In verband met de vakantieperiode last BijzonderStrafrecht.nl een zomerstop in van maandag 10 juli t/m zondag 20 augustus. Vanaf maandag 21 augustus worden er weer nieuwsberichten op de website gepubliceerd. Uiteraard zijn we wel per e-mail en telefoon bereikbaar.
Read MoreIn 2006 voerde de Inlichtingen- en opsporingsdienst van het Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (VROM-IOD) een strafrechtelijk onderzoek uit naar bedrijf I. Het bedrijf werd verdacht van het illegaal lozen van vervuild afval in strijd met de milieubeschermingswetgeving. Tijdens dit onderzoek werden de telefoons van enkele medewerkers van bedrijf I. afgetapt. Bepaalde gesprekken die werden onderschept, werden als interessant beschouwd voor de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit (NMa, thans ACM) omdat er vermoedens waren van prijsafspraken met een ander bedrijf.
Read MoreDoel van het onderzoek van de Algemene Rekenkamer is om het parlement inzicht te geven in de naleving van EU-recht door Nederland, in de informele en formele stappen die door de Europese Commissie en Nederland samen worden gezet om problemen op te lossen, en tot welke verbeteringen dit leidt. Een nevendoel van het onderzoek van de AR is om de lacune in kennis hierover voor Nederland te dichten. Het gaat om het op 15 juni 2023 gepubliceerde rapport van de Algemene Rekenkamer (AR) ‘EU-recht in de praktijk’.
Read MoreThis article aims to explore the key novelties of the proposal recently published by the Commission for a new Directive on asset recovery and confiscation and to offer critical reflection on certain issues. The proposed Directive intends to replace the previous Directive 2014/42/EU on freezing and confiscation and the Council Decision 2007/845/JHA on Asset Recovery Offices. The present article first clarifies the legal bases chosen for the adoption of this new EU legal instrument and shortly addresses some issues of compliance with the subsidiarity and proportionality principle. Then offers an overall analysis of the most important provisions (a) on the different asset recovery stages (asset tracing and identification, management, freezing and confiscation) (b) on the safeguards for the persons affected by such measures and (c) on the newly introduced obligation for the Member States to create a national asset recovery strategy. The article sheds also some light on the relationship between the proposed Directive and the violation of EU restrictive measures and finally concludes with some critical remarks, in order to contribute to the legal dialogue ahead of the final adoption of the new Directive.
Read MoreThe proposal for Regulation 2017/1939 establishing the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (The EPPO Regulation) was criticized for completely excluding the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) from judicial review of decisions on forum of prosecution by the EPPO, an EU body. The system of judicial review under the EPPO Regulation has improved significantly relative to its initial proposal, by enabling national courts to refer preliminary questions to the CJEU. Despite this, several issues remain. This article examines whether the limitations imposed by the EPPO Regulation on the use of the action for annulment procedure laid down in Article 263 TFEU comply with EU primary law. More specifically, whether it complies with effective judicial protection as protected under Article 47 CFR, and the legal basis for the EPPO’s system of judicial review, Article 86(3) TFEU. We argue that the preliminary reference procedure is not effective enough in remedying the limited access to the action for annulment procedure to reliably safeguard the defendants’ right to effective judicial protection. To the extent that the current system for judicial review under the EPPO Regulation is at odds with the Article 47 CFR, the EU legislator did not have the competence to enact it under Article 86(3) TFEU. This article proposes that in order to circumvent the unlawful restrictions imposed by the EPPO Regulation, defendants could and should make use of the action for annulment procedure to contest the EPPO’s choice of forum.
Read More
