European Criminal Law has developed into a complex, jagged subject matter, which at the same time has become increasingly important for everyday criminal law practice. On the one hand, this work aims to do comprehensive justice to the complexity of the matter without sacrificing readability. In order to achieve this, the book’s structure enables legal scholars and experienced practitioners to access the information relevant to them in a targeted manner and, at the same time, enables less-oriented readers to gain access to European Criminal Law. Thus, the volume both answers basic questions and offers discussion in more specialised areas. Written by experts in the field, the book offers discussions that are both of the highest academic standards and accessibly readable.

A milestone of the European integration process, the European Public Prosecutor Office (EPPO) has been established in 2017 through the enhanced cooperation mechanism and has become operative in 2021. Following a biphasic idea of criminal proceedings, the investigative and prosecutorial powers related to crimes affecting the European financial interests. are exercised by EPPO at the EU level, while adjudicatory powers are exerted by national courts at the domestic level – this justifies the EPPO’s multi-layered system which is, moreover, characterized by a verticalization of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. While the material scope of the EPPO is narrowed both to the so-called ‘PIF’ offences and broader ‘ancillary offences’, only an interplay between European and domestic levels may ensure the effectiveness of the whole procedure. Yet, the applicable national law in case, cross-border investigation issues, evidence rules and defence rights are very sensitive issues that still rest unresolved as the EPPO Regulation did not deal clearly with those matters. Despite the numerous issues, the establishment of the EPPO might pave the way to a deeper cooperation in criminal matters among the EU and Member States, through a pragmatic approach which would show its results in the coming years.

The aim of this chapter is to cast light on the interplay between mutual recognition and fundamental rights in Europe’s area of criminal justice. Focusing particularly on the framework decision on the European arrest warrant, the chapter begins by placing the application of the principle of mutual recognition within the context of the objective of effective interstate cooperation in criminal matters. The chapter then examines the extent to which fundamental rights have emerged as a limit on automatic mutual recognition both in secondary EU law and in the case law of the CJEU. The chapter analyses the extent to which harmonisation of fundamental rights in EU secondary law can provide a basis for enhancing mutual trust and thus facilitate the operation of mutual recognition in criminal matters. In this manner, the chapter assesses the extent to which EU law has moved from ‘blind’ to 'earned' trust in Europe’s area of criminal justice.

The need to make progress in the harmonisation of the rights of suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings has become essential for the appropriate functioning of the principle of mutual recognition, laid down in Article 82 TFEU as the basis of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. This principle is founded on mutual confidence between the judicial authorities of Member States, according to which national legal systems are capable of providing equivalent and effective protection of the fundamental rights recognised at EU level, particularly in the Charter. Among these fundamental rights, the EU had to establish a common core of minimum standards protecting rights of suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings. To this end and to implement the Stockholm Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings, six directives have been adopted. They represent a reference point for procedural guarantees and should be regarded as an integral part of the protection afforded by Article 48(2) of the Charter. This chapter analyses the six directives, including the consequences of their adoption by EU institutions, the possible shortcomings experienced during their implementation in Member States, and the difficulties involved in their application by judicial authorities.