In March 2010, the authors were both appointed as rapporteurs of the draft Directive of the Council and the European Parliament on the European Protection Order (hereinafter EPO). This initiative was led by the Spanish Presidency, which found enough support within the Member States to activate the new powers conferred by the Lisbon Treaty in criminal matters. This proposal legally emerged from the Stockholm Programme guidelines adopted by the European Council on December 2009, which is a 5-year plan for the EU to settle on a common policy for justice and home affairs, including fundamental rights and the protection of citizens. These guidelines indicate that the area of freedom, security and justice must, above all, be a single area where fundamental rights and freedoms are protected. Moreover, mutual trust between authorities and services in the different Member States is seen as the basis for efficient cooperation in this area and as one of the main challenges in the future. Judicial cooperation in general, especially in criminal matters, is one of the pillars enabling mutual trust and, according to Art. 82(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), shall be based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgements and judicial decisions.

This article focuses on the different implementation solutions of mutual recognition framework decisions, based on a study of the first four framework decisions and their implementation in the Nordic Member States. The Lisbon Treaty changed the environment of EU criminal law and explicitly mentions mutual recognition in Art. 82(1) TFEU. This article also briefly analyses the change towards using either directives or regulations as mutual recognition instruments.Through transformation, the most commonly used form of implementation, the framework decisions are transformed into national legislation and into some of the rules on cooperation in criminal matters in the respective national legal systems. Transformation entails modifying other relevant national legislation to correspond with the implementing national legislation.

The budget of the EU for 2010 amounted to over €140 billion, a sum greater than the national budget of 20 of the 27 Member States of the Union for the same year. Such a large amount of money calls for sound financial management and presents a significant risk of fraud and corruption. The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is the body tasked with safeguarding the financial interests of the EU. Established in 1999 by a Commission Decision, its main task is to fight illegal activities that could have a detrimental effect upon the EU budget. Although formally a part of the Commission, OLAF enjoys full independence when conducting investigations. It must be noted, however, that in practicing its independence, the Office is accountable to a number of EU bodies. OLAF’s accountability can be of a disciplinary, political, auditable, administrative, and judicial nature.

The first Association was formally constituted in Rome in October 1990. Today, there are 32 associations altogether, representing all the Member States (except Cyprus), plus Croatia, San Marino, Switzerland, and Turkey. AGON, the bulletin of the Associations, was first published in April 1993. It was replaced by eucrim in 2006. The Associations meanwhile function as a network and serve as a forum in the field of European criminal law and the protection of the financial interests of the European Union. They are made up of representatives from the legal and judicial professions (academics and practitioners) as well as other law enforcement agencies (police, inspection departments, etc.). Their mission is based on a series of guiding principles established in the early nineties and highlighting their structure, functions, role, objectives, and activities. Twenty years later, in the light of experience gained and the new environment provided by the Lisbon Treaty, it is appropriate to reflect upon the future role of the Associations in the EU legal space. To this effect, new guidelines were agreed upon among the Associations’ delegates in May 2011 concerning the structure, role, and priorities of the Associations.