Constantin Stefanou

First published in 1997. Article 224 is one of the most powerful Articles of the Treaty of Rome, allowing a member state to take unilateral measures and to suspend some or all its Treaty-based obligations in times of what can loosely be described as serious internal turmoil or external threat. It is for this reason that the very next Article of the Treaty, Article 225, allows the Commission or a member state to challenge invocation of Art.224, before the European Court of Justice (ECJ), on grounds of improper use. In practice, the use of Art.224, by a member state presents multiple problems. The obvious connection with defence and security issues has inhibited the ECJ which still has not given and authentic interpretation of this Article. As the recent former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) cases (Greek referral for the embargo on FYROM) indicate, unless the use of Art.224 is blatantly flippant, the ECJ is not in a position to challenge a member state’s unilateral measures.

First published in 1997. Article 224 is one of the most powerful Articles of the Treaty of Rome, allowing a member state to take unilateral measures and to suspend some or all its Treaty-based obligations in times of what can loosely be described as serious internal turmoil or external threat. It is for this reason that the very next Article of the Treaty, Article 225, allows the Commission or a member state to challenge invocation of Art.224, before the European Court of Justice (ECJ), on grounds of improper use. In practice, the use of Art.224, by a member state presents multiple problems. The obvious connection with defence and security issues has inhibited the ECJ which still has not given and authentic interpretation of this Article. As the recent former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) cases (Greek referral for the embargo on FYROM) indicate, unless the use of Art.224 is blatantly flippant, the ECJ is not in a position to challenge a member state’s unilateral measures.

The authors offer many insights into the regulatory, operational and institutional opportunities and challenges for OLAF, the European Commission's Anti-Fraud Office. Since OLAF was set up in 1999, significant changes in its functional environment have taken place including in EU criminal law and especially in mutual assistance and substantive criminal law; the reconstruction of Eurojust and Europol through recent Regulations and Memoranda of Cooperation; and the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. The authors advance the view that OLAF's current legal framework must address these issues adequately. The approach they take is multi-disciplinary. OLAF is examined here through the prisms of EU politics and national, European and (to some extent) comparative law, focusing not only on the identification of current problems in regulation and procedure but also on its positioning within the context of European integration. Operational issues are then extensively discussed, making this a book for practitioners as well as policy makers and academics. The book addresses the theoretical and practical aspects of anti-fraud actions within both criminal and civil aspects of public law. Although OLAF works within an incomplete EU legal framework and with varying cooperation by national authorities, its staff have devised mechanisms that address some of these issues. Nevertheless, rules covering procedural and operational issues will need to be safeguarded within future legislation.

There is little doubt that a series of EU Directives on money laundering and on public procurement have not reduced the incidence of financial crime in public contracts, in banking transactions, or in dealings among the "vulnerable" professions (mainly accountants, lawyers, and notaries). It is the convincingly argued thesis of this book that this failure stems directly from the dependence of these EU Directives on national laws on criminal records. Harmonisation of these laws, the book demonstrates, is not only necessary but urgent. In eighteen incisive essays, leading European authorities in the field provide in-depth discussion of such elements of the subject as methodologies for collecting criminal records, the authorities maintaining such records, the contents of such records and who has access to them, and conflicts with human rights and privacy legislation. The authors show that these factors and others vary enormously from country to country. They recommend EU initiatives that clearly mandate such specifications as the following: efficient exchange of criminal record data among national authorities; which crimes lead to compulsory exclusion from employment, membership, or participation in banking or public tenders; the specific types of employment, membership, and participation affected; erasure period for convictions; level of access for banks, professional associations, and tendering authorities to criminal records; and, exchange of criminal record data in the framework of EU data protection legislation. Standing as it does at a pressure point where criminal law collides with human rights on the one hand and public contracts on the other, this seminal work has a great deal to offer interested parties in several diverse fields of law and administration. The findings and recommendations of its authors are sure to evoke debate across a broad spectrum of academic, professional, and policymaking endeavour.