In het NTM|NJCM-Bulletin analyseren Ellen Gijselaar en Anneloes Kuiper hoe de Nederlandse civiele rechter positieve verplichtingen onder artikel 8 EVRM toepast in hinder- en overlastzaken, met de Schiphol-zaak en de Varkenshouderijen-zaak als casussen. Zij concluderen dat de fair balance-test regelmatig te dun wordt gemotiveerd en onvoldoende aansluit bij de methodologie van het EHRM. Daarnaast signaleren zij dat de Staat en de rechter de margin of appreciation-doctrine oneigenlijk inzetten om nationale terughoudendheid te rechtvaardigen, terwijl deze doctrine uitsluitend de verhouding tussen het EHRM en de Verdragsstaten regelt. De auteurs pleiten voor een actievere rechterlijke dialoog met het EHRM en het betrekken van internationale normen, zoals WHO-richtlijnen, bij de vaststelling van het beschermingsniveau.

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.