Advertisement

Forum Choice and Judicial Review Under the EPPO’s Legislative Framework

  • Michiel Luchtman
Chapter

Abstract

The EPPO proposal introduces a new authority that will be competent to act on the joint territories of over twenty Member States. The EPPO structure as it is now is a highly decentralized model. Rules of substantive criminal law and criminal procedure have only been partially harmonized, even after the PIF directive and the Roadmap on defence rights will be fully implemented. The choice of the forum therefore affects the powers, safeguards and remedies of all the actors involved (EPPO, defendants, victims, state authorities). To which extent are/should these forum choices be guided by clear legal rules? Which remedies are available, and if so, for whom and at which level? This chapter deals with these issues and aims to provide an oversight and appraisal of the state of play. It analyses the proposed rules on choice of forum, including judicial review, and seeks inspiration from the Swiss system to propose some amendments.

Keywords

Choice of forum Fundamental rights European Public Prosecutor’s Office 

References

  1. Guidon P, Bänziger F (2007) Die aktuelle Rechtsprechung des Bundesstrafgerichts zum interkantonalen Gerichtsstand in Strafsachen. Jusletter May 2007Google Scholar
  2. Inghelram JFH (2011) Legal and institutional aspects of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). Europa Law Publishers, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  3. Inghelram JFH (2014) Search and seizure measures and their review. In: Erkelens LH, Meij AWH, Pawlik M (eds) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office: An Extended Arm or a Two-Headed Dragon? TMC Asser Press, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  4. Luchtman MJJP (2011) Choice of Forum in an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Utrecht Law Review, pp 74–101Google Scholar
  5. Luchtman M, Vervaele J (2014) European Agencies for Criminal Justice and Shared Enforcement (Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office). Utrecht Law Review, pp 132–150Google Scholar
  6. Meij AWH (2014) Some explorations into the EPPO’s administrative structure and judicial review. In: Erkelens LH, Meij AWH, Pawlik M (eds) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office: An Extended Arm or a Two-Headed Dragon? TMC Asser Press, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  7. Rizzuto F (2008) Parallel Competence and the Power of the EC Commission under Regulation 1/2003 According to the Court of First Instance. European Competition Law Review, pp 286–297Google Scholar
  8. Schonard P (2012) Judicial Review of EU Acts Affecting Criminal Proceedings. European Criminal Law Review, pp 62–77Google Scholar
  9. Schweri E, Bänziger F (2004) Interkantonale Gerichtsstandsbestimmung in Strafsachen. Stämpfli Verlag, BernGoogle Scholar
  10. Waiblinger M (1943) Die Bestimmung des Gerichtsstandes bei Mehrheit von strafbaren Handlungen oder von Beteiligten. ZStr 57Google Scholar
  11. Wasmeier M (2014) The Choice of Forum by the European Public Prosecutor. In: Erkelens LH, Meij AWH, Pawlik M (eds) The European Public Prosecutor's Office: An Extended Arm or a Two-Headed Dragon? TMC Asser Press, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  12. Weyembergh A, Brière C (2016) Towards a European Public Prosecutor’s Office – Study for the LIBE Committee. European Parliament, BrusselsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Utrecht University3512 BW UtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations