Punitive enforcement; admisibility of evidence; OLAF; EPPO
Résumé :
[en] This chapter analyses the admissibility of OLAF-collected evidence in national punitive proceedings, with a focus on criminal proceedings. For the purpose of this chapter, ‘punitive administrative proceedings’ refers to national proceedings leading to the issuing of administrative sanctions, and more precisely fines, which would qualify as having a criminal nature in accordance with the so-called Engel criteria laid down by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and endorsed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). References to ‘punitive proceedings’ should therefore be understood as referring to both punitive administrative and criminal proceedings. The chapter takes a comparative approach, looking at six national legal orders (France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Hungary). While this chapter cannot delve into the details of each of the six systems, it aims to point out at least some common trends and significant differences that have emerged in the study of national case law and legislation concerning the admissibility of evidence in punitive proceedings, with the aim of drawing conclusions about the admissibility of OLAF-collected evidence.
Disciplines :
Droit pénal & procédure pénale
Auteur, co-auteur :
Giuffrida, Fabio
THEODORAKAKOU, Georgia ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance (FDEF) > Department of Law (DL)
Co-auteurs externes :
yes
Langue du document :
Anglais
Titre :
The Use of Investigative Results as Evidence in National Punitive Proceedings: The Case of OLAF
Date de publication/diffusion :
2023
Titre de l'ouvrage principal :
EU Enforcement Authorities: Punitive Law Enforcement in a Composite Legal Order
Auteur, co-auteur :
LIGETI, Katalin ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance (FDEF) > Department of Law (DL)
V Covolo, ‘Regulation 883/2013. Concerning Investigations Conducted by OLAF: A Missed Opportunity for Substantial Reforms’ (2017) 2 European Criminal Law Review 151, 152.
C Brière, ‘La modernisation des règles régissant les activités de l’OLAF’ [2021] Journal de Droit Européen 1, 4.
M Luchtman, A Karagianni and K Bovend’Eerdt, ‘EU administrative investigations and the use of their results as evidence in national punitive proceedings’ in F Giuffrida and K Ligeti (eds), Admissibility of OLAF Final Reports as Evidence in Criminal Proceedings (University of Luxembourg 2019) 7, 46.
K Ligeti, ‘The Protection of the Procedural Rights of Persons Concerned by OLAF Administrative Investigations and the Admissibility of OLAF Final Reports as Criminal Evidence’ Study for the Committee on Budgetary Control of the European Parliament (July 2017) 27-28.
APW Duijkersloot, AJ de Vries and RJGM Widdershoven, ‘The Netherlands’ in Giuffrida and Ligeti (eds) (n 18) 197, 200-01.
M Kusak, Mutual Admissibility of Evidence in Criminal Matters in the EU. A Study of Telephone Tapping and House Search (Maklu 2016) 169 ff.
M Scholten and M Simonato, ‘EU Report’ in M Luchtman and JAE Vervaele (eds), Investigatory Powers and Procedural Safeguards: Improving OLAF’s Legislative Framework through a Comparison with Other EU Law Enforcement Authorities (ECN/ESMA/ECB) (Utrecht University 2017) 9, 38 and 51.
X Groussot and Z Popov, ‘What’s Wrong with OLAF? Accountability, Due Process and Criminal Justice in European Anti-Fraud Policy’ (2010) 47(3) CML Rev 605, 609-15.
JFH Inghelram, Legal and Institutional Aspects of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). An Analysis with a Look Forward to a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (Europa Law Publishing 2011) 203 ff.
V Covolo, L’Émergence d’un Droit Pénal en Réseau. Analyse Critique du Système Européen de Lutte Antifraude (Nomos 2015) 578-80.
E Vergès, G Vial and O Leclerc, Droit de la Preuve (Presses Universitaires de France 2015).
A Csúri, ‘Hungary’ in Giuffrida and Ligeti (eds) (n 18) 157, 167-68.
A Weyembergh and C Brière, ‘The Future Cooperation Between OLAF and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office’, Study for the CONT Committee of the European Parliament (December 2017) 20.
T Wahl, ‘The European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Fragmentation of Defence Rights’ in K Ligeti, MJ Antunes and F Giuffrida (eds), The European Public Prosecutor’s Office at Launch. Adapting National Systems, Transforming EU Criminal Law (Wolters Kluwer - CEDAM 2020) 85, 93-94.
