Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018, in force since 19 December 2020
Freezing and confiscation orders play a significant role as a way to combat smuggling. The need to deal with crimes which are committed by members of organizations operating in more than a State, and acting in such a way as to evade the jurisdiction of the State of arrival of migrants, makes cooperation at European and international level fundamental. This work examines some relevant aspects of this kind of cooperation, seeking to highlight the most problematic issues connected.
The present article aims to offer an overview of existing and future legal instruments in the EU judicial cooperation against terrorism, with some critical comments on their actual effectiveness. Starting from the resolution of conflicts of jurisdictions, this article proceeds to an analysis of the rules concerning the exchange of information and operative tools. Finally, it illustrates the relevant jurisprudence by the European Courts concerning judicial cooperation against terrorism and it provides some suggestions for reforming the EU legal framework.
This article aims to outline the main features of the new instrument of judicial cooperation and its place in the relationship between the District Attorney and the Anti-mafia and Anti-terrorism National Prosecutor’s Office.
The extradition procedure is governed by ad hoc Conventions on extradition and by suppression conventions on terrorism offences. However, the procedure may become inapplicable if it is incompatible with the obligations to protect human rights. This article will consider such cases with a special focus on violations of Article 3 ECHR, on the prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.
Acknowledging the difficulties of adopting a regulation establishing the European Public Prosecutor, this article sets forth to demonstrate the real existence of the added value the creation the European Prosecutor’s office would have on the part of a limited number of Member States, in respect to the abandonment of such project due to the lack of unanimity. The paper tries to demonstrate the feasibility of such option, which would lead to a system capable of maximizing the effects of what is ostensibly possible using the tools provided by the Treaties - enhanced cooperation in this case - albeit resulting in unequal integration. To this purpose, the proposal of the regulation should be amended and adapted with a different content, aiming no longer at the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor, but at the implementation of enhanced cooperation.
The article discusses the issue of cyber investigations in a general perspective, identifying the elements that go beyond a specific national legislation. Three types of cyber investigations emerge (i.e. pretrial, reactive and reactive), contributing to outline a criminal system whose preventive and proactive character tend to increase. In addition, thanks to a reversal of perspective with respect to the traditional approach of the legal doctrine, rather than concentrating on the characteristics of digital evidence, the author focuses instead on the characteristics of the investigations aimed at gathering digital evidence. In particular, the main characteristics of these investigations (i.e. technical nature, transnationality and cooperation of private entities) are discussed and the fact that they can lead to structural changes of investigation activities is pointed out. Finally, the article identifies a new major challenge in automated investigations and proposes their bipartition in order to ensure the respect for fundamental rights.
Increasingly, analysing criminal law requires taking into account the expansion of several sectors of punitive administrative law. The interaction of these different legal areas generates such a complexity that this cannot conceivably be solved only through an extensive application of the prohibition of bis in idem. On the contrary, in order to comply with the guarantees provided for by Article 6 of the ECHR, it is impelling to establish common standards for the whole area of punitive law, and especially for the investigation phases. Against this background, the paper deals with the rights of the defence in the European Union legal system(s), focusing particularly on the guarantees provided in the administrative proceedings carried out by OLAF and DG-COMP, and on the impact of the recent Directive on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence.