Search results

This article provides an overview of current national, European, and international legal efforts to regulate cross-border access to electronic evidence. At the level of the EU, it was recently decided to harmonise the legal systems of the Member States by means of regulations and directives, …

The new EU Regulation on electronic evidence in criminal proceedings not only aims to enhance cross-border access to electronic evidence but also raises concerns regarding privacy, fundamental rights, and accountability. This article focuses on three key issues.
First, it is argued that the establishment of …

Dear Readers, On 12 July 2023, after more than five years of, in part, very fraught negotiations, the European Parliament and the Council signed the so-called “e-evidence package”. This marked the turning point in the cooperation between law enforcement authorities and service providers. Criminal offences prepared and carried out exclusively offline are a thing of the past, which is why electronic evidence is becoming increasingly important for law enforcement authorities. However, e-evidence is frequently stored in another State and, until now, cross-border access to such evidence was often very burdensome, often resulting in possibly already getting lost and causing investigations…

The overall number of cases of fraud and irregularities detected and reported slightly increased in 2022. Closer coordination and increased digitalisation of the fight against fraud is needed. These are the main finding of the annual PIF report that was presented end of July 2023.

On 13 July 2023, Advocate General (AG) Laila Medina provided her opinion in an appeal case in which compensation due to false accusations from the part of OLAF is claimed. The AG, inter alia, clarified that the GC must carry out an examination on the plausibility of information giving rise to criminal liability and put forward by OLAF to the national judicial authorities.

The General Court rules on the scope of the duty of diligence if OLAF reports were leaked to the press. The GC dismissed the action for non-contractual liability arguing that the duty to maintain confidentiality of OLAF reports does not include the duty to publicly condemn a leak and to put an end to the dissemination of false information.