Artikel: The Players in the Protection of the EU’s Financial Interests

Cooperation between authorities conducting administrative investigations and those conducting criminal investigations at both the EU and Member State levels is essential to ensure a high level of protection in view of the EU's financial interests. However, the legal framework governing the role and competences of individual authorities at the EU level seems much clearer than the corresponding national legal frameworks of the Member States. Indeed, at the Member State level, the legal frameworks for conducting investigations, whether administrative or criminal, significantly differ from Member State to Member State. Likewise, there is no clear legal framework at the EU level that defines and sets standards regarding the mandatory control mechanisms that must be established at the level of the entire system for the protection of the EU’s financial interests in the Member States. This also applies in relation to the players that need to be involved in the protection of the EU's financial interests. The article tackles the issue of the necessity to harmonise both criminal and administrative legislation at the level of Member States as well as the need for a clear definition of which players should be involved in the protection of the EU budget.

Read More
Print Friendly and PDF ^

HvJ EU: advocaat mag niet zonder meer uurtarief rekenen

Een advocaat die een consument een uurtarief in rekening brengt zonder vooraf een indicatie te geven van de totale kosten, handelt in strijd met het Unierecht. Dat is de strekking van een uitspraak van het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie over een zaak in Litouwen.

Read More
Print Friendly and PDF ^

Artikel: Cooperation between the European Commission and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office

The European Commission and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) have a joint interest in effectively fighting, and mitigating the effects of, crimes against the EU’s financial interests. In 2021, they concluded an agreement to translate this mutual interest into concrete cooperation measures. Their cooperation is unique in the EU’s anti-fraud architecture, having regard to the Commission’s specific responsibility for managing and protecting the EU budget and the EPPO’s novel nature as the first EU body with criminal prosecution tasks. This article sets off the Commission’s initial negotiation objectives against the results and future outlook of their mutual cooperation.

Read More
Print Friendly and PDF ^

Artikel: The Players in the Protection of the EU’s Financial Interests

Cooperation between authorities conducting administrative investigations and those conducting criminal investigations at both the EU and Member State levels is essential to ensure a high level of protection in view of the EU's financial interests. However, the legal framework governing the role and competences of individual authorities at the EU level seems much clearer than the corresponding national legal frameworks of the Member States. Indeed, at the Member State level, the legal frameworks for conducting investigations, whether administrative or criminal, significantly differ from Member State to Member State. Likewise, there is no clear legal framework at the EU level that defines and sets standards regarding the mandatory control mechanisms that must be established at the level of the entire system for the protection of the EU’s financial interests in the Member States. This also applies in relation to the players that need to be involved in the protection of the EU's financial interests. The article tackles the issue of the necessity to harmonise both criminal and administrative legislation at the level of Member States as well as the need for a clear definition of which players should be involved in the protection of the EU budget.

Read More
Print Friendly and PDF ^

Artikel: Reflections on the place of criminal law in the European construction

Although the place of EU criminal law in the European construction has become incontestable today, it has historically been a far from obvious one. In its origins and development, two different rationales can be distinguished: a functional one aimed at using criminal law instruments to address specific cross-border crime challenges generated or enhanced by the progress of EU integration in other fields, and a constitutional one implying the use of criminal law also to further enhance the respect and promotion of EU common values. While the first rationale has been dominant from the outset, the second has emerged only gradually. For the sake of effectiveness, legitimacy and mutual trust, both rationales should equally drive the further development of EU criminal law. Yet prospects for a stronger affirmation of the constitutional rationale are weakened by current EU rule of law and democratic leadership challenges.

Read More
Print Friendly and PDF ^