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

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

Immigration Control in an Era of Globalization: Deflecting Foreigners, Weakening Citizens, Strengthening the State

In stark contrast to the field of legislation on the rights of third country nationals or to the requirements and conditions for access to the territory of states, the field of the enforcement of immigration control has been increasingly subject to legal harmonization: either by the adoption of global law on immigration control or by the convergence of domestic law and policy in the field. This convergence is particularly marked when one compares legal responses to immigration control in the United States and the European Union, where globalization has been used to justify the extension of state power-by proclaiming state action necessary in order to address perceived global security threats-and the use of key features of globalization that may facilitate free movement such as the use of technology-in order to enhance immigration control. Globalization has led to the strengthening, rather than the weakening, of the state. This strengthening of the state has significant consequences not only for immigration but also for citizenship as expressed by both relations between individuals and between citizens and the state. By examining the global and transatlantic policy and legislative consensus on immigration control, this Article will cast light on the challenges the extension of state power that globalized immigration control entails for fundamental rights and the rule of law. Globalization and Migration Symposium, Indiana University Maurer School of Law, Bloomington, Indiana, April 7-8, 201

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

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

Raising the bar? Thoughts on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. CEPS Policy Insights No 2017/39, 30 November 2017

After almost four years of negotiation and 20 years of academic and political debate, the Council Regulation setting up the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) was approved in October 2017, in the framework of the enhanced cooperation established in April 2017. The creation of a European prosecuting authority is a historic achievement for the European Union, especially when a wave of populism – as epitomised by Brexit – has undermined the process of integration. The EPPO Regulation is probably the most ambitious instrument of EU law adopted so far, since it creates the first EU body with direct powers regarding individuals in the field of criminal law. The Office will be empowered to investigate and prosecute crimes affecting the financial interests of the EU. Recent calls, including those from Commission President Juncker and French President Macron, for an extension of the EPPO’s powers to cases of cross-border terrorism bode well for the likely acceptance of this Office in the EU in the years to come. Yet the final text of the Regulation raises several concerns, such as those relating to the impact of supranational investigations on human rights and, more generally, about the expected effectiveness of the Office, given its cumbersome and multi-layered architecture. This paper looks at the main provisions of the Regulation and the challenges it poses, focusing on the structure, powers, and competence of the EPPO. It also considers the judicial review of its acts, the protection of the rights of suspects and accused persons, and relations between the Office and its partners. The analysis shows that the Commission’s innovative vision of a centralised prosecution at EU level, with its echoes of federalism, has been watered down in negotiations in the Council and replaced with the usual intergovernmental, collegiate vision that underpins numerous EU judicial cooperation structures and instruments

Contrôle des étrangers, des passagers, des citoyens : surveillance et anti-terrorisme

Ces dernières années les demandes d’intensification de la surveillance et des contrôles du mouvement des personnes au niveau mondial se sont développées. Cet article examine cette intensification de la surveillance au sein de l’UE en analysant la législation obligeant les transporteurs à fournir les données personnelles des passagers aux services d’immigration, un accord entre l’UE et les Etats-Unis sur le transfert des « passenger name records » (PNR) aux autorités américaines, et les plans européens d’introduction de données biométriques aux passeports et visas et d’amélioration de l’interopérabilité des bases de données européennes (SIS et VIS notamment). Ces développements, justifiés par un discours de « guerre au terrorisme », élargissent le réseau de la surveillance et soulèvent un certain nombre de questions sur la légitimité, la démocratie, et la protection des droits fondamentaux dans l’UE. Ils apparaissent également en décalage avec le concept de l’UE comme espace sans frontières. Ce texte abordera ces questions en analysant les négociations, le contenu et les implications de telles initiatives.Recent years witnessed calls for the intensification of surveillance and the monitoring of people globally. This article will examine this intensification of surveillance in the European Union, by analysing legislation requiring carriers to transmit to immigration authorities passenger data, an agreement between the Community and the US on the transfer of passenger name records (PNR) to US authorities, and EU plans to introduce biometrics in passports and visas and enhance the interoperability of EU databases (such as SIS and VIS). These developments, justified by a 'war on terror' discourse, widen the net of surveillance and raise a number of questions regarding legitimacy, democracy and the protection of fundamental rights in the EU. They also appear to be at odds with the concept of the EU as a borderless area. The article will address these issues by analysing the negotiations, content and implications of these initiatives

O modelo europeu de cooperação judiciária em matéria penal: em busca de uma efetividade baseada em confiança merecida

The EU model of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters, based on a high level of presumed mutual trust among Member States and on the principle of mutual recognition resulting therefrom, purports to go beyond traditional models of cooperation by enabling simplicity and speed on a ‘no questions asked’ approach.  The European Arrest Warrant is emblematic in this respect. Nonetheless, the operation of this tool has not been a straightforward or uncomplicated task, in particular from the point of view of the interplay between mutual recognition and fundamental rights. This article analyses the evolution of such interaction, and how fundamental rights can act as either limits or drivers of mutual recognition. It aims to show how individual rights and guarantees have limited automatic recognition and sheer effectiveness, and, conversely, how the harmonisation of defence rights at the EU level can provide a basis for enhancing mutual trust and thus facilitating mutual recognition in criminal matters. In conclusion, it will be submitted that EU law can achieve effective judicial cooperation in criminal matters by moving from ‘blind’ to earned trust in Europe’s area of criminal justice.O modelo europeu de cooperação judiciária internacional em matéria penal, baseado em um elevado nível de confiança mútua presumida entre os Estados-Membros e no consequente princípio do reconhecimento mútuo, pretende ir além dos modelos tradicionais de cooperação, permitindo simplicidade e rapidez em uma perspectiva de “não se fazem perguntasâ€. O mandado de detenção europeu é emblemático dessa abordagem. No entanto, o funcionamento desse mecanismo não tem sido uma tarefa simples ou descomplicada, especialmente em relação à interação entre o reconhecimento mútuo e os direitos fundamentais. Este artigo analisa a evolução de tal interação e como os direitos fundamentais podem atuar como limites ou facilitadores do reconhecimento mútuo. Pretende-se demonstrar como os direitos e garantias individuais limitam o reconhecimento automático e a pura eficácia e, inversamente, como a harmonização dos direitos de defesa na UE pode fornecer uma base adequada para reforçar a confiança mútua e facilitar assim o reconhecimento mútuo em matéria penal. Em conclusão, será sustentado que a legislação da UE pode alcançar uma cooperação judiciária efetiva em matéria penal, passando de confiança “cega†para confiança conquistada no âmbito da justiça penal europeia

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