Art. 325 TFEU aims to establish an effective and standardised protection of the European Union’s financial interests across all Member States, and in all of the EU’s institutions and bodies. This regime is underpinned by two key principles: assimilation and minimum protection. They require the Member States to take the same measures to counter fraud affecting the financial interests of the EU as they take to counter fraud affecting their own financial interests and to prevent and combat EU-fraud and other financial misconduct with effective, proportionate and dissuasive measures. National provision that is incompatible with this so-called ‘minimum trias’ is neutralized and rendered inapplicable. Moreover, the EU is empowered to adopt the necessary measures for the prevention of and fight against EU fraud. Arguably, this includes the right to enact legislation in the area of criminal law, to harmonise the respective national criminal laws of the Member States, and even to introduce directly applicable European criminal provisions. And yet, despite these sweeping powers, the EU has thus far proven reluctant to use them. Instead, it has generally opted for a restrictive interpretation of its anti-fraud competencies.

European Criminal Law has developed into a complex, jagged subject matter, which at the same time has become increasingly important for everyday criminal law practice. On the one hand, this work aims to do comprehensive justice to the complexity of the matter without sacrificing readability. In order to achieve this, the book’s structure enables legal scholars and experienced practitioners to access the information relevant to them in a targeted manner and, at the same time, enables less-oriented readers to gain access to European Criminal Law. Thus, the volume both answers basic questions and offers discussion in more specialised areas. Written by experts in the field, the book offers discussions that are both of the highest academic standards and accessibly readable.

European Criminal Law has developed into a complex, jagged subject matter, which at the same time has become increasingly important for everyday criminal law practice. On the one hand, this work aims to do comprehensive justice to the complexity of the matter without sacrificing readability. In order to achieve this, the book’s structure enables legal scholars and experienced practitioners to access the information relevant to them in a targeted manner and, at the same time, enables less-oriented readers to gain access to European Criminal Law. Thus, the volume both answers basic questions and offers discussion in more specialised areas. Written by experts in the field, the book offers discussions that are both of the highest academic standards and accessibly readable.

European Union criminal law as we know it is a product of intensive legal development on both legislative and judicial levels, accompanied by significant changes in the Treaty framework. In this chapter, we will discuss the emergence and nature of harmonisation efforts with an emphasis on especially substantive criminal law. Our claim is that whereas during the Amsterdam era, harmonisation of substantive criminal law was mainly regarded a competence issue, since entering of the Lisbon Treaty together with strengthening of the role of the fundamental rights and human rights in the law of the European Union, the debates concerning European criminal law take place mainly on the level of adjudication. Harmonisation relates not only to the cornerstone principle of mutual recognition but has a link as well to the debates on increased supranationalism as expressed by ‘Taricco saga’ and the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

European Criminal Law has developed into a complex, jagged subject matter, which at the same time has become increasingly important for everyday criminal law practice. On the one hand, this work aims to do comprehensive justice to the complexity of the matter without sacrificing readability. In order to achieve this, the book’s structure enables legal scholars and experienced practitioners to access the information relevant to them in a targeted manner and, at the same time, enables less-oriented readers to gain access to European Criminal Law. Thus, the volume both answers basic questions and offers discussion in more specialised areas. Written by experts in the field, the book offers discussions that are both of the highest academic standards and accessibly readable.

Chapter 9 is titled ‘Other Areas’. Hence, it examines the Unions competence to require Member States (‘MS’) to harmonize substantive criminal law in certain areas, in particular its competence to require MS to set out criminal law offences and penalties in ‘further areas’, besides the cross-border crimes covered by Article 83(1) TFEU and the PIF Directive. We focus on Article 83(2) TFEU and divide the chapter into four parts. The first part traces the development of the EUs competence in the further areas of substantive criminal law prior and after the Treaty of Lisbons entry into force. The second part provides an overview of further harmonized areas, with a special focus on the areas of environmental protection, market abuse and protection of the financial sector, migration and employer sanctions as well as discrimination and hate speech. The third part looks at possible future areas of harmonization, while the fourth part concludes the chapter by discussing bits and pieces of a general part of substantive criminal law found in the existing harmonization measures at the EU level.

European Criminal Law has developed into a complex, jagged subject matter, which at the same time has become increasingly important for everyday criminal law practice. On the one hand, this work aims to do comprehensive justice to the complexity of the matter without sacrificing readability. In order to achieve this, the book’s structure enables legal scholars and experienced practitioners to access the information relevant to them in a targeted manner and, at the same time, enables less-oriented readers to gain access to European Criminal Law. Thus, the volume both answers basic questions and offers discussion in more specialised areas. Written by experts in the field, the book offers discussions that are both of the highest academic standards and accessibly readable.

The chapter focuses on the interaction between European law and national criminal legislation, analysed in the light of the fundamental principles underpinning their relationship, especially the principle of primacy and the duty of loyal cooperation. After distinguishing between direct and indirect effects, paragraph 2 turns to the principle of primacy of EU Law. This cornerstone concept of Union Law affects domestic legislation in so far as it ‘neutralizes’ incompatible domestic criminal law through interpretation and disapplication of inconsistent provisions. This principle develops into a duty of loyalty for Member States (para. 3) which are thus bound to respect and enforce the rules and laws of the EU so as to secure the full and effective implementation of European criminal law in accordance with Art. 4 (3) TEU. Paragraph 4 examines how EU law penetrates the national legal systems of the Member States, focusing on the role of national judges that let European Law enter into the realm of national legal orders. This power represents the most relevant and disruptive manifestation of the ‘internal’ criminal effects of EU law. Selected case law will further demonstrate how EU law applies to and influences domestic criminal legal systems.

The European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) is competent to support action by the EU Member States’ law enforcement authorities and strengthen their cooperation in the fight against cross-border crime. Europol is not a ‘European FBI’ as it does not have executive powers. Nevertheless, its contribution to the activities of national police authorities is increasingly appreciated by practitioners, especially since the Agency is in an ideal position to process and exchange enormous amounts of personal data that are relevant for criminal investigations. This chapter examines Europol’s history, structure, competence and powers, as well as its relations with partners and the rules on its accountability. It also focuses on the crucial role that Europol plays in shaping EU criminal justice thanks to its Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessments, which set in motion a process at the European level by which the EU periodically identifies its priorities for the fight against serious international crime (the Policy Cycle-EMPACT). This chapter also analyses the forthcoming revision of Europol’s legal framework, which aims to ensure that the Agency can efficiently perform its tasks in an ever-changing security landscape.

A milestone of the European integration process, the European Public Prosecutor Office (EPPO) has been established in 2017 through the enhanced cooperation mechanism and has become operative in 2021. Following a biphasic idea of criminal proceedings, the investigative and prosecutorial powers related to crimes affecting the European financial interests. are exercised by EPPO at the EU level, while adjudicatory powers are exerted by national courts at the domestic level – this justifies the EPPO’s multi-layered system which is, moreover, characterized by a verticalization of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. While the material scope of the EPPO is narrowed both to the so-called ‘PIF’ offences and broader ‘ancillary offences’, only an interplay between European and domestic levels may ensure the effectiveness of the whole procedure. Yet, the applicable national law in case, cross-border investigation issues, evidence rules and defence rights are very sensitive issues that still rest unresolved as the EPPO Regulation did not deal clearly with those matters. Despite the numerous issues, the establishment of the EPPO might pave the way to a deeper cooperation in criminal matters among the EU and Member States, through a pragmatic approach which would show its results in the coming years.

With the principle of mutual recognition, the EU facilitates effective and efficient law enforcement cooperation among its Member States. Foreign judicial decisions are treated like domestic decisions, while differences in the national criminal justice systems are maintained. Prolonged examinations are no longer necessary and “safe havens” for criminals are closed. The basis of this cooperation, however, is mutual trust in the rule of law. The author uses, inter alia, the current example of Encrochat to show concrete possibilities for application. There, the French criminal authorities achieved a considerable cross-border investigative success by decrypting crypto-mobile devices of that company, which were frequently used by criminals. Through the recognition and execution of European Investigation Orders in France, those findings could also be used in other Member States and considerable prosecution successes achieved. However, the scope and variety of such measures can lead to problems: Only corresponding measures can be recognised. Violations of the Charter of Fundamental Rights EU must not be enforced. Inhumane treatment of detainees may prevent the enforcement of a European Arrest Warrant in individual cases. The loss of trust in the rule of law in some Member States, the EUs reaction to this danger and the control function of CJEU decisions are currently determining legal policy.

The chapter traces the development of police cooperation in Europe from the Napoleonic period to the Second World War and beyond. It shows that police cooperation was shaped to a considerable extent by individual initiatives and also by bilateralism, the latter still having an impact today. Even after the founding of the EU, regional interests or initiatives are decisive. In particular, the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, still very important for everyday police cooperation, goes back to an initiative of individual member states. Going beyond bilateral interests and police mentalities, it seems that the very nature of police work is less influenceable by common denominators such as the principle of mutual recognition. Thus, it is not surprising that, for example, the Directive on the European Investigation Order provides, with regard to cross-border covert personal investigations, a provision that does not go beyond its predecessor provisions. The article concludes with a stocktaking of the data exchange of Europes police forces, based in particular on the Schengen Information System. Considering the technical inclination of today’s police practice, the exchange of information will certainly have a decisive effect on any future developments.

The essential purpose of European Union (EU) integration is, as Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) makes clear, to create ‘an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe’. The EU legal order is therefore shaped to support a dynamic process of European integration. Its legal construct relies on a number of foundational objectives, principles and values – such as equality between participating States and their peoples – that also act as compasses (Section 1.1). The ambitious nature of the process, going well beyond a simple form of economic collaboration among States, distinguishes it from other forms of regional integration while enabling multiple interactions with non-member States and other organisations (Section 1.2). This first chapter stresses that the legal specificities of the EU legal order are best understood in light of its ongoing process of change, constantly seeking to better match evolving political goals with an appropriate legal machinery (Section 1.3). The resulting decisive changes and predominant features of the EU legal order are first and foremost crystallised in the primary legal framework on which it relies, in the form of the two main treaties shaping the EU.