Search results

On 16 September 2022, the EDPS requested the CJEU to annul two provisions of the newly amended Europol Regulation, which retroactively legalised Europol’s practice of processing large volumes of individuals’ personal data with no established link to criminal activity. This runs counter to the EDPS' order of January 2022.

The EU Forum of the Legal Professions is an initiative that aims to launch a structured dialogue among the representations of legal professions in Europe, where common challenges and concerns can be addressed and analysed, and a joint position can be formulated. This is an inter-professional platform of exchange, a collaborative and evolving project between the legal professions, where the Academy of European Law plays the role of a facilitator.

Mobile devices contain personal information including call history, text messages, e-mails, digital photographs, videos, calendar items, address books, passwords and credit card numbers. They can be useful as sources of digital evidence to be examined when criminal activities occur. This seminar aims to share advanced knowledge and to exchange experience and best practice between judges, prosecutors and lawyers in private practice who deal with criminal proceedings involving e-evidence.

According to AG Ćapeta, a European Arrest Warrant can be refused if the person concerned was absent in the proceedings revoking the suspension of the prison sentence or in the proceedings finding guilt and determining the sentence for the second offence that triggered the revocation. However, this is under the condition that no exceptional case as defined in Art. 4a(1)(a)-(d) applies in the case at issue.

In his opinion of 14 July 2022, AG Richard de la Tour took the view that a judicial authority cannot refuse to execute a European Arrest Warrant on the basis of the risk of violation of the right to a fair trial of the person sought if the existence of systemic or generalised deficiencies affecting the judicial system of the issuing Member State has not been demonstrated.

On 13 October 2022, the ECA published its statement on the EU's general budget in 2021. It found that errors in spending from the EU budget were on the rise and issued an adverse opinion in this regard. Furthermore, it is stressed that several risks exist in relation to the EU funds made available in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the war of aggression in Ukraine.

The Regional Court of Berlin referred several questions to the CJEU on the activities of law enforcement authorities in conjunction with the cracking of the EncroChat communications service. They relate to the interpretation of the EIO Directive. The Berlin court believes that the collection of data in the EncroChat operation was unlawful and that the data cannot be used as evidence in German criminal proceedings against persons who used EncroChat for criminal activities.

In a case that involves convictions in the context of the riots at the G8 summit in Genoa (Italy), the CJEU had occasion to determine the scope of the condition of double criminality in European arrest warrant cases. According to the judges in Luxembourg the executing authority does not need to assess the accordance of the legal interests protected by the criminal laws of the issuing and executing State.

On 28 October 2022, the CJEU held that a Serbian (a third country national) cannot be extradited from Germany to the United States if he had already been convicted for the same acts as those in the extradition request in another EU country (here: Slovenia). Art. 54 CISA also applies to non-EU citizens and must be taken into consideration even though a bilateral extradition treaty had limited the principle ne bis in idem to judgments handed down in the requested State only.

According to an opinion of 20 October 2022 by AG Szpunar, declarations made on the basis of Art. 55(1) CISA, which permit Member States to make exceptions from the ban of double jeopardy in Art. 54 CISA, no longer apply. They are not provided for by law and, moreover, Art. 55(1) CISA does not respect the essence of the principle ne bis in idem. The declarations should be put to rest.