Ured europskog javnog tužitelja između prava EU-a i nacionalnog prava: izazov učinkovite sudske zaštite

Even though the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) aims to Europeanise prosecution, the relationship between EU and national law is not always clear, and many areas concerning the EPPO are left to national laws to regulate. As a consequence, effective judicial protection and remedies are not secured in the EPPO Regulation. Bearing in mind that the EPPO is a European agency, fundamental rights and the rule of law must be safeguarded in its operation. The focus of this article is on three levels of effective judicial protection in the operation of the Regulation at the EU level: preliminary questions before the CJEU, EU benchmarks on the rights of the defence, and the relationship between the EPPO and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). The article aims to shed light on the gaps in, but also on the potential avenues for, effective judicial protection in the context of the operation of the EPPO.Cilj je ovog članka rasvijetliti propuste, ali i postojeće mogućnosti osiguranja sudske zaštite temeljnih prava u kontekstu djelovanja Ureda europskog javnog tužitelja. Iako je Ured EJT-a europsko tijelo postupka, zaštita temeljnih ljudskih prava na razini EU-a u svezi s njegovim djelovanjem Uredbom Vijeća (EU) 2017/1939 od 12. listopada 2017. o provedbi pojačane suradnje u vezi s osnivanjem Ureda europskog javnog tužitelja nije osigurana u dovoljnoj mjeri, već je uglavnom prepuštena nacionalnim pravnim sustavima i sudovima. Ni sam odnos između nacionalnog prava i prava EU-a nije u potpunosti razjašnjen. Članak se fokusira na tri nivoa osiguranja učinkovite sudske zaštite na razini EU-a u kontekstu Uredbe. U prvom dijelu razmatra se učinkovitost sudske zaštite pred Sudom Europske unije. Ta zaštita u stvarnosti je ograničena. Jurisdikcija Suda EU-a postoji samo u sporovima vezanima za naknadu štete koju je prouzročio Ured EJT-a prema čl. 268. UFEU-a, ima ograničenu ulogu u tužbama za poništavanje akata Ureda EJT-a prema čl. 263. UFEU-a pokrivajući samo odluke Ureda EJT-a o odbacivanju slučaja te mu se mogu postaviti preliminarna pitanja u određenim slučajevima. No upravo je posljednje ključno za nacionalne sudove u osiguranju učinkovite sudske zaštite u svezi s djelovanjem Ureda EJT-a. U drugom dijelu rada razmatra se primjenjivost minimalnih standarda prava obrane u kontekstu djelovanja Ureda EJT-a. Opseg prava osumnjičenih i optuženih osoba u djelovanju Ureda EJT-a minimalistički je uređen čl. 41. Uredbe o Uredu EJT-a. Provedbu te zaštite osiguravaju akteri na nacionalnoj razini u skladu s pravom EU-a i nacionalnim pravom. Uz osiguranje prava obrane i prava na pravično suđenje u skladu s Poveljom kao minimum bilo koji osumnjičenik ili optuženik u kaznenom postupku Ureda EJT-a imat će procesna prava predviđena pravom EU-a uključujući pravo na tumačenje i prijevod, pravo na informacije, pravo na pristup odvjetniku, pravo na pravnu pomoć i pretpostavku nedužnosti te pravo na šutnju. Od iznimne je važnosti zato i adekvatna implementacija relevantnih direktiva s obzirom na to da zaštitu osiguravaju nacionalna prava, a države članice uvijek mogu osigurati i višu razinu zaštite. Treći dio rada bavi se analizom pravnog okvira primjenjivog na odnos između Ureda EJT-a i Europskog ureda za borbu protiv prijevara, OLAF-a. Uredba o Uredu EJT-a predviđa suradnju s OLAF-om. Tijekom istrage koju provodi Ured EJT-a Ured može zatražiti od OLAF-a informacije te stručnu i operativnu podršku, pomoć oko koordinacije određenih radnji nadležnih nacionalnih upravnih tijela i tijela Unije, kao i provođenje upravnih istraga. Iako Uredba o Uredu EJT-a uređuje suradnju s OLAF-om, potencijal te suradnje mnogo je širi. Autor napominje da se i u tom odnosu mora osigurati kontinuitet visoke razine zaštite prava. Zaključno autor upozorava na postojanje praznina u djelotvornoj sudskoj zaštiti u trenutačnom pravnom okviru. Ured EJT-a treba tretirati kao europsko tijelo čiji rad mora biti poduprt čvrstom zaštitom temeljnih prava i zaštitnim mjerama vladavine prava uopće

Counterterrorism and the rule of law in an evolving European Union: Plus Ça Change ?

By taking the European Union (EU) as a principal focal point, this chapter will evaluate critically the rule of law challenges arising from the production and operation of counterterrorism norms. The article will focus on four case studies, two involving the rule of law ex ante (at the stage of adoption of EU law) and two involving the rule of law ex post (looking at its impact). In terms of ex ante rule of law challenges, the chapter will analyse the production of binding standards by the global executive and the trickle-down effect of these standards at the regional, EU and national level and the limits of scrutiny and justification of counterterrorism legislation on emergency grounds. In terms of rule of law ex post, the chapter will examine challenges of counterterrorism law to the principle of legality via over-criminalisation and the adoption of vague and broad definitions of terrorism, as well as challenges to the right to a fair trial and principle of effective judicial protection resulting from state arbitrariness in the mechanism of producing terrorist sanctions. The contribution will question whether the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, and the process of constitutionalisation of criminal law it entailed, has made a difference regarding the compliance of EU counterterrorism law with the rule of law. </jats:p

Money laundering counter-measures in the European Union: a new paradigm of security governance versus fundamental legal principles

The past decade witnessed the emergence in the European Union of a comprehensive legal framework aimed at countering money laundering. The aim of the thesis is to place these measures in context, by examining their evolution in the light of parallel developments in the fields of international relations and crime prevention and control. Through the employment of an interdisciplinary approach, it is demonstrated that the development of money laundering counter-measures in the European Union is inextricably linked with the reconceptualisation of security in the international arena, now extending beyond the narrow state/military realm and including threats such as organised crime and, related to that, money laundering. Money laundering counter-measures are thus legitimated as emergency measures deemed as necessary to address these newly perceived threats. In this context, and following international political pressure for the adoption of a global anti-money laundering framework, the European Union counter-measures constitute a new paradigm of security governance, achieved through three principal methods: criminalisation, consisting in the emergence of a new criminal offence of money laundering; responsibilisation, consisting in the mobilisation of the private sector to co-operate with the authorities in the fight against money laundering; and the emphasis on the administration of knowledge, through the establishment of new institutions, the financial intelligence units, with extensive powers to administer a wide range of information provided by the private sector. All three methods pose significant challenges to fundamental legal principles and ultimately, to well-established social transactions and bonds. The analysis will focus on these challenges, which become more acute in the light of the constant evolution of these measures. An attempt will thus be made to demonstrate that a 'securitised' anti-money laundering paradigm, which may serve as a mould for subsequent initiatives in the field of organised crime, has the potential to undermine the very essence of fundamental legal principles and rights. This is particularly the case in the European Union as the latter's ambitious position as an international security actor putting forward a security paradigm in the field of money laundering is not accompanied by analogous powers to protect fundamental rights. In view of these dangers, a call will be made for the 'de-securitisation' of money laundering counter-measures, through attempts towards a realistic and wellfounded estimation of the actual threat and the promotion of legal certainty and respect of fundamental legal principles in the drafting of new measures. At the same time, the imposition of security measures by the European Union must be accompanied by the constitutionalisation at the EU level of the protection of fundamental legal principles and human rights

Upholding the Rule of Law by Scrutinising Judicial Independence: The Irish Court’s request for a preliminary ruling on the European Arrest Warrant. CEPS Commentary 11 April 2018

On March 23rd, the Irish High Court sent an unprecedented request for a preliminary ruling before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the case Minister for Justice and Equality v Artur Celmer. The request raises a far-reaching question: Should a national judge surrender a criminal suspect pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued by a member state of the EU, in this specific case Poland, which is in breach of the rule of law

The End of the Transitional Period for Police and Criminal Justice Measures Adopted before the Lisbon Treaty: Who monitors trust in the European Criminal Justice area? CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 74, December 2014

This study examines the legal and political implications of the forthcoming end of the transitional period for the measures in the fields of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, as set out in Protocol 36 to the EU Treaties. This Protocol limits some of the most far-reaching innovations introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon over EU cooperation on Justice and Home Affairs for a period of five years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon (until 1 December 2014), and provides the UK with special ‘opt out/opt-in’ possibilities. The study focuses on the meaning of the transitional period for the wider European Criminal Justice area. The most far-reaching change emerging from the end of this transition will be the expansion of the European Commission and Luxembourg Court of Justice scrutiny powers over Member States’ implementation of EU criminal justice law. The possibility offered by Protocol 36 for the UK to opt out and opt back in to pre-Lisbon Treaty instruments poses serious challenges to a common EU area of justice by further institutionalising ‘over-flexible’ participation in criminal justice instruments. The study argues that in light of Article 82 TFEU the rights of the defence are now inextricably linked to the coherency and effective operation of the principle of mutual recognition of criminal decisions, and calls the European Parliament to request the UK to opt in EU Directives on suspects procedural rights as condition for the UK to ‘opt back in’ measures like the European Arrest Warrant

Criminal Justice and Police Cooperation between the EU and the UK after Brexit: Towards a principled and trust-based partnership. CEPS Task Force Reports

Brexit poses major challenges for future interaction between the EU and the UK in the areas of criminal justice and police cooperation. A new legal framework will be required to sustain the EU’s relations with the UK – an active participant in numerous EU criminal justice and police cooperation instruments – once it leaves the Union. The negotiations on the exit of the UK from the EU must grapple with the crucial question of how and to what extent can the two parties continue to maintain effective arrangements for fighting cross-border crime, while at the same time guaranteeing compliance with the rule of law and fundamental rights. This report is the result of intensive deliberations among members of a Task Force set up jointly by CEPS and the School of Law at Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), who met regularly throughout the first half of 2018. It examines the feasibility of retaining the current EU–UK framework for cooperation in these critical fields and explores possible alternatives to the status quo. It also delves into the conditions under which the UK could continue to participate in EU instruments and relevant EU agencies engaged in cooperation in criminal matters and to have access to justice and home affairs databases and other information-sharing tools. In their conclusions, the members offer a set of specific policy options for the EU and the UK to consider after Brexit with a view to developing an effective partnership in the areas of criminal justice and security based on trust and shared values