may warrant special attention once the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter the “EPPO”) is established.1 When it comes to prosecutorial actions, the EPPO will be subjected to the control of the national courts.2 Therefore, it will be necessary…

The enforcement of EU law is traditionally based on indirect enforcement; this means that, for the achievement of policy goals, the EU relies on the institutional and procedural design in the jurisdictions of the Member States. This traditional approach has mainly been interpreted as procedural autonomy of the Member States. Those who read this procedural autonomy as a part of the national order that is reserved to the sovereignty of the nation states are on the wrong track. In fact, from the very beginning, the European Court of Justice has made clear that this procedural autonomy of the Member States…

The article analyses VAT carousel fraud as a complex and transnational scheme that severely damages Member States’ treasuries and the EU budget. Using the Italian context as a case study, it explains the fraud mechanism, the related criminal offences under Italian law (fraudulent declaration and …