Katalin Ligeti

The European Public Prosecutor's Office: Towards a Truly European Prosecution Service?

This Article provides an overview of the possible institutional designs of the European Public Prosecutors Office [EPPO] with a view to the forthcoming proposal of the Commission. To this purpose, it clarifies meaning, scope and limits of Article 86 TFEU. Furthermore, it argues that in order for the EPPO to be able to act as a real European prosecution service and for complying with the objectives of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, a set of powers uniformly formulated and valid in all Member States participating in the EPPO need to be elaborated.

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office: certain constitutional issues

The EPPO proposal proclaims a new generation of EU judicial body with, on the one hand, vertical/supranational integration aspects and, on the other hand, horizontal/intergovernmental elements. This chapter analyses the balance achieved between both types of features in the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation.

International Association of Penal Law

Acting in my capacity as secretary general of the International Association of Penal Law (AIdP) and as professor of criminal law at the university of Luxembourg, it is an honour to contribute a welcome note to the establishment of the russian Law Journal. In fact, English language periodicals from russia in the field of comparative law are long overdue in the international legal debate where the reception of russian legal thinking does hardly correspond to the eminent political role that russia is traditionally playing in the world. one of the main reasons for this lamentable gap is simply the language barrier. In penal law – the discipline I represent – internationalisation has been a particularly recent phenomenon. Not only has penal law long been a domestic phenomenon largely communicated in our respective mother tongs. Beyond that, penal law has always been looked at – and defended – as a cornerstone of national sovereignty. that we as penal law scientists have to express our thoughts in a foreign language is, thus, a fairly new experience to all of us. Apart from the pioneers of the AIPd with their genuine interest in legal comparison, the emergence of international criminal justice after the second world war and, then again, after the end of the Cold war, as well as the ongoing process of European integration fueled this development to reach the present level. Against this background, I look at the russian Law Journal not only as a most welcome enrichment of our common legal culture but, moreover, as a long missing link for legal science in Europe, Asia, and the world. I personally had the privilege to experience the vivid and inspiring exchange with russian colleagues on the occasion of the preparatory colloquium of the AIdP titled ‘Information society and Penal Law’ that took place 24–27 April 2013 in Moscow. Not only did this colloquium prompt considerable intellectual gain, but moreover left us with numerous personal friendships as a prosperous platform for future dialogue. I wish this publication all the success that it surely deserves and look forward to many interesting discussions, contributions and insights provided accordingly.

EU Citizenship and Justice

Th e Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in its preamble, states that the Union places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). According to Article 3(2) TEU, “the Union shall off er its citizens an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured.” Article 20 TFEU defi nes EU citizenship as the common status of all nationals of the Member States and attaches strong rights to it such as free movement and political rights. By creating a citizenship of the Union and an area of justice and freedom a clear political dimension was given to the European project. Th e Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) underlined that there is a link between EU citizenship, EU representative democracy and the legitimacy of the EU. In the words of the CJEU, citizenship of the Union is destined to be the fundamental status of the nationals of the Member States. EU citizenship is therefore a concept with a clear constitutional dimension and touches upon many aspects of the life of EU citizens. Th e combination of the AFSJ with EU citizenship raises new issues in relation to cooperation between national authorities. Th e contributions in this issue highlight these implications and show to what extent aspects of judicial and administrative cooperation need to be addressed in a new way if read in the light of EU citizenship. Th e contributions focus on the role of the CJEU in this respect and the perspectives created by the new EU framework. In particular, they deal with two main fi elds. On the one hand, some aspects of ‘civil justice’ are addressed, in particular as regards those rights related to the free movement of natural and legal persons. More and more EU citizens indeed live, work or study in another country than their country of citizenship. Th e aim of the contributions is to discuss the current case law of the CJEU on free movement rights and to think about further options that might exist in the future. Particular attention is paid to mutual recognition and to the use of certain documents that could facilitate the eff ective enjoyment by citizens of their rights to free movement (for example public documents, ID and residence documents).

European Criminal Law: Administrative and Criminal Sanctions as Means of Enforcing Community Law

Professor Lahti concludes his article by pointing to the limits andweaknesses of a European criminal policy, especially measured by the criteriaof coherence and rationality. European criminal policy is incoherent, indeed,as it is not based on a sound concept of criminal law, but is rather the resultof an ad hoc evolution guided by the strive for effectiveness of Communitylaw.