eucrim 2018 / 3 THE EUROPEAN CRIMINAL LAW ASSOCIATIONS‘ FORUM

Focus: Protection of Whistleblowers and Collaborators with Justice Dossier particulier: La protection des lanceurs d’alerte et des collaborateurs de justice Schwerpunktthema: Schutz von Hinweisgebern und Informanten

Guest Editorial Tiina Astola

The European Commission’s Proposal for Strengthening Whistleblower Protection Georgia Georgiadou

A Matter of Life and Death Whistleblowing Legislation in the EU Dr. Simone White

État des lieux des programmes de protection des témoins et des collaborateurs de justice dans le domaine du crime organisé et du terrorisme David Chiappini

La confiance mutuelle sous pression dans le cadre du transfert de personnes condamnées au sein de l’Union Européenne Dr. Tony Marguery 2018/ 3 ISSUE / ÉDITION / AUSGABE The Associations for European Criminal Law and the Protection of Financial Interests of the EU is a network of academics and practitioners. The aim of this cooperation is to develop a European criminal law which both respects civil liberties and at the same time protects European citizens and the European institutions effectively. Joint seminars, joint research projects and annual meetings of the associations’ presidents are organised to achieve this aim.

Contents

News* Articles

Protection of Whistleblowers European Union and Collaborators with Justice

Foundations Procedural Criminal Law 166 The European Commission’s Proposal 142 Fundamental Rights 155 Procedural Safeguards for Strengthening Whistleblower 146 Schengen 155 Data Protection Protection 157 Victim Protection Georgia Georgiadou Institutions 147 European Court of Justice (ECJ) Cooperation 170 A Matter of Life and Death 148 Europol 159 European Arrest Warrant Whistleblowing Legislation in the EU 148 Eurojust 161 Customs Cooperation Dr. Simone White 148 Frontex 161 Law Enforcement Cooperation 149 Agency for Fundamental Rights 177 État des lieux des programmes de protec- (FRA) tion des témoins et des collaborateurs de justice dans le domaine du crime organisé Specific Areas of Crime / et du terrorisme Substantive Criminal Law David Chiappini 150 Protection of Financial Interests Council of Europe 150 Money Laundering 182 La confiance mutuelle sous pression dans 153 Tax Evasion Foundations le cadre du transfert de personnes con- 153 Non-Cash Means of Payment 164 European Court of Human Rights damnées au sein de l’Union Européenne 154 Counterfeiting & Piracy Dr. Tony Marguery 154 Cybercrime Procedural Criminal Law Imprint

* The news contain internet links referring to more detailed information. As of 2018, these links are being embedded into the news text. They can be easily accessed by clicking on the underlined text in the online version of the journal. If an external website features multiple languages, the Internet links generally refer to the English version. For other language versions, please navigate using the external website. Guest Editorial

Dear Readers,

Many recent scandals, such as Dieselgate, Luxleaks, the Pana- needed legal framework for ma Papers, and Cambridge Analytica, might never have come robust protection of whistle- to light if “insiders” had not had the courage to speak up about blowers across the EU. The wrongdoing occurring in their workplaces. These are only a proposed, common, minimum few examples of how whistleblowers help detect, investigate, standards strike a balance and remedy violations of law that can seriously damage the between the need to protect public interest and the welfare of our citizens and societies. whistleblowers and the need to discourage the reporting Those who help uncover illegal activities should not have to of malicious information and suffer any personal or professional disadvantages or even be prevent unjustified reputa- punished because of their actions. However, reality has repeat- tional damage. At the same edly shown that whistleblowers take high personal risks with time, these new standards help their jobs, their reputations, or even their health. They often safeguard the public’s right Tiina Astola end up paying a high price: many are fired, demoted, harassed, to access information and sued, or blacklisted. Without sufficient legal protection against to media freedom by protecting those who act as sources for retaliation and reliable avenues to report wrongdoing, it is only investigative journalists should their identity be revealed. natural that potential whistleblowers are reluctant to come for- ward with their concerns. Once adopted, the proposed rules are bound to make a differ- ence in workplace culture: both public servants and private Data from surveys and studies document this reluctance. The sector employees will have clear and easily accessible chan- 2017 Special Eurobarometer on corruption, for instance, in- nels for reporting. They should feel reassured that it is safe and dicated that 81 % of Europeans did not report corruption they acceptable for them to speak up in order to protect the public had experienced or witnessed. Similar results were revealed in interest. the Commission’s 2017 public consultation on whistleblow- er protection, where 85 % of respondents said they believed Providing strong whistleblower protection will contribute to that workers very rarely or rarely report concerns over threats the effective detection and prevention of violations of EU law and harm to the public because they fear legal and financial that may cause serious harm to the public interest. It will also consequences. Last but not least, the 2017 study by Milieu Ltd, strengthen transparency, good governance, accountability, and which was commissioned by the European Commission, esti- freedom of expression in the EU. mated the loss of potential benefits due to a lack of whistleblower protection in the area of public procurement to be in the range The Commission is currently supporting negotiations on the of €5.8 to €9.6 billion each year for the EU as a whole. proposal between the two co-legislators, the European Parlia- ment and the Council, with a view towards its adoption before A major factor contributing to this situation of underreport- the end of this legislative period. Since the proposal is still ing is currently the high level of fragmentation across the under scrutiny, it is too early to say whether and to what extent EU as regards whistleblower protection. This consistently led the Union’s efforts will pay off. One thing is clear: in the face EU institutions, civil society organisations, and trade unions to of recent scandals exposing weak controls in the area of bank- call for EU-wide legislation on the protection of whistleblow- ing and financial markets, nuclear safety, and environmental ers in the EU in both the public and private sectors. protection, the Union must act!

With its proposal of 23 April 2018 for a “Directive on the Tiina Astola protection of persons reporting on breaches of Union law” Director-General – European Commission − Directorate-Gen- (COM(2018) 218 final), the Commission sets out a much eral for Justice and Consumers

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 141 News Actualités / Kurzmeldungen

pointing to an infringement of the Euro- pean ne bis in idem principle. Although the order of the Higher Re- gional Court of Innsbruck had become final, the defendants referred to Sec. 363a of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure and asked the Austrian Su- European Union* preme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) for a rehearing of the criminal proceedings Reported by Thomas Wahl (TW) and Cornelia Riehle (CR) because the Higher Regional Court had wrongly neglected their fundamental rights according to EU law. Against this background, the Supreme ty of res judicata is limited to the ECHR, Court referred the question to the CJEU: Foundations the question arises as to whether it also whether EU law, in particular Art. 4(3) Fundamental Rights covers infringements of fundamental TEU in conjunction with the principles rights guaranteed by other legal sources, of equivalence and effectiveness inferred CJEU: No Rehearing for Alleged in particular the EU’s Charter of Funda- from it, obliges Sec. 363a of the Crimi- Infringements of EU Fundamental mental Rights (CFR). nal Code of Procedure to be applied to Rights  The Facts of the Case and the Ques- alleged infringements of fundamental On 24 October 2018, the CJEU tion Referred rights guaranteed by EU law (in the case spot published a judgment on the This question was triggered by a case in at issue: Art. 50 CFR, Art. 54 CISA). light question of whether national Austria that concerned several defend- The CJEU’s Answer legislation laying down a remedy allow- ants who were alleged to have illegally The CJEU ruled that EU law must be ing criminal proceedings to be reheard obtained VAT refunds of over 835,000 interpreted such that a national court is in the event of infringement of the Swiss francs. The Swiss Prosecutor’s not required to extend to infringements ECHR must be extended to alleged in- Office submitted mutual legal assistance of EU law, in particular to infringements fringements of fundamental rights en- requests to the Austrian judicial authori- of the fundamental rights guaranteed in shrined in EU law (Case C-234/17 – XC, ties, with a view to the parties concerned Art. 50 CFR and Art. 54 CISA, a rem- YB and ZA). being questioned by the prosecution of- edy under national law permitting, only The Legal Question fice of Feldkirch, Austria. The requested in the event of infringements of the Member States often allocate a special defendants XC, YB, and ZA appealed ECHR or one of the protocols thereto, status to the ECHR. When it comes to against this idea, arguing that criminal the rehearing of criminal proceedings criminal proceedings, national provi- proceedings against them in the same closed by a national decision having the sions may allow the reopening of fi- matter had been already concluded in force of res judicata. nally judged cases if the ECtHR finds a Germany and Liechtenstein. Therefore,  The Reasoning violation of the ECHR or its protocols mutual legal assistance is precluded The CJEU justified its rationale by ex- and if the national criminal court’s de- because of the ne bis in idem principle, amining the principles of equivalence cision might have been affected by the enshrined in Art. 54 CISA and Art. 50 and effectiveness. infringement. Sec. 363a of the Austrian CFR. The Higher Regional Court of Code of Criminal Procedure, for in- Innsbruck, ruling at last instance, had * If not stated otherwise, the news reported in stance, does this. dismissed these objections, however, the following sections cover the period 16 Sep- Since this exception from the authori- and found that there were no elements tember – 15 November 2018.

142 | eucrim 3 / 2018 Foundations

1) The principle of equivalence pro- fundamental rights during the proceed- not provide for legal remedies that ef- hibits a Member State from laying down ings, i.e. before a court decision comes fectively guarantee the protection of the less favourable procedural rules for ac- into existence with the force of res ju- individual’s rights deriving from Art. 50 tions for safeguarding rights that indi- dicata. CFR and Art. 54 CISA. viduals derive from EU law than those In the light of this analysis on the very  On Focus applicable to similar domestic actions. nature of the legal orders, it must, there- The CJEU upheld the national systems Therefore, the CJEU has to ascertain fore, be concluded that the procedure that only provide for a breakthrough of “whether the action in question [here: securing implementation of the ECtHR, res judicata effects in the event of ECHR action for the rehearing of criminal pro- such as that of Sec. 363a of the Austrian infringements. It justified this finding ceedings] may be regarded as similar Code of Criminal Procedure, on the one with the different mechanisms of action to an action brought to safeguard EU hand, and the actions for protecting the under EU law and the ECHR system: an law, in particular the fundamental rights individuals’ rights deriving from EU individual can only take recourse to the enshrined by that law, taking into con- law, on the other, are not similar within ECtHR if national remedies have been sideration the purpose, cause of action the meaning of the principle of equiva- exhausted and a national court decision and essential characteristics of those ac- lence. has the force of res judicata. tions.” 2) As regards the principle of effec- By contrast, the “constitutional frame- In this context, the CJEU acknowl- tiveness, the CJEU stated that it must be work” of the EU legal order – which pro- edged fundamental differences between determined whether the impossibility vides the preliminary ruling procedure for the legal orders of the European Union of requesting (on the basis of said Sec. enforcing EU law – does not necessitate and the ECHR. It observed that Sec. 363a of the Code of Criminal Procedure) exceptions from res judicata effects. 363a of the Austrian Code of Criminal the rehearing of criminal proceedings fi- The CJEU followed the opinion of Procedure is an exceptional remedy – a nally closed by a decision relying on the Advocate General (AG) Henrik Saug- remedy to implement the judgments of infringement of EU fundamental rights mandsgaard Øe of 5 June 2018 in this the ECtHR and thus to comply with the makes it impossible in practice or exces- case C-234/17. The AG also highlighted obligations laid down in Art. 46 ECHR. sively difficult to exercise the rights con- the different characteristics of EU law The main cause of action is that the ferred by the EU legal order. as an autonomous legal order and of the ECtHR deals with a matter after all do- The CJEU first pointed out that the ECHR as part of international public mestic remedies have been exhausted, TFEU does not intend to make addi- law. which implies the decision of a national tional requests from the Member State Both the CJEU and the AG clarified court adjudicating in last instance and other than those laid down by national that individuals cannot “play another with the force of res judicata. By con- law in order to ensure the protection of card” after having missed the opportu- trast, the legal order of the European the rights that individuals derive from nity to convince national judges to sub- Union establishes a different judicial EU law. mit questions of interpretation to the system intended to ensure consistency Secondly, the CJEU stressed the very CJEU. In the present case, this was not and uniformity in the interpretation of importance of the principle of res judi- completely out of question, since Art. 50 EU law. The characteristics of this judi- cata, both in the legal orders of the Eu- CFR/Art. 54 CISA are regularly the cial system are as follows: ropean Union and in national legal sys- subject of interpretation in preliminary „„The key element is the preliminary tems. By referring to previous case law, ruling procedures. The question must ruling procedure provided for in Art. 267 the CJEU noted that the Union law does be raised, however, as to which extent TFEU; neither of the following: defendants can realistically influence the „„The preliminary ruling procedure is „„Oblige national courts to disapply judges’ decision to file a reference for a based on the idea of a dialogue between rules of procedure conferring finality of preliminary ruling before the CJEU. one court and another; judgements, even if this would remedy The CJEU’s ruling in this case is also „„National courts have the widest dis- a situation that is incompatible with EU relevant for the interpretation of other cretion in referring a matter to the CJEU; law; legal orders with similar provisions as „„Courts of last instance are, in prin- „„Go back on a judgment having the au- that of Sec. 363a of the Austrian Code of ciple, obliged to bring a matter before thority of res judicata in order to take into Criminal Procedure. Sec. 359 No. 6 of the CJEU if a question relating to the account the interpretation of EU law de- the German Criminal Procedure Code, interpretation of EU law is raised before livered by the CJEU after that judgment. e.g., provides for the reopening of the them. The CJEU concluded that, in the pre- procedings if the ECtHR held a ECHR As a result, the constitutional frame- sent case, it could not find any indica- violation and the judgment was based on work of the EU secures the protection of tions that the Austrian legal order does it. (TW)

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 143 NEWS – European Union

infringement proceedings against Po- national legislation would mean the EU EP: Time Is Ripe for a Comprehensive land regarding Poland’s reform of the is faced with a fait accompli should the DRF Mechanism Supreme Court. The proceedings (case action to fulfil obligations be upheld by In a resolution of 14 November 2018, C-619/18) were launched by the Europe- the CJEU. the EP called on the Commission to an Commission at the end of September As a result, Poland has been ordered, present a proposal for a comprehensive 2018 (registered at the Court on 2 Oc- inter alia to act as follows: EU mechanism on democracy, the rule tober 2018). The VP argued that Poland „„Suspend the application of the provi- of law, and fundamental rights (in short: infringes the principle of the independ- sions of national legislation relating to “DRF”). Several EU Member States ence of judges with its reform on the the lowering of the retirement age for were not maintaining the core EU values retirement age of Supreme Court judges Supreme Court judges; of respect for human dignity and human and on the wide discretion of the Polish „„Take all necessary measures to ensure rights, freedom, democracy, equality, President to extend the active judicial that the Supreme Court judges affected and the rule of law. Since this, inter alia, service of Supreme Court judges (cf. eu- by the provisions at issue can continue threatens the rebuttable presumption of crim 2/2018, p. 80). The VP’s order (full to perform their duties in the same posi- mutual trust in the area of freedom, se- text only available in French and Polish) tion and enjoy the same status as before; curity and justice, the EP stressed that states that all conditions for interim re- „„Refrain from adopting any meas- the existing EU responses to these defi- lief are fulfilled. ure concerning the appointment of new ciencies are insufficient. First, the Commission sufficiently es- judges to the Supreme Court to replace The EP reiterated its call for a com- tablished that the order is justified, pri- the Supreme Court judges concerned; prehensive, permanent, and objective ma facie, in fact and in law (fumus boni „„Communicate to the Commission all EU DRF mechanism as already put for- juris requirement). the measures it has adopted or plans to ward in a EP resolution of October 2016 Second, the order is also deemed adopt in order to fully comply with said (see eucrim 4/2016, p. 154). The EP un- urgent, so as to avoid serious and ir- order. derlined that such a mechanism is more reparable damage to the interests of the The order is without prejudice to the urgently needed now than ever before EU, meaning that the effects of the or- final judgment of the action for failure to and regrets that neither the Commission der are justified before a final decision comply with obligations under EU law. nor the Council have taken up its pro- is reached. The VP emphasized that the The CJEU will rule on the substance of posal from 2016. provisions of national legislation have the case at a later stage. (TW) The resolution of 14 November 2018 already begun to be applied. The CJEU reiterates the main elements of envis- must also ensure that decisions of the Commission Criticises Romania aged mechanism and calls for incorpora- Polish Supreme Court are taken in full for Regression in Judicial Reforms tion of existing instruments, such as the respect of the individuals’ fundamental and Fight Against Corruption Justice Scoreboard (see eucrim 2/2018, right to an independent court or tribunal. As part of the Cooperation and Verifica- pp. 80–81), the Media Pluralism Moni- In this context, the VP reiterated that the tion Mechanism (CVM), the Commis- tor, the Anti-Corruption Report, and requirement of judicial independence sion voiced concerns over current devel- peer evaluation procedures based on forms part of the essence of the funda- opments in Romania regarding judicial Art. 70 TFEU. mental right to a fair trial, a right of car- reforms, judicial independence, and the The EP further wishes to include the dinal importance to guarantee that all the fight against high-level corruption.In its proposed link between protection of the rights which individuals derive from EU progress report tabled on 13 November Union budget and generalised deficien- law, will be protected. Thus, the very na- 2018, the Commission stated that Roma- cies as regards the rule of law (see eu- ture of the infringed right in itself gives nia does not fulfil the CVM benchmarks. crim 1/2018, pp. 12–13). The Council is rise to serious and irreparable damage. Recent developments in Romania even called on “to properly assume its insti- In the present case, it must additionally led to the reopening of/ backtracking on tutional role in the ongoing procedures be taken into account that the Polish Su- issues that were deemed solved in the in the framework of Article 7(1) TEU.” preme Court is a court of last instance last 10 years. (TW) and therefore has the authority to estab- The progress made in Romania since lish res judicata before the CJEU can the last report of November 2017 is duly CJEU Stops Application of New Polish decide on the infringement procedure. noted. The report particularly assesses Law on Supreme Court Judges Third, the VP held that the weighing- the implementation of 12 recommenda- On 19 October 2018, the Vice-Pres- up of interests involved is also in favour tions as set out in the progress report of ident (VP) of the European Court of of ordering interim measures, because January 2017. Justice ordered interim measures in the the immediate application of the new The Commission notes that the entry

144 | eucrim 3 / 2018 Foundations into force of the amended justice laws, low them to fulfil the benchmarks and a pre-requisite for achieving the CVM’s the pressure on judicial independence close the CVM process under the current objectives as set out in benchmarks and in general and on the National Anti- Commission’s mandate. for finally closing the CVM procedure Corruption Directorate (DNA) in par- In its report of November 2018, the for Bulgaria. ticular, and other steps undermining the Commission observed a regression of The report notes that Bulgaria is on fight against corruption have called into Romania in fulfilling the recommenda- good track. Several recommendations question the progress already made. Fur- tions. Therefore, the country is far from are considered being implemented and thermore, Romania is currently lacking having the supervision mechanism lift- others being very close to implementa- the means to guarantee a media environ- ed. The Commission stressed that it will tion. Hence, three of six benchmarks ment in which corruption cases can be closely follow the situation in Romania (judicial independence, legislative brought to light. until the end of its mandate in 2019. framework, and organised crime) can be Instead of closing issues, the Com- Hence – against Romania’s expectia- considered provisionally closed. mission set out new recommendations tions – supervision will continue during Notwithstanding, the Commission’s in the following areas: the Romanian EU Presidency starting on report indicates concern over signifi- „„Justice laws; 1 January 2019. cant deterioration in the Bulgarian me- „„Appointments/dismissals within the In a first reaction, Romania’s gov- dia environment recently. This may risk judiciary; erning coalition rebuffed the CVM re- restricting public access to information „„Criminal Codes. port and is considering challenging it and have a negative impact on judicial As regards the latter, the Commission before the CJEU. Romanian ministers independence, with targeted attacks on recommends freezing the entry into force and MPs argue that the recommenda- judges in some media. The Commission of changes to the Criminal Code and the tions have no judicial power to halt na- stresses that the media, as well as civil Criminal Procedure Code. It also rec- tional legislation. society, must be able to hold those ex- ommends re-opening the revision of the In a resolution of 13 November 2018, ercising power accountable − free from Codes, fully taking into account the need however, the European Parliament also pressure. for compatibility with EU law and inter- voiced “deep concerns” over the reform The Commission will closely moni- national anti-corruption instruments. of the Romanian judicial and criminal tor further progress on Bulgaria’s part. The CVM applies to Romania and laws, which risks undermining the sep- It anticipates that the CVM process for Bulgaria. It was established upon the aration of powers and the fight against Bulgaria can be concluded soon. accession of the two countries to the corruption. MEPs also stressed the need The developments in Bulgaria are de- EU in 2007 in order to remedy certain to reinforce parliamentary control over coupled from those in Romania, which shortcomings that existed in both Mem- the intelligence services, which alleg- is also subject to a CVM. In the progress ber States in the areas of judicial reform edly interfered with the Romanian judi- report on Romania, published in paral- and the fight against corruption. These ciary. Furthermore, the resolution con- lel, the Commission found a regression weaknesses could prevent an effective demned the violent and disproportionate of Romania’s efforts to meet the CVM application of EU laws, policies, and police response to public protests. (TW) requirements. programmes and could prevent Bulgar- The CVM applies to Romania and ians and Romanians from enjoying their Positive Marks for Bulgaria in Judicial Bulgaria. It was established upon acces- full rights as EU citizens. The Commis- Reform and Fight Against Corruption sion of the two countries to the EU in sion regularly verifies progress against On 13 November 2018, the Commission 2007 in order to remedy certain short- specific benchmarks. presented a progress report on Bulgaria comings that existed in both Member Each Commission report, as well as its under the Cooperation and Verification States in the areas of judicial reform and methodology and conclusions, is subject Mechanism (CVM). The CVM assessed the fight against corruption, and – in the to subsequent discussion in the Council progress made in Bulgaria’s commit- case of Bulgaria – the fight against or- of Ministers and has been consistently ments in the areas of judicial reform and ganised crime. These weaknesses were endorsed in Council Conclusions. The the fight against corruption and organised thought to prevent an effective appli- reports and methodology are also pre- crime since its EU accession in 2007. cation of EU laws, policies, and pro- sented to the European Parliament. The recent November 2018 report grammes and prevent Bulgarians and In January 2017, the Commission focuses on whether Bulgaria made Romanians from enjoying their full set out the remaining steps needed to enough progress to meet the recom- rights as EU citizens. The Commission achieve the CVM’s objectives. It pro- mendations as set out in the Commis- regularly verifies progress against spe- vided concrete recommendations to sion’s progress report in January 2017. cific benchmarks. both Member States, which would al- Fulfilment of these recommendations is Each Commission report, as well

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 145 NEWS – European Union as its methodology and conclusions, is effective form of legal remedy before working in governments, parliaments, subject to subsequent discussion in the the inescapable loss of their status as EU and regional and local authorities. Council of Ministers and has been con- citizens on 29 March 2019 as a conse- In its various chapters, the handbook sistently endorsed in Council Conclu- quence of the contested decision. first provides a general orientation on sions. The reports and methodology are The GC, however, ruled that the ac- the EU system of fundamental rights also presented to the European Parlia- tion for annulment is inadmissible. It and explains how the Charter relates to ment. (TW) reiterated that the contested act must, national and international fundamental at the very least, be of direct concern to rights instruments. An outline with rea- Brexit: Citizens Fail Before European the applicants (Art. 263(4) TFEU) and sons for checking whether the Charter Court directly affect their legal situation. The applies is provided. Furthermore, the On 26 November 2018, the General GC argued that the decision of the Coun- handbook explains how to check wheth- Court (GC) delivered its judgment in an cil authorising the opening of Brexit ne- er the Charter applies, in which situa- action for annulment by way of which gotiations does not have a direct affect tions the charter applies, and how it is the applicants wanted to stop Brexit on the legal situation of the applicants. applied. In addition, the handbook con- progress. In the case at issue, 13 British Although the status of the applicants as tains practical tools such as a checklist citizens residing in EU Member States EU citizens may be affected by the UK’s on the applicability of the Charter and a other than the UK applied to the GC to withdrawal, this potential effect does not Charter compliance check. (CR) annul the decision of the Council of the result from the contested Council deci- European Union authorising the open- sion. ing of negotiations on Brexit. The case The contested decision is instead a Schengen is referred to as Shindler and Others v. mere preliminary act, which cannot pre- Council of the European Union (Case judge the content of any final agreement, eu-Lisa: New Legal Basis – New T-458/17). in particular as regards the scope of any Mandate The applicants argued that – as expatri- provision on the protection of the status On 21 November 2018, the new legal ated UK citizens – they were denied the and rights of UK citizens in the remain- basis, i.e. Regulation (EU) 2018/1726, right to vote in the referendum of 23 June ing 27 EU Member States. for eu-LISA was published in the Of- 2016 because of the so-called “15 years As for the argument on the lack of ficial Journal of the EU (O.J. L 295, rule.” They underpinned their position constitutional authorisation, the GC ob- pp. 99–137). with the following five arguments: served that this is part of the merits of The European Agency eu-LISA was „„The contested decision has a direct the case and is not an argument for or established in 2011 and mandated with impact on the rights they derive from the against admissibility of the action. the operational management of the Treaties, inter alia as regards their status Regarding the lack of any effective large-scale IT systems existing at the as EU citizens and their right to vote in remedy, the GC states that judicial re- time in the area of freedom, security and European and municipal elections; their view is not only ensured by the CJEU. In justice, i.e. the second generation of the right to respect for their private and fam- particular, the argument that expatriated Schengen Information System (SIS II), ily life; their freedom to move, reside UK citizens had no right to vote can be the Visa Information System (VIS), and and work; their right to own property; challenged before UK courts. Eurodac. and their right to social security benefits; The judgment of the GC is subject to The new legal framework aims at „„The contested decision is not only appeal on points of law before the Court extending the mandate and making the an interim measure, but implicitly ac- of Justice. It must be brought within two agency fit for current and future- chal knowledged the UK’s irreversible “exit” months of notification of the decision. lenges in the area of freedom, security from the EU on 29 March 2019; (TW). and justice (AFSJ). It was deemed nec- „„The contested decision, particularly essary after an external evaluation and its negotiating directives, produce legal Handbook on Application of Charter following recent developments as re- effects insofar as they will likely lead Published gards migration and security. to the loss of their legal status of Union In October 2018, FRA published a hand- Reinforcement of eu-LISA was one of citizenship after Brexit; book on how to apply the Charter of Fun- the top political priorities of the Juncker „„The withdrawal procedure is void in damental Rights of the European Union Commission for 2018–2019. the absence of definite constitutional au- in law and policymaking at national lev- The tasks of eu-LISA will include: thorisation based on the votes of all UK el. The handbook is a guide on how and „„Continued ensuring of the opera- citizens, who are also EU citizens; when the Charter applies and targets na- tional management of SIS II, VIS, and „„The action before the GC is their sole tional law- and policy-makers, i.e., those Eurodac;

146 | eucrim 3 / 2018 Foundations

„„Carrying out the tasks deriving from Depending on the large-scale IT sys- and the General Court. Apart from very newly adopted large-scale EU IT sys- tem concerned, Europol, Eurojust, and few exceptions relating to observing tems, e.g. ETIAS, EES, and DubliNet; Frontex will have observer status at the the principle of access to the courts, the „„Preparation, development, and opera- Management Board meetings. change affects all parties (applicants, de- tional management of additional large- eu-LISA will also closely cooperate fendants, and interveners) and all types scale IT systems adopted on the basis of with other Union institutions, bodies, of procedures, including the urgent pro- Art. 67–89 TFEU, e.g. ECRIS-TCN or offices, and agencies, particularly those cedure. Lawyers and agents can apply e-CODEX; established within the AFSJ. As part of for an e-Curia account by using the form „„Implementing technical solutions if the framework of their respective com- for requesting access. (CR) systems are to function 24/7; petences, the institutions, bodies etc. can „„Developing necessary actions to en- conclude working arrangements if an First Advocate General of the Court able interoperability of large-scale IT issues governs the development, estab- of Justice Appointed systems in the AFSJ; lishment, use, or operation of the above- On 11 October 2018, Mr Maciej Szpu- „„Trainings on the technical use of mentioned large-scale IT systems. nar was appointed First Advocate Gen- SIS II, VIS, Eurodac, and other systems; eu-LISA is also able to cooperate with eral of the Court of Justice. Mr Szpunar „„Compiling and publishing statistics; international organisations or “other rel- has been serving as Advocate General at „„Taking over a pro-active role in re- evant entities or bodies, which are set up the Court of Justice since 2013. search related to the technical develop- by, or on the basis of, an agreement be- Prof. Dr. Maciej Szpunar holds de- ment of systems; tween two or more countries.” grees in law from the University of Sile- „„Carrying out pilot projects of an ex- Since the new Regulation on eu- sia/Poland and the College of Europe, perimental nature designed to test the LISA relates to IT systems relevant for Bruges/Belgium. feasibility and usefulness of an action the Schengen cooperation, it belongs Before joining the CJEU, he served and implementing other testing activi- – at least partly – to the Schengen ac- as Undersecretary of State in the Pol- ties; quis. This triggers (rather complicated) ish Office of the Committee for Euro- „„Providing advice to Member States, rules on the association of Schengen and pean Integration (2008–2009), then in including ad hoc support when deal- non-Schengen countries to the new legal the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs ing with migratory challenges, and framework. The rules concern Denmark, (2010–2013) as well as agent of the Pol- assistance when creating common so- the UK, Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Swit- ish Government in a large number of lutions for the implementation of Mem- zerland, and Liechtenstein. cases before the European Union judica- ber States’ obligations stemming from The official seat of eu-LISA will still ture. (CR) EU legislation on decentralized systems be in Tallinn/Estonia. Since some opera- in the AFSJ. tions for SIS II and VIS, for example, are Presidents of the Chambers The efficient functioning of the agen- also carried out in Strasbourg/France and of Three Judges cy will be monitored by a Management Sankt Johann im Pongau/Austria, these On 11 October 2018, five presidents Board. The Management Board is, inter two sites are still locations in accordance were elected for the Chambers of Three alia, entrusted with adopting the annual with the relevant Union legal acts. Judges of the Court of Justice Cham- work programme, carrying out functions Most provisions of the Regulation ap- bers: Judges Thomas von Danwitz, Ca- relating to eu-LISA’s budget, adopt- ply from 11 December 2018. It replaces melia Toader, François Biltgen, Küllike ing the financial rules applicable to the the former legal basis of eu-LISA, i.e. Jürimäe, and Constantinos Lycourgos. Agency, and establishing procedures for Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011. (TW) The presidents are elected for a three- taking decisions relating to the opera- year term. tional tasks of the Agency by the Execu- Before joining the Court as a Judge tive Director. The Management Board in 2006, Prof. Dr. Thomas von Danwitz will also appoint the Executive Director Institutions served as Professor and Visiting Profes- of eu-LISA. sor for German public law and European Several Advisory Groups are to pro- European Court of Justice (ECJ) law in various universities in Germany vide expertise to the Management Board and France. relating to large-scale IT systems. Advi- Switch to E-Curia Prof. Dr. Camelia Toader serves as a sory Groups act especially in the context With effect from 1 December 2018, the Judge at the CJEU since 2007. Her previ- of the preparation of the annual work IT application e-Curia is becoming the ous career includes positions as Head of programme and the annual activity re- only means of exchange of legal docu- the European Integration Unit at the Ro- port. ments between the parties of the case manian Ministry of Justice (1997–1999)

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 147 NEWS – European Union and Judge at the Romanian High Court teries of 29 countries from around the based on Eurojust’s existing case man- of Cassation and Justice (1999–2007). globe. It aims to detect and analyse sus- agement system. Before joining the the Court of Jus- picious betting activities that could bring As a next step, Eurojust will launch tice as a Judge in 2013, François Biltgen into question the integrity of a sports a working group as part of its counter- served, inter alia, as minister in several competition. (CR) terrorism team to explore and prepare positions in the Luxembourgish govern- the implementation modalities. (CR) ment (1999–2013). Cooperation with UK’s Cyber Defence After a career as Judge at the Tallinn Alliance Limited Consultative Forum Court of Appeal (1993–2004), Küllike On 27 September 2018, Europol’s Euro- On 19 October 2018, Eurojust hosted the Jürimäe became Judge at the General pean Cybercrime Centre (EC3) signed a 13th Consultative Forum of Prosecutors Court in 2004 and became Judge at the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) General and Directors of Public Prose- Court of Justice in 2013. with the UK’s Cyber Defence Alliance cutions of the Member States of the EU. Before joining the Court of Justice as Limited (CDA) to address cyber threats This year’s forum focused on strategies Judge in 2014, Constantinos Lycourgos affecting the banking and financial sec- when using the European Investigation held positions as Senior Counsel of the tors. Under the MoU, the parties shall or- Order, developments in the area of e-ev- Republic of Cyprus (2007–2014) and ganise joint activities, exchange exper- idence and regarding counter-terrorism, Head of the European Union Law Sec- tise (e.g., best practices, statistical data, Eurojust’s operational activities in key tion of the Law Office of Cyprus (2003– technical information, and trends related crime areas, as well as Eurojust’s reform 2014) as well as agent of the Cypriot to cybercrime) and cooperate with each under its new Regulation. (CR) government before the courts of the Eu- other when implementing projects. ropean Union (2004–2014). (CR) CDA is a consortium of British-based banks and law enforcement agencies set Frontex President Re-Elected up to collaborate in fighting, detecting, On 9 October 2018, Koen Lenaerts was and preventing cyberattacks on financial Statement of Principles for re-elected to serve as President of the organisations. (CR) Collaboration with Europol Court of Justice of the European Union On 5 October 2018, Frontex and Eu- from 9 October 2018 to 6 October 2021. ropol signed a Statement of Principles Mr Lenaerts has been serving as Presi- Eurojust for Collaboration in order to foster their dent of the Court of Justice since Octo- cooperation in the European area of ber 2015. Prior to his first presidency, Cooperation Agreement with Albania freedom, security and justice, in particu- he served as Vice-President of the Court Signed lar by expanding the exchange of infor- of Justice, Judge at the Court of Justice On 5 October 2018, Eurojust and Alba- mation between the two agencies. The and, since 1989, as Judge at the Court nia signed a cooperation agreement to statement also aims at securing two ben- of First Instance of the European Com- enhance their operational and strategic efits, namely strengthening Europol’s munities. (CR) judicial cooperation. Under the agree- criminal investigations and enhancing ment, Albania will be able to access Frontex’ border management of the Eurojust’s information systems and to EU’s external borders. Europol share personal data and evidence. Fur- Under the Statement, the agencies thermore, Albania may appoint a Liai- agreed, inter alia, on the following: Cooperation with Global Lottery son Prosecutor to Eurojust. (CR) „„Avoid duplication of efforts, identify Monitoring System gaps, and seek for synergies; On 15 November 2018, Europol and European Judicial Counter-Terrorism „„Make use of each other’s capabilities; the Global Lottery Monitoring System Register „„Invest in joint operational support; (GLMS) signed a Memorandum of Un- On 5 November 2018, seven EU Mem- „„Share and, where possible, develop derstanding (MoU) to enhance the fight ber States (i.e. France, Germany, Spain common procedures; against sports competition manipula- Italy, Belgium, Luxemburg, and the „„Enhance the exchange of information tions and related organised crime. Un- Netherlands) launched an initiative in a proactive and structured way; der the MoU, the parties will be able to calling for the creation of a European „„Work together in the development of share information and jointly run activi- judicial counter-terrorism register at Eu- new capabilities, including in research ties and implement relevant projects. rojust. The register shall provide more and in new technologies related to the GLMS is a mutualized monitoring clarity, security, and speed to investiga- agencies’ tasks; system for sports betting by the state lot- tions after terrorist attacks. It shall be „„Cooperate at strategic level;

148 | eucrim 3 / 2018 Institutions

„„Coordinate and support one another the European Border and Coast Guard ETIAS is a central, electronic system in respective activities in the external Agency. by means of which visa-free travellers domain, including in preparation of EU Today, the Agency employs approx. can get authorisation to board a carrier and international meetings; 600 staff members at its headquarters in to travel to the Schengen Zone. A key „„Invest in providing the best training Warsaw. Furthermore, it deploys around feature of ETIAS is the possibility to for their staff. 1500 officers as well as twenty-six cross-check data provided by the travel- The two agencies are already work- ships, six airplanes, four helicopters, and ler against other large-scale EU systems ing together on a daily basis, including numerous vehicles, including 80 patrol for borders, security, and migration, the collaboration in joint operations. cars, in its various operations at the EU’s such as the Schengen Information Sys- The new framework is designed to fos- external borders. tem (SIS), the Visa Information System ter cooperation in fighting other forms In the last two years, the Agency has (VIS), the Entry/Exit System (EES), and of cross-border crime beyond migrant managed to expand its role in migra- Eurodac as well as Europol and Interpol smuggling. (CR) tion management and security-related databases. Furthermore, ETIAS will fea- activities, its ability to monitor the ex- ture a dedicated watchlist and specific Cooperation Agreement with Albania ternal borders and share the informa- risk indicators. In this way, ETIAS is Signed tion gathered with EU Member States, expected to close information gaps and On 5 October 2018, Frontex and Alba- its network of liaison officers to the EU enhance the internal security of the EU. nia signed a cooperation agreement on Member States and Schengen-associat- The legislation on ETIAS was adopted border management to tackle irregular ed countries, and its work to address po- in September 2018 (see eucrim 2/2018, migration. Under the agreement, Frontex tential future challenges. (CR) pp. 82, 84). (CR) will coordinate operational cooperation between EU Member States and Albania Unmanned Aircraft for Border Fundamental Rights Forum 2018 on the management of the EU’s external Surveillance Tested From 25–27 September 2018, FRA borders. It will also carry out deployments At the end of September, Frontex start- hosted its annual Fundamental Rights and joint operations on Albanian territory ed testing the use of Remotely Piloted Forum. The 3-day conference offered a subject to the agreement. For each opera- Aircraft Systems (RPAS) to monitor the wide range of topics and speakers. Over tion, a plan must be agreed on between EU’s external borders. The RPAS carry 600 participants attended. The represent- the parties. The agreement is the first in a surveillance equipment, including ther- atives were from European and national planned series of agreements with coun- mal cameras and radars. The system is human rights organisations, EU institu- tries neighbouring the EU. (CR) being tested for several different opera- tions and agencies, national authorities tions: and parliaments, local authorities, legal ETIAS Central Unit at Frontex „„Sea surveillance; practitioners, the business, sporting and On 9 October 2018, the European Travel „„Support of search-and-rescue opera- arts worlds, as well as civil society and Information and Authorisation System tions; rights-holders. (ETIAS) came into force, providing an „„Detection of vessels suspected of During the forum, participation by electronic travel authorisation system for criminal activities; the majority and variety of experts was visitors from countries that are currently „„Information sharing with multiple us- used to collect ideas to counter the press- not part of the EU but have been granted ers in real time. ing human rights threats facing Europe. visa-free access to the EU and Schengen The tests are taking place in Greece, In particular, it addressed the following member countries (see eucrim 2/2018, Italy, and Portugal. (CR) concerns: pp. 82, 84). The ETIAS Central Unit „„Increasing trust in institutions; will be set up and managed by Frontex. „„Amplifying the voices of those most It will, for instance, provide operational Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) excluded and marginalised; support, verification of travel authorisa- „„Using local action as a catalyst for tion applications (where necessary), and ETIAS Fundamental Rights Guidance human rights and belonging; a helpdesk for travellers with questions Board „„Implementing social rights to secure on the ETIAS application. (CR) FRA is joining the Fundamental Rights equal opportunities and fair working Guidance Board of the newly established conditions; 2-Year Anniversary of New Border European Travel Information and Author- „„Strengthening belonging through in- Agency isation System (ETIAS). The Board will clusive education and employment. At the beginning of October, Frontex review how the processing of ETIAS ap- Consequently, a variety of calls for marked its two-year anniversary as plications impacts fundamental rights. action and commitments of the Agency

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 149 NEWS – European Union

are outlined in the Chair’s Statement, ment officially agrees to the bill, it will „„The use of available resources from which was published after the forum. be put forward to the parliament, and the European Structural and Investment (CR) legislative track starts. (TW) (ESI) funds remains most challenging; „„The Commission should make better ECA Presents 2017 Annual Report use of its own performance information on EU Budget and develop an internal culture more fo- Specific Areas of Crime / On 4 October 2018, the European Court cused on performance; Substantive Criminal Law of Auditors (ECA) informed the public „„13 instances of suspected fraud (of of its 2017 Annual Report. It forms the 703 audited transactions) were found. Protection of Financial Interests basis for the statement of assurance, Auditors reported these cases to OLAF. which the ECA is required to provide to In the foreword to the annual report, Germany: Legislative Draft for the European Parliament and the Coun- ECA President Klaus-Heiner Lehne ul- Implementation of PIF Directive Tabled cil under Art. 287 TFEU. timately remarked that the budgetary On 11 October 2018, the Federal Min- Each year, the EU auditors check the significance of the EU is much smaller istry of Justice and Consumer Protec- EU accounts and give their opinion on compared to that of the Member States. tion tabled a ministerial draft for the two questions: The EU budget comprises only approx. implementation of the PIF Directive „„Are the accounts accurate and reli- 1% of the gross national income of the into German law. For the PIF Directive, able? entire EU. Therefore, EU decision-mak- see eucrim 2/2017, p. 63 and the article „„To what extent is there evidence of ers should be realistic about what can be by Juszczak/Sason in eucrim 2/2017, EU money being received or paid out achieved with EU money. According to pp. 80–87. The PIF-Directive is also in error (regularity and legality of EU Lehne, “the EU should not make prom- closely connected with the European finances)? ises if it cannot deliver.” (TW) Public Prosecutor’s Office, which will As regards the first question, the ECA prosecute offences framed in the PIF Di- gave a “clean opinion,” which means rective in the future (see eucrim 3/2017, that the EU accounts present a true and Money Laundering pp. 102–104). fair view of the EU’s financial position. The ministerial draft states that Ger- As regards the second question, the ECA New Directive on Criminalisation man law already broadly complies with issued a “qualified opinion,” i.e. perva- of Money Laundering the requirements of the Directive. The sive problems on the regularity of trans- spot On 12 November 2018, Direc- necessary adaptations ought to be made actions underlying the accounts could light tive 2018/1673 on combating by a new law “for strengthening the pro- not be identified. The qualified opinion money laundering by criminal tection of the financial interests of the is only the second one in a row since law was published in the Official Jour- EU” (EU-Finanzschutzstärkungsgesetz 1994: until last year, ECA opinions were nal of the EU (O.J. L 284/22). The Di- − EUFinSchStG). “adverse,” i.e. indicating widespread rective aims at closing loopholes in the The new law will regulate the of- problems. definition and sanctioning of money fences of misapplication of funds or as- The ECA annual report essentially laundering across the European Union. sets from the Union budget or budgets found that the level of irregularities in Furthermore, the new legal framework managed by the Union and those of il- EU spending has continued to decrease. facilitates judicial and police coopera- legal diminution of the resources of the The level of error in payments during tion to combat money laundering and Union budget/budgets managed by the 2017 was 2.4%, whereas it was 3.1% terrorist financing. Union. Furthermore, clarifications are to in 2016 and 3.8% in 2015. Moreover, As a result, the criminalisation of be made regarding the offences of tak- in 2017, a significant part of the audited money laundering has been “lisbonized” ing and giving bribes in relation to the expenditure − mainly entitlement pay- and replaces the respective provisions financial interests of the European Un- ments − was not affected by a material of Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA ion. Further amendments in the context level of error. The highest error rate was on money laundering, which had been of corruption offences and adaptations incurred in cost reimbursement in the adopted as a third pillar instrument to subsidy fraud will be implemented in areas of natural resources and cohesion. under the Treaty of Amsterdam. The the German Criminal Code. Sufficient information was also avail- Framework Decision was not considered The ministerial draft will next be dis- able to prevent or to detect and correct a comprehensive enough and the current cussed by the government, where further significant proportion of errors. criminalisation of money laundering and changes – generally not fundamental Other key findings of the report in- terrorist financing not sufficiently coher- ones – can be made. After the govern- clude the following: ent to effectively combat money laun-

150 | eucrim 3 / 2018 Specific Areas of Crime / Substantive Criminal Law dering across the EU. This also resulted to that criminal activity, including the The EU Member States must trans- in enforcement gaps and obstacles to identity of the perpetrator, and (3) irre- pose the Directive by 3 December 2020. cooperation between the competent au- spective of the fact that the criminal ac- Denmark, Ireland, and the United King- thorities in different Member States. For tivity was committed in another country. dom are not bound by it. further background information, see the „„Requirements for “knowledge” of the The Commission must provide an im- 2016 Commission proposal for the Di- money launderer have been lowered. The plementation report to the European Par- rective and eucrim 4/2016, pp. 159–160. Directive does not distinguish whether liament and to the Council by 3 Decem- For the negotiations in the EP and Coun- the property has derived directly or in- ber 2022. Another report to the EP and cil, see eucrim 1/2018, pp. 14–15. directly from the criminal activity and the Council, assessing the added value The main elements of the new Direc- whether any intentions or knowledge of of the Directive with regard to combat- tive are as follows: the proceeds can be inferred from objec- ing money laundering and its impact on „„Criminal activities that constitute tive, factual circumstances. fundamental rights and freedoms, is due predicate offences for money laundering „„Member States are obliged to pun- on 3 December 2023. On the basis of the have been uniformly defined. The Direc- ish aiding and abetting, inciting, and at- latter report, the Commission shall de- tive provides for a two-layered system: tempting a money laundering offence as cide whether legislative amendments to first, Member States are obliged to con- defined in the Directive; the present Directive are necessary. sider predicate offences if a certain pen- „„Member States must ensure that the The Directive on combating money alty threshold is met. Second, Member money laundering offences are punish- laundering by means of criminal law States are obliged to recgonize 22 cat- able by a maximum term of imprison- complements the 4th and 5th AML Direc- egories of offences listed in the Direc- ment of at least four years; tives (see, for the latter, eucrim 2/2018, tive as criminal activity that constitutes „„Member States must also provide pp. 93–94), which address prevention predicate offences for money launder- for additional sanctions or measures of the use of the financial system for the ing. The Directive here partly refers to against natural persons, e.g., fines; tem- purpose of money laundering or terror- offences as set out in other legal acts of porary or permanent exclusion from ac- ist financing. It also reinforces the EU’s the Union; cess to public funding, including tender efforts to build up a security Union that „„Member States are obliged to include procedures, grants, and concessions; includes several measures to strengthen virtual currencies under “property” that temporary disqualification from prac- the EU’s fight against terrorist financing may be subject to money laundering; tising commercial activities; and tem- and financial crimes. (TW) „„The conduct (if committed inten- porary bans on running for elected or tionally) that is punishable as money public office; New Regulation on Cash Controls laundering is defined. This includes the „„The Directive sets out aggravating On 12 November 2018, Regulation (EU) conversion or transfer of property; the circumstances, which the Member States 2018/1672 was published in the Official concealment or disguise of the true na- must take into account when persons are Journal of the EU (O.J. L 284/6). The ture, source or ownership of property; sentenced. They apply to cases linked to Regulation introduces new rules for and the acquisition, possession or use of criminal organisations or to the exercise controls on cash entering or leaving the property that was derived from criminal of certain professional activities. Fur- Union. It repeals Regulation (EC) No activity; thermore, Member States are entitled to 1889/2005, which laid down the existing „„Member States are obliged to make define aggravating circumstances based harmonized rules for the control of cash punishable certain types of “self-laun- on the value of laundered property or the flow at the EU’s external borders and dering,” i.e., if the money laundering nature of the offence (e.g., corruption, which has applied since 15 June 2007 is committed by the perpetrator of the sexual exploitation, drug trafficking, and (see eucrim 1–2/2006, p. 12). criminal activity that generated the prop- terrorism); The new Regulation takes over the erty; „„Conditions are also set out for the €10,000 threshold from the 2005 Regu- „„Certain factors that may hinder con- liability of legal persons and possible lation. Travelers carrying cash of such viction have been excluded. In this con- sanctions against them; value or more must declare it to the text, the Directive foresees that convic- „„Member States must take the neces- competent authorities of the Member tion should be possible (1) without a sary measures to ensure the freezing or State through which they are entering prior or simultaneous conviction for the confiscation of the proceeds of crime in or leaving the Union. The new Regula- criminal activity from which the prop- accordance with Directive 2014/42/EU; tion, however, extends the definition of erty was derived, (2) without it being „„Finally, clearer rules define which “cash” to cover not only banknotes but necessary to establish precisely the fac- Member State has jurisdiction and how also other means of transfer, extends the tual elements or circumstances relating conflicts of jurisdiction can be resolved. obligations of citizens, and widens the

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 151 NEWS – European Union control powers of national authorities. information as defined for declarations if considered a necessary tool, since an in- Furthermore, rules on the exchange of there are indications that the cash might crease in cash movements for illicit pur- data and information have been clari- be linked to criminal activity; poses was feared as a repercussion of the fied, including provisions on data pro- „„The Regulation confers to the com- tighter transparency and record-keeping tection and confidentiality. petent authorities, usually (but not only) rules for financial institutions introduced By means of the new legal frame- customs authorities, the power to carry by the AML Directives. In addition, the work, the EU is reacting to shortcom- out the requisite controls on both per- new legal framework is an integral part ings experienced in the implementation sons and any unaccompanied consign- of the EU’s Agenda on Security, which and application of the current rules. The ments. They are also entitled to detain includes the improved fight against new rules, which will apply from 3 June cash temporarily, either where the ob- money laundering, terrorist financing, 2021, are to specifically close loopholes ligation to declare or to disclose cash and other financial crimes. (TW) used to circumvent the current system in has not been fulfilled or where there are order to move and launder money. indications of criminal activity irrespec- Further Infringement Proceedings for The main elements of the Regulation tive of the amount of “cash.” Non-Transposition of 4th AML Directive are as follows: „„Member States are obliged to intro- The Commission is going ahead with in- „„One of the key concepts of the new duce “effective, proportionate and dis- fringement proceedings against Member Regulation is the definition of “cash”. It suasive” penalties in the event of failure States for not completely implementing now comprises four categories, i.e., (1) to comply with the obligations to de- the 4th Anti-Money Laundering (AML) currency, (2) bearer-negotiable instru- clare/disclose. Directive (see also eucrim 2/2018, ments (e.g., cheques or money orders), Other provisions of the Regulation p. 93). All Member States had to comply (3) commodities used as highly liquid include the passing/transmission of in- with the provisions of the Directive by stores of value (e.g., gold coins or nug- formation to the FIUs of the Member 26 June 2017. gets), and (4) prepaid cards; States, which were designed to be infor- On 8 November 2018, the Commis- „„Natural persons entering or leaving mation hubs in the fight against money sion reported that it referred Luxem- the EU are obliged to declare “cash” as laundering and terrorist financing. Fur- bourg to the European Court of Justice defined in the Directive and to make it thermore, the information exchange be- for only transposing part of the Directive available for control. This obligation tween the customs/competent authori- into national law. The Commission pro- applies to a cash value of € 10,000 or ties and with the Commission have been posed that the Court charges a lump sum more – a threshold which is deemed specified. In this context, information and daily penalties until Luxembourg appropriate to strike a balance between must also be transferred to the Euro- takes the necessary action. the right to free movement of capital pean Public Prosecutor’s Office if there Furthermore, the Commission sent a and the need to reduce administrative are indications that the cash is related to reasoned opinion to Estonia and a letter burdens. The Regulation further sets criminal activity that could adversely af- of formal notice to Denmark for failing out the information that must be de- fect the EU’s financial interests. to completely transpose the 4th AML Di- clared by the carrier; By the 4 December 2021 deadline, rective. Although these Member States „„The movement of unaccompanied EU Member States must transmit to have declared their transposition, the cash of a value of €10,000, e.g., cash the Commission the list of competent Commission assessed the notified meas- sent by postal packages, courier ship- authorities, details of the penalties in- ures and concluded that some provisions ments, unaccompanied luggage, or con- troduced, and anonymised, statistical are missing. Estonia and Denmark now tainerized cargo has also been regulated. data on declarations, controls, and in- have two months to respond and take The competent authorities of the Mem- fractions. Since the Regulation is based the necessary action. Otherwise, the Eu- ber States through which the cash is en- on Arts. 33 and 114 TFEU, it is also ap- ropean Commission may take the next tering or leaving the Union may require plicable to Denmark and Ireland. The infringement steps, including referral to the sender or the recipient of the cash Commission has to draft a first report the CJEU. (TW) to make a disclosure declaration within on the application of the Regulation by 30 days. The declaration must cover a 3 December 2021. Commission Urges Maltese Watchdog number of elements, such as the origin, The new Regulation complements to Comply with EU’s AML Rules destination, economic provenance, and the AML Directives on the prevention On 8 November 2018, the Commission intended use of the cash; of the use of the financial system for sent a formal opinion to the Maltese an- „„Where the national authorities de- purposes of money laundering and ter- ti-money laundering supervisor (Finan- tect amounts of cash below the €10,000 rorist financing (for the 5th AML Direc- cial Intelligence Analysis Unit − FIAU), threshold, they are entitled to record the tive, see eucrim 2/2018, pp. 93–94). It is in which it calls for compliance with the

152 | eucrim 3 / 2018 Specific Areas of Crime / Substantive Criminal Law obligations under the 4th Anti-Money certain threshold. A general approach on for fuel in chartered pleasure crafts used Laundering (AML) Directive. The opin- this new EU measure had already been for personal purposes. ion goes back to a recommendation by reached by the ECOFIN Council on The UK abused VAT practices in the the European Banking Authority (EBA), 2 October 2018. Isle of Man with regard to supplies for which identified several shortcomings in The legal framework will allow tem- and the leasing of aircraft. the supervision of the EU’s anti-money porary derogations from normal VAT If Italy and the UK do not properly laundering rules in Malta on behalf of rules in order to better prevent VAT react within two months, the Commis- the Commission. fraud. Under the Directive, proposed by sion can further proceed with the in- The Commission’s action is based the Commission in 2016, EU Member fringement proceedings. (TW) on the EBA Regulation, which em- States most severely affected by VAT powers the Commission to address fraud can temporarily apply a gener- the national authority (in charge of alised reversal of VAT liability if they Non-Cash Means of Payment implementing anti-money laundering meet a number of very strict conditions. rules in the financial sector) to take By applying this so-called generalised Statistics on Card Fraud in 2016 the necessary measures to fully com- reverse charge mechanism (GRCM), li- On 26 September 2018, the ECB pre- ply with Union law where it has failed ability for VAT payments is shifted from sented figures on card fraud in 2016. It to do so. This is the first time that the the supplier to the customer. This meas- is the fifth report of this kind. The main Commission has used this mechanism, ures is intended to better combat carou- results are as follows: which is without prejudice to infringe- sel fraud, while a comprehensive and „„The total value of fraudulent trans- ment proceedings against the Member EU-wide solution is put in place. actions conducted using cards issued State of Malta for not having correctly The GRCM is only applicable to within the Single Euro Payments Area transposed the 4th AML Directive (for non-cross-border supplies of goods and (SEPA) amounted to €1.8 billion in 2016 these infringement proceedings, see services above a threshold of €17,500 (a slight decrease of 0.4% compared to eucrim 2/2018, p. 93). per transaction. Its applicability is also 2015); An important role was conferred time-restricted (until 30 June 2022). Any „„73% of the value of card fraud re- to the European Banking Authority Member State wishing to use the GRCM sulted from card-not-present (CNP) with the EBA Regulation: promoting must fulfil several legal and technical payments, i.e. payments via the Internet, the convergence of supervisory prac- requirements. It must, inter alia, estab- post or telephone; tices to ensure a harmonised applica- lish appropriate and effective electronic „„CNP losses amounted to €1.32 billion tion of anti-money laundering super- reporting mechanisms for all taxable – by far the largest category of fraud in vision rules. Currently, the EBA also persons, in particular those to which the absolute value; conducts enquiries on the competent GRCM would apply. A Member State’s „„The largest drop in the level of fraud authorities in Latvia, Denmark, and request must be authorised by the Coun- concerned card fraud committed at au- Estonia. Recent cases had raised con- cil. Ultimately, the application of the tomated teller machines (ATMs), with cerns about the effective enforcement measure is subject to strict EU safe- 12.4% less fraud in 2016 compared with of the anti-money laundering rules by guards. (TW) 2015, while fraud committed at point- the national authorities in these coun- of-sale (POS) terminals went down by tries. (TW) Commission Takes Action Against Italy 3.0%; and the UK for Illegal VAT Practices „„From a geographical perspective, As a follow up to the Paradise Paper domestic transactions accounted for Tax Evasion leaks, the Commission launched in- 90% of all transactions, but only 35% fringement proceedings against Italy of fraudulent transactions. Cross-border Council Adopts Directive Allowing and the United Kingdom on 8 Novem- transactions within the SEPA made up Generalised Temporary Reversal ber 2018. The proceedings concern VAT 8% of all transactions, but 43% of fraud- of VAT Liability practices in the yacht and aircraft sectors ulent transactions. Although only 2% of On 20 December 2018, the Council that are not considered in line with EU all transactions were performed outside adopted a Directive amending Direc- rules. the SEPA, they accounted for 22% of all tive 2006/112/EC on the common sys- Italy is at fault for not levying the fraud; tem of value added tax. It concerns the correct amount of VAT on the leasing of „„There are higher fraud losses on non- temporary application of a generalised yachts. Second, the Commission found SEPA issued cards used inside the SEPA reverse charge mechanism in relation to that Italy has illegal rules in place that than there are on SEPA-issued cards supplies of goods and services above a favour the exemption of excise duties used outside the SEPA.

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 153 NEWS – European Union

In summary, the observation was In 2017, customs authorities detained Cybercrime made that online card fraud increased over 31 million fake and counterfeit only slightly in 2016, whereas it had products at the EU’s external border Internet Organised Crime Threat been growing at much higher rates in having a street value of over €580 mil- Assessment Published previous years. Furthermore, a drop in lion. Europol published its fifth Internet Or- card-present fraud (card use at ATMs or Products for daily use and products ganised Crime Threat Assessment (IOC- POS terminals) is evident. that would be potentially dangerous to TA), which gives a comprehensive over- This trend can be explained by in- the health and safety of consumers (i.e. view of current and future threats and creased security measures in the indus- suspected trademark infringements re- identifies trends in crime conducted and/ try, as encouraged by EU regulators. lating to food and beverages, body care or facilitated online. A significant decrease in counterfeit articles, medicines, electrical household The 2018 IOCTA looks at the threats card fraud and fraud using lost or sto- goods and toys) accounted for 43.3% and trends with regard to four crime pri- len cards, combined with the adoption of the total amount of detained articles. orities: of “Chip and PIN” (the EMV stand- This is a significant increase compared „„Cyber-dependent crime; ard), explains the significant decrease in to the two previous years. „„Child sexual exploitation online; fraud at ATMs and POS, particularly for The following were at the top on the „„Payment fraud; transactions outside the EU. Since 2015, list of detained articles: foodstuffs (ac- „„Online criminal markets. the “two factor” customer authentica- counting for 24% of the overall amount Furthermore, it examines the con- tion adopted by banks and supported by of detained articles), followed by toys vergence of cybercrime and terrorism, merchants has helped limit online card (11%), cigarettes (9%), and clothes cross-cutting crime factors, and the geo- fraud. (TW) (7%). graphic distribution of cybercrime. For As regards the means of transport, the each area, the report provides key find- report indicates the following: ings and recommendations. Counterfeiting & Piracy „„65% of all detained articles entered In its summary, the report outlines the the EU via the maritime route, usually in following eight key findings for the year Annual Report on Counterfeit Seized large consignments; 2018: Goods – 2017 Results „„14% of fake articles were transported „„Ransomware remains dominant; On 27 September 2018, the Commission by means of air traffic; „„Production of Child Sexual Exploita- presented its annual report on EU cus- „„Courier traffic and postal traffic to- tion Material (CSEM) continues; toms enforcement of intellectual prop- gether still accounted for 76% of all „„Distributed-Denial-of-Service (DDoS) erty rights in 2017. detentions (mainly consumer articles or- continues to plague public and private The report contains statistical infor- dered via e-commerce); organisations; mation about the detentions made under „„As regards provenance of fake goods, „„Card-not-present fraud dominates customs procedures and includes data on the following data were reported: payment fraud, but skimming continues; the description, quantities, and values of „„China remains the main country of „„As criminal abuse of cryptocurren- the goods; their provenance; the means origin for fake goods entering the EU; cies grows, currency users and exchang- of transport; and the type of intellectual „„The highest amount of fake clothing ers are becoming targets; property right (IPR) that may have been originated from Turkey; „„Social engineering is still the engine infringed. „„The most counterfeit mobile phones of many cybercrimes; Fake products entering the EU is and accessories, e.g. ink cartridges and „„Cryptojacking sparks a new cyber- still high on the agenda of criminals toners, CDs/DVDs and labels, tags and crime trend; and remains a major concern, although stickers came from Hong Kong and „„Shutters close on major Darknet the total figures have decreased in 2017 China; markets, but business continues. compared to 2016. This decrease can be „„India was the top country of origin for The report also describes a number viewed in the context of recently enacted fake and potentially harmful medicines. of key legislative and technological de- EU legislation, which encourages Euro- Furthermore, the report reveals that, velopments, such as the introduction of pean companies to invest more in inno- in 90% of detentions, goods were either the General Data Protection Regulation vation and creativity in order to make it destroyed or a court case was initiated to (GDPR), the Network and Information easier to act efficiently against breaches determine an infringement or as part of Security (NIS) directive and 5G technol- of IPR, facilitate cross-border litigation, criminal proceedings. ogy. Ultimately, the report makes a num- and tackle the import of counterfeit or For the 2016 report, see eucrim ber of recommendations on the above pirated goods into the EU. 3/2017, p. 109. (TW) mentioned crime areas. (CR)

154 | eucrim 3 / 2018 Procedural Criminal Law

EU Cybersecurity Organisations Agree and exculpatory evidence, even if the ining an appeal against pre-trial deten- on Roadmap accused’s lawyer submitted arguments tion must take exculpatory evidence into On 6 November 2018, Europol, the Eu- to that effect. Hence, the referring Spe- account unless it appears implausible or ropean Union Agency for Network and cialised Criminal Court sought guidance frivolous. Information Security (ENISA), the Eu- as to whether these two lines of Bulgar- It is also worth mentioning that the ropean Defence Agency (EDA), and the ian case law are compatible with the re- present reference for a preliminary rul- Computer Emergency Response Team quirements of Arts. 3 and 4 of Directive ing is the second one in criminal pro- for the EU Institutions agreed on a road- 2016/343 and with the procedural safe- ceedings against Emil Milev. In a first map outlining activities and projects for guards on the presumption of innocence reference procedure (Case C-439/16 their cooperation in 2019 in order to as laid down in the CFR. PPU), the CJEU had to decide whether avoid duplication of efforts. In particu- The CJEU first clarified the scope of case law of the Supreme Court of Cas- lar, the agencies plan to work together Arts. 3 and 4 of the Directive. These pro- sation of Bulgaria on continued custody more closely in 2019 in the areas of visions require Member States to ensure during the trial phase compromised the training and cyber exercises. (CR) that: attainment of the objectives prescribed „„Suspects or accused persons are pre- by Directive 2016/343. For this deci- sumed innocent until proved guilty ac- sion, see eucrim 4/2016, p. 163. (TW) cording to law (Art. 3); Procedural Criminal Law „„For as long as a suspect or an ac- cused person has not been proved guilty Data Protection Procedural Safeguards according to law, judicial decisions in particular, other than those on guilt, do CJEU Backs Police Access to Retained CJEU: EU Directive Does Not Cover not refer to that person as being guilty Data in Minor Offences Procedure for Reviewing the (Art. 4(1)). spot On 2 October 2018, the CJEU Lawfulness of Pre-Trial Detention Art. 4(1) is, however, subject to the delivered another important light On 19 September 2018, the CJEU ren- proviso that it be “without prejudice to judgment on data protection and dered a judgment on the interpretation preliminary decisions of a procedural on access by public authorities to re- of Directive (EU) 2016/343 on the pre- nature which are taken by judicial au- tained provider data. The CJEU ruled on sumption of innocence and Arts. 47 and thorities and which are based on suspi- the Case C-207/16 (Ministerio Fiscal), 48 CFR (Case C-310/18 PPU – Emil cion or on incriminating evidence.” which was presented together with the Milev). Read in the light of recital 16 of the Opinion of the Advocate General (AG) The judgment is based on a request Directive, this reservation is interpreted in eucrim 1/2018, pp. 21–23. for a preliminary ruling by the Spetsi- as widely excluding pre-trial detention The CJEU followed the AG’s opin- aliziran nakazatelen sad (Specialised from the Directive’s harmonisation ob- ion and concluded that law enforcement Criminal Court, Bulgaria) in criminal jective. Therefore, the CJEU concluded authorities can also access personal data proceedings against Emil Milev. He had that the Directive only requires pre-trial retained by providers of electronic com- been prosecuted for armed robbery and court decisions not to refer to the person munications in cases of criminal offenc- applied for withdrawal of the pre-trial in custody as being guilty. It does not es that are not particularly serious. It is a detention imposed on him. The Bulgar- govern the circumstances under which pre-condition, however, that access does ian court was in doubt as to whether the such a decision on pre-trial detention not constitute a serous infringement of Bulgarian law and court practice to or- may be adopted. The posed questions privacy. der or continue pre-trial detention is in concerning the degree of certainty that a  Facts of the Case and line with EU law. court must have, the rules governing the Legal Questions According to Bulgarian case law, examination of evidence, and the extent The case at issue concerned a request by the prerequisite for pre-trial deten- of the statement of reasons fall solely Spanish police authorities to obtain in- tion, namely the existence of “reason- within the remit of national law. formation on communication data in or- able grounds” for having committed The CJEU deviates here from AG der to identify the owners/users of SIM a criminal offence, is understood as a Melchior Wathelet in his opinion of cards that were allegedly activated by mere prima facie finding. Furthermore, 7 August 2018. The AG found that the means of a stolen mobile phone. As part national case law only requires stating Directive, read in conjunction with Arts. of their investigations of the robbery the reasons for a decision to vary the co- 6, 47 and 48 CFR, also contain substan- of the mobile phone and a wallet, they ercive measure of “pre-trial detention,” tive, positive rules on pre-trial detention. asked various telephone operators to re- without comparing the incriminating He further concluded that a judge exam- lease names, telephone numbers; and ad-

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 155 NEWS – European Union dresses of persons who used the mobile only mention activities of the State or of the directive does not limit that ob- phone to activate SIM cards. The Span- of State authorities unrelated to fields jective to the fight against serious crime ish Public Prosecutor’s Office (Ministe- in which individuals are active. The alone, but refers to “criminal offences” rio Fiscal) appealed against the decision Directives also, however, cover legisla- in general; of the investigative judge who denied tive measures that govern the activities „„Within the framework of proportion- the request for access to said data. The of providers of electronic communica- ality, the CJEU, in its judgment in Tele2 judge believed that the acts giving rise to tions services. By referring to Tele2 Sverige/Watson, defined that the objec- the criminal investigation in question are Sverige and Watson and others (see tive of fighting serious crime may justify not serious enough to justify the collec- eucrim 4/2016, p. 164), the CJEU set public authorities’ access to personal data tion of data under Spanish law. forth that the activities of service provid- retained by electronic service providers The appeal court (Audiencia Pro- ers are also affected if legislative meas- if, taken as a whole, the data allow pre- vincial de Tarragona) sought guidance ures relate to access of national authori- cise conclusions to be drawn about the from the CJEU on whether EU law fixes ties to data retained by those providers. private lives of the persons. This means a certain threshold for the seriousness As a result, it is irrelevant – in contrast to that if the interference is serious, it can of offences, above which interference the remarks of the Spanish Government be justified in that field only by the ob- with the individuals’ fundamental rights – that the request for access was made jective of fighting “serious” crime; of privacy and of protection of personal in connection with a criminal investiga- „„By contrast, when the interference is data through the access of competent tion. It is also irrelevant that the access not serious, such access is capable of be- authorities to personal data retained by at issue “only” relates to data in connec- ing justified by the objective of prevent- service providers may be justified. tion with SIM cards. In sum, the CJEU ing, investigating, detecting, and pros- The request for a preliminary ruling held the request for a preliminary ruling ecuting “criminal offences” generally; particularly concerned the interpreta- admissible. „„In the present case, access to the data tion of Art. 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/  Reasoning in Substance concerned cannot be defined as “serious EC as amended by Directive 2009/136/ The CJEU gave the following arguments interference,” because these data – being EC – in short, the Directive on privacy to substantiate its findings: cross-referenced with data pertaining to and electronic communications. It al- „„National authorities’ access to per- communication with SIM cards and lo- lows Member States to restrict citizens’ sonal data retained by providers of cation data – do not make it possible to rights when such a restriction consti- electronic communications services ascertain the date, time, duration, and tutes a necessary, appropriate, and pro- constitutes an interference with the fun- recipients of the communications un- portionate measure within a democratic damental right of respect for private life dertaken with the SIM cards. They also society in order to safeguard national se- (Art. 7 CFR). It is irrelevant whether the do not make it possible to ascertain the curity, defence, public security, and the interference is defined as “serious,” the locations where these communications prevention, investigation, detection and information in question is sensitive, or took place or the frequency of these prosecution of criminal offences or of the persons concerned have been incon- communications with specific people unauthorised use of the electronic com- venienced in any way; during a given period. These data do not munication system. „„Such access also constitutes interfer- therefore allow precise conclusions to be  Admissibility of the Request ence with the fundamental right to the drawn concerning the private lives of the First, the CJEU had to deal with an ob- protection of personal data (guaranteed persons whose data is concerned; jection by the Spanish government that by Art. 8 CFR), as it constitutes process- „„Hence, access to data − as in the case questioned the jurisdiction of the Court. ing of personal data; at issue − is legal (under the Directive The Spanish government argued that ac- „„The list of objectives in the directive on privacy and electronic communica- cess to telecommunication data is part of capable of justifying national legislation tions), even though it concerns a minor national authorities’ exercise of jus puni- governing public authorities’ access to offence (here: robbery of mobile phone). endi. This, however, constitutes activity such data and thereby derogating from  On Focus on the part of the State in areas of crimi- the principle of confidentiality of elec- The judgment in the present case (Min- nal law, which makes EC Directives reg- tronic communications is exhaustive. sterio Fiscal) is an important clarifica- ulating data protection or retention inap- This means that access must correspond, tion in the field of data retention. The plicable in accordance with Art. 1(3) of genuinely and strictly, to one of these CJEU drew the line more precisely be- Directive 2002/58 or Art. 3(2) of Direc- objectives. tween admissible and inadmissible law tive 95/46. „„As regards the objective of prevent- enforcement access to data retained The CJEU stated that provisions lim- ing, investigating, detecting, and pros- initially for commercial purposes by pri- iting the scope of said EC Directives ecuting criminal offences, the wording vate providers of electronic communica-

156 | eucrim 3 / 2018 Procedural Criminal Law tions services. It set a counterpoint to its visas; the second between EU informa- son, e.g. journalists. Other main issues landmark decision on national data re- tion systems on police and judicial co- of the MEPs’ amendments concerned tention regimes in Tele2Sverige/Watson. operation, asylum, and migration. For the following: The CJEU clarified that there is a a summary of interoperability between „„Introduction of timeframes, i.e. re- correlation between the level of serious- EU border and security information sys- porting avenues should ensure that the ness of interference and the seriousness tems, see also the briefing paper of the reporting person is notified of receipt of of crimes to be fought against. This is EP Think Tank EPRS of October 2018. his/her within a week of submission; fol- deducted from the principle of propor- The LIBE Committee nominated two low-up on the report should be received tionality. In other words: if police seek main rapporteurs to deal with the two no later than two months after receipt of sound revelations of the persons’ com- dossiers on the interoperability legal the report; munications, the criminal offence in- framework. Although the rapporteurs „„No strict tiered approach: it should volved must be a serious one. (Jeroen Lenaers, EPP, NL, responsible be up to the reporting person to choose In this way, the CJEU avoided de- for the borders and visa proposal, and the most appropriate channel to report, ciding on the Spanish appeal court’s Nuno Melo, EPP, PT, responsible for whether internal or external, depending initial question, i.e. how the judges in the police and judicial cooperation pro- on the circumstances; Luxembourg would concretely define posal) generally welcomed the proposed „„Member States should provide infor- the “seriousness” of a criminal offence. measures, a bulk of amendments were mation and advice free of charge as well The AG added statements in this regard tabled. The file on borders and visa con- as legal, financial, and psychological at the end of his opinion. Nonetheless, tains over 1000 amendments; the file on support. the matter may be subject to subsequent police and judicial cooperation over 920. The draft legislation was put for- references for a preliminary ruling. MEPs agree on the practical and tech- ward to the plenary on 27 November (TW) nical necessity of interoperability. How- 2018. Once the plenary has endorsed the ever, they also raised concerns about EP position, negotiating talks with the EP Takes Position on Interoperability compatibility with fundamental rights Council can start. Legal Framework and data protection principles, in par- EUROCADRES, the trade union On 24 October 2018, the plenary of the ticular the principle of proportionality. It organisation representing profession- European Parliament backed the posi- remains to be seen whether the legisla- als and managers, warmly welcomed tion of the LIBE Committee regarding tive proposal can be adopted before the the MEPs’ position. In particular, they legislative proposals on the interoper- end of the parliamentary term in May agreed with the aim of including re- ability between EU information systems 2019. (TW) porting on the violation of workers’ in the area of justice and home affairs. rights and protecting persons supporting EP negotiators have now green light to whistleblowers, such as those working enter into informal talks with the Coun- Victim Protection in NGOs. (TW) cil and the Commission. The general approach of the Council EP Committee Vote on Whistleblower ECA Issues Statement on Planned was endorsed by the Permanent Repre- Directive Whistleblower Directive sentatives Committee (Coreper) in June On 20 November 2018, MEPs from the The European Court of Editors (ECA) 2018 (see eucrim 2/2018, p. 101). The Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) adopt- examined the Commission proposal for Council adopted a revised mandate in ed their position on the Commission a directive on the protection of whistle- September 2018 after the Commission proposal for a directive on the protection blowers (COM(2018) 218 final, see eu- had published amendments to its origi- of whistleblowers (COM(2018) 218 fi- crim 1/2018, p. 27). In Opinion 4/2018, nal 2017 proposal (see eucrim 4/2017, nal, see eucrim 1/2018, p. 27). the ECA generally welcomes the legisla- p. 174) on 13 June 2018 (COM(2018) Parliamentarians broadly backed the tive initiative, but believes that the Di- 478 and COM(2018) 480). The amend- legislation guaranteeing that whistle- rective could become too complex and ed proposals of the Commission take blowers in the EU can report breaches of possibly ineffective in some points. into account recently adopted or agreed EU law in the areas of tax evasion, cor- First, the ECA identifies several ad- legal instruments (ETIAS, SIS, and eu- ruption, environmental protection, and vantages of the proposed EU Directive LISA). The legislation on interoper- public health and safety without fear of on whistleblowing: ability consists of two proposals for two retaliation or intimidation. Legal Affairs „„Improved management of EU poli- regulations: the first would establish MEPs agreed that the same protection cies from the “bottom up” through the an interoperability framework between measures must also apply to facilitators, actions by employees and citizens; EU information systems on borders and i.e. persons who assist the reporting per- „„Support for the “top-down approach”

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 157 NEWS – European Union

when infringement procedures are initi- is established of which whistleblowing „„The current proposal that the whistle- ated by the Commission against Mem- is an accepted part. Furthermore, pub- blower must provide prima facie ber States; lic interest in the information revealed evidence that the retaliation is a con- „„Increased awareness on the part of should guide the legal action. Member sequence of the report should be elimi- citizens, especially regarding their cru- States should not be allowed to with- nated since the burden of proof should cial role in applying EU law; hold protection based on the reporting fully be shifted to the employer; „„Help when detecting systematic prob- person’s subjective intentions or specific „„The directive must provide full com- lems in Member States; motivations. pensation for damages, without any ceil- „„Savings to the EU budget when re- The ECA opinion is not binding for ing, and should not refer the matter of ports of whistleblowers concern the the EU’s legislative authorities (Coun- compensatory measures to the national EU’s financial interests; cil and European Parliament), but it en- law; „„Support for the EU legislator to close hances the legislative work. (TW) „„An explicit non-regression clause loopholes/gaps in the financial manage- should be included to clarify that imple- ment of EU funds; EESC Opinion on Whistleblower mentation of the directive does not di- „„Feed audit works, such as those of the Directive minish more favourable rights granted to ECA. On 18 October 2018, the Economic whistleblowers prior to this directive in The ECA opinion mainly criticises and Social Committee (EESC) adopted the Member States. the material scope of the proposal. Al- an opinion on the Commission’s plans To change the public perception of though the proposed article (Art. 1) to strengthen the protection of whistle- whistleblowers, the EESC ultimately takes into account the division of pow- blowers at the EU level. calls on the Commission to introduce ers between the Union and its Member The EESC mainly concludes that provisions for awareness-raising cam- States, the limitation of applicability of whistleblower protection is an important paigns at the European and national lev- the whistleblower Directive puts a re- tool to help companies address unlawful els, including campaigns aimed at young porting person in a difficult situation. and unethical acts. It calls on the Com- people. (TW) He/she needs to make a complex assess- mission to review the legal basis for the ment as to whether his/her planned re- planned directive (see COM(2018) 218 Trade Union Organisation Calls for port is covered by EU rules or rules of final and eucrim 1/2018, p. 27) so as to Robust Whistleblower Directive national law. In this context, the opening include workers’ rights under Art. 153 On 19 November 2018, EUROCADRES clause giving Member States the possi- TFEU. – the trade union organisation represent- bility to extend the scope of the Direc- The EESC made, inter alia, the fol- ing professionals and managers – termed tive to “other areas” is rather weak. lowing additional recommendations: the Commission initiative on the protec- The opinion notes, however, that the „„Former employees, trade union rep- tion of whistleblowers (COM(2018) 218 complex scope is partly mitigated by var- resentatives, and legal persons should final, see eucrim 1/2018, p. 27) a “sur- ious provisions that give whistleblowers be included and benefit from the same prisingly good start.” The president of information, advice, and assistance and protection; EUROCADRES, Martin Jefflén, called by measures against retaliation. „„The directive must also protect whis- on the EU legislators to draft “a fair and The ECA further analyses the follow- tleblowers who initially reported anony- robust Europe-wide whistleblower di- ing elements of the Commission propos- mously but whose identity was subse- rective, which actively encourages the al in detail: quently revealed. reporting of corruption, criminal acts „„Personal scope; „„In the interest of fairness and legal and breaches of public trust.” „„Obligation to establish internal chan- certainty, a two-stage reporting proce- Jefflén further said that parliamen- nels and procedures for reporting and dure should be put in place that initially tarians should “strengthen, rather than follow-up of reports; gives the whistleblower a free choice weaken this important and ground- „„Procedures for internal reporting and to access internal channels or the com- breaking piece of legislation.” In his follow-up reports; petent authorities; and subsequently, opinion, the new directive should meet „„Conditions for the protection of re- if necessary, to access civil society/the the following needs: porting persons; media; „„Safeguards, so that the directive can- „„Measures against retaliation; „„At any stage in the reporting process, not be used to diminish existing protec- „„Reporting, evaluation, and review. whistleblowers should have access to tion in the few EU Member States that The Opinion concludes that the pro- trade union representatives who should offer decent protection to whistleblowers; tection of whistleblowers can only be be empowered to represent them and to „„Rethinking of the approach that successful if a trustful corporate culture provide advice and support; whistleblowers must first report to their

158 | eucrim 3 / 2018 Procedural Criminal Law

“heads;” lowering of barriers for report- „„Extension: Protection should be ex- measures or bring vexatious proceed- ing to authorities, be they law enforce- tended to parties/facilitators supporting ings against reporting persons, are too ment agencies or regulatory authorities; the “reporting person;” vague and require clarification. They „„Provisions on the protection of per- „„Obligations: The scope of “legal en- also do not sufficiently take into account sons who report anonymously; tities” in the private sector, who will be the situation of maliciously or abusively „„The right of whistleblowers to con- obliged to establish internal reporting made reports or disclosures. sult with and be represented by a trade channels, should be reconsidered. The The DAV concluded that the protec- union; definition of “legal entities” is too narrow. tion of reporting persons is generally „„Coverage of the reporting of working The proposed broad thresholds should be favourable, but does not require safe- conditions and workers rights; refined, particularly in view of the- bur guarding through criminal sanctions. „„Removal of the “malicious reporting” dens for small businesses. Furthermore, The behaviour of reporting persons clause, because it discourages potential the peculiarities of group companies should first and foremost be regulated in whistleblowers from coming forward; should be reflected. Companies below the labour law if they are employed persons. „„No alteration of the clause requiring thresholds should not, however, be fully Furthermore, the DAV opposes tenden- a whistleblower to have “reasonable exempt from the obligation to create in- cies to further dilute the three-tiered re- grounds to believe that the information ternal reporting possibilities; porting system. (TW) they are reporting is true” into a clause „„Feedback system: Further clarifica- that refers to “good faith.” tions are required; The statement by EUROCADRES „„Conditions of whistleblower protec- was issued on the eve of the debate in tion: Strict adherence to the three-tiered Cooperation the European Parliament Legal Affairs approach, i.e. resolve grievances inter- Committee (JURI), which adopted its nally first. External whistleblowing must European Arrest Warrant position on the Commission proposal on remain the ultima ratio. In addition, the 20 November 2018. (TW) draft directive must fully clarify the Fair Trial Violation: Amsterdam Court relation between external reports by a Refuses Surrender to Poland German Bar Association Makes Critical whistleblower and the potentially justi- On 5 October 2018, the Internet news Statement on Whistleblower Draft fied interest of the company concerned channel “DutchNews.nl” reported that Directive in ensuring the confidentiality of the the Amsterdam District Court stopped In November 2018, the German Bar measures taken internally; surrender of a Polish national to Po- Association (Deutscher Anwaltver- „„Prerequisites for protection: Revi- land (for the time being) because of ein – DAV) tabled a position paper on sion should include the introduction of a “major doubts about the indepen- the Commission proposal for a direc- condition that the report was made in the dence of the Polish judiciary.” For the tive on the protection of whistleblow- public interest; full text of the decision in Dutch, see ers (COM(2018) 218 final, see eucrim „„Practical implementation: The ap- ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2018:7032). 1/2018, p. 27). The position paper is proach favouring a comprehensive pro- In consideration of the recent reforms available in German and English. tection of whistleblowers is problem- of the Polish judiciary, the judges in the The DAV welcomed the introduction atic. In particular, EU legislation needs Amsterdam court (centrally responsible of EU-wide minimum rules for persons to better rebalance the legitimate goal of for executing European Arrest Warrants) reporting breaches of Union law, but the employer to defend himself against found that the suspect’s constitutional also sees room for improvement. More unjustified allegations with protection of right to a fair trial was endangered. specifically, the DAV suggests the fol- the whistleblower acting in good faith; The judges reportedly posed a num- lowing: „„Reporting system: The three-tiered ber of questions to the Polish authorities „„Material scope: The directive should reporting system should apply compre- and indicated that they will refuse sur- include protection of employees against hensively to all businesses. Exemptions render if the answers are unsatisfactory. health impairments; from use of internal reporting channels The decision comes after the European „„Personal scope: Professional secrecy are too far-reaching and should either be Court of Justice ruled in the “LM” case in obligations, such as those for the legal deleted or at least specified. July 2018. It concluded that the judicial re- profession, have not been sufficiently con- „„Limitation: Public disclosure should forms in Poland may allow the executing sidered and therefore an exception should only be protected as an ultima ratio. authority to refrain from giving effect to be expressly included in the directive for „„Penalties: The proposed penalties EAWs. However, this legal consequence persons whose professions involve pro- against natural or legal persons, who was posed on very narrow conditions fessional secrecy obligations; hinder reporting and take retaliatory (see eucrim 2/2018, pp. 104–105).

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 159 NEWS – European Union

Report

The 2018 Conference on International Extradition and the European Arrest Warrant Lake Iseo, Italy, 25–26 June 2018

Academic and practising lawyers from around the world tice decision Aranyosi Caldararu, concerning poor prison gathered in Sarnico, Italy in the last week of June 2018 to conditions in Romania. “We note an increase in requests for brainstorm on current developments in extradition law in sev- preliminary rulings as the conditions under which extradition eral countries, including the UK, Scotland, USA, Italy, Albania, can be denied on basis of poor prison conditions is unclear.” Australia, Germany, and Switzerland. A poll of participants in- said Oehmichen. In a recent decision, the CJEU ruled on a dicated that virtually all considered the two-day conference a preliminary ruling from Germany and held that the fact that “complete success,” said Robert Fleming, a JD student at the the concerned person has certain legal remedies against the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law prison conditions at domestic level does not per se rules out The third edition of the global conference on International a real risk of inhuman treatment. Extradition and the European Arrest Warrant was held at Ho- Thomas Wahl (an extradition expert from the Max Planck tel Cocca, on the shores of beautiful Lake Iseo (Italy) and at- Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law) then of- tracted over 30 experts from the United States, Australia, the fered a comprehensive analysis of the controversial Puidge- United Kingdom, Scotland and Continental Europe. High on mont case, with specific reference to the decision held by the agenda was an examination of the comparative practice the Higher Regional Court of Schleswig-Holstein according to of extradition in several jurisdictions, the current state of the which the surrender for the Spanish crime of “rebellion” was European Arrest Warrant (EAW) mechanism and the plan for ab initio inadmissible. A few days after the seminar, Spain‘s future publications on extradition. supreme court withdrew its EAW against the former Catalan Over the course of two days, the seminar sessions covered president. the theory and practice of a number of domestic extradition UK barrister Mark Summers QC of Matrix Chambers – who laws, noting that few universities, law societies and bar as- appears on a regular basis in extradition cases, including As- sociations around the world focus on extradition as an inde- sange v. Sweden in 2012 – and Mungo Bovey QC from the pendent area of legal practice. Faculty of Advocates of Scotland, outlined the similarities and No university in the world offers ad hoc programmes in inter- differences in the extradition system of England/Wales and national extradition. “Despite the sharp increase of high-pro- Scotland. “Although there are differences between every file extradition cases in recent years, international extradition jurisdiction, this seminar emphasised the common ground is still not taught as an independent subject in undergraduate we can find, often surprisingly”, said Bovey. On the issue of and graduate courses in law across the world,“ said Stefano prison conditions, Summers noted that the UK has developed Maffei of Italy, one of the principal organizers of the confer- over the years a ‘serious system for the monitoring of assur- ence. “As a result, with the exception of the UK, no estab- ances given by foreign countries. lished class of extradition lawyers exists in most countries.“ Nicola Canestrini, a criminal lawyer from Italy, reported on The seminar began with a comparison of the EU’s enhanced the procedure to secure the removal of an Interpol red notice extradition model with the more mature American interstate (for example once the extradition procedure is finally denied) extradition system. Most participants disagreed with the ar- and noted that a serious infringement of freedom of move- gument that the U.S. model could serve as a blueprint for the ment occurs especially when non-democratic countries tar- European arrest warrant, which was advanced by Auke Wil- get individuals through the red notice mechanism. lems in a 2016 publication in the Criminal Law Forum journal. Other participants included Italian academic lawyer Gianrico Discussion then moved on current developments in Interna- Ranaldi, Alessandro Lazzaroni, Maria Beatrice Cavarretta tional Extradition to/from Australia (with Australian academic and Giulia Talignani (all lawyers from Italy), Frances Olsena and lawyer Ned Aughterson), Albania (with lawyer and former (a law Professor from UCLA), Gerry Leonard (a law Professor officer of the Ministry of Justice Arben Brace) and Switzer- from Boston Universuity) and Sibel Top, a PhD student at the land (with lawyers Gregoire Mangeat and Alice Parmentier) Institute of European Studies (IES) and Rebekah Wrobleske, Brianna Nielsen and Heidi Weinrich (from the University of An entire session was devoted to the German theory and the Pacific Mc George School of Law, USA). practice of extradition. Anna Oehmichen (a lawyer and Uni- versity lecturer) and Ole Boeger (Judge at the Higher Re- The fourth International Extradition Conference will be held gional Court of Bremen) reported on the basics of German in Northern Italy at the end of June 2019. All those interested extradition law, including the steps of basic extradition pro- should email the team of organisers at stefano.maffei@gmail. cedure and the importance of the German ordre public clause com as a refusal ground for surrender. Oehmichen also covered the repercussions in Germany of the European Court of Jus- Prof. Stefano Maffei, University of Parma

160 | eucrim 3 / 2018 Cooperation

The judicial reforms in Poland are mentation of the new IT systems for derlying Regulation (EU) 2018/1541 also subject to the “Article 7-procedure” the Customs Union suffered a series was published in the Official Journal of the European Union according to of delays. As a result, some of the key on 16 October 2018 (O.J. L 259, 1). It which Poland is to be forced to maintain systems will not be available by the amends Regulations (EU) 904/2010 the European values of the rule of law envisaged 2020 deadline. The auditors and (EU) 2017/2454. The new legisla- (see eucrim 2/2018, p. 80). (TW) caution that the rescheduled deadline is tion will meet needs in order to combat also at risk of not being met. cross-border VAT fraud more effectively Eurojust Updates Overview of CJEU’s Several reasons have been identified and in a more timely manner. Case Law on EAW as the cause for the delays, for instance: Since the reform of the current VAT In November 2018, Eurojust issued an „„Changing project scope, which in- system (basically going back to 1993) is update of its overview of the case law creased complexity; at an impasse, the Regulation is designed of the CJEU with regard to the applica- „„Insufficient resources allocated by the as a short-term measure that improves tion of Framework Decision 2002/584/ EU and Member States; and simplifies administrative coopera- JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European „„Lengthy decision-making process tion instruments, in particular Eurofisc. arrest warrant and surrender procedures due to the multi-layered governance Eurofisc is a network of national EU between Member States (FD EAW). structure. Member State analysts working in dif- Where relevant, it also refers to the Furthermore, the auditors found that ferent areas of fraud risk. It was set up in Charter of Fundamental Rights of the the monitoring mechanism in the Cus- 2010 to improve the capacity of Member European Union (“Charter”), the Eu- toms 2020 Programme was insufficient. States to combat organised VAT fraud, ropean Convention on Human Rights The audit was also carried out in view especially carousel fraud. Eurofisc al- (ECHR), and the European Court of Hu- of improving the upcoming Customs lows Member States to exchange early man Rights (ECtHR). Programme, slated to start by 2021, with warnings on businesses suspected of be- The document contains an index a possible budget of €950 million. The ing involved in carousel fraud. of keywords, with references to rel- auditors call on the Commission to learn The main objectives of the Regula- evant judgments, a chronological list from the lessons of the previous pro- tion are as follows: of judgments, and summaries of CJEU gramme and recommend the following: „„Simplified procedures and conditions judgments organised according to cer- „„Gear the next Customs Programme for administrative enquiries when the tain keywords (such as human rights expressly towards IT implementation, taxable person is not established in the scrutiny, refusal grounds, guarantees, with precise and measurable objectives; Member State where the tax is due (re- time limits). The document has been „„Improve time, resource, and scope es- quiring Member State). The enquiry is designed as a supporting tool for prac- timates for each IT project; conducted in the Member State of estab- titioners. (TW) „„Facilitate cooperative IT develop- lishment, under close cooperation with ment with and between Member States; the requiring Member State; „„Streamline governance by ensuring „„Simple and effective procedures for Customs Cooperation more efficient and swifter communica- forwarding information without a prior tion; request to the competent authorities of ECA Criticizes Delays in Building Up „„Inform stakeholders about imple- other Member States; Modernized Customs IT Systems mentation and spending in a timely and „„Access for customs authorities to in- In its Special Report 26/2018, the Eu- transparent manner. formation in the registry of VAT identi- ropean Court of Auditors (ECA) looked The ECA’s recommendations in the fication numbers and the recapitulative into the EU’s progress in establishing reports are put into practice regularly, statements (to avoid diversion of goods the necessary customs IT systems within although they are not binding for the EU into the black market); the current Customs 2020 Programme. authorities. (TW) „„Access for Eurofisc liaison officials to The Customs 2020 Programme was vehicle registration data via EUCARIS designed to finance the Union compo- in order to tackle fraud arising from the nents of a modern, improved customs IT Law Enforcement Cooperation dual VAT regime applicable to cars; system after reform of the EU’s customs „„Possibility to carry out joint adminis- legislation. Member States are required Improved Cooperation Tool Benefits trative enquiries; to develop the corresponding national Fight Against VAT Fraud „„Clarification and strengthening of the (non-EU) components and pay the as- New EU legislation was put in place governance, tasks, and functioning of sociated costs. to strengthen administrative coopera- Eurofisc. Eurofisc liaison officials will According to the report, the imple- tion in the field of VAT fraud. The un- be able to access, exchange, process,

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 161 NEWS – European Union and analyse all necessary information which involves additional limitations level of guarantees related to substantive swiftly and to coordinate any follow-up and safeguards. The e-evidence propos- and procedural conditions for access to actions. Regulation of the request for in- al, however, completely rules out this the categories of personal data. Practical formation from Europol and OLAF by requirement. The EDPB is against this difficulties will occur on how to catego- Eurofisc and the exchange of informa- and highlights the importance of dou- rize requested data in some cases. tion between the network and the bodies; ble criminality, which allows States to The last set of recommendations deal „„Possibility for Member States to com- refuse assistance if the same approaches with procedures for European Preser- municate relevant information to OLAF are not shared with the requesting State. vation and Production Orders, such as when appropriate. This tool would en- The EDPB further points out that aban- thresholds for issuing orders, time-lim- able OLAF to fulfil its mandate to carry doning the double criminality principle its, confidentiality, and user information. out administrative investigations into is of even more concern given the disap- Background: The European Data fraud, corruption, and other illegal ac- pearance of other major traditional safe- Protection Board (EDPB) is composed tivities affecting the financial interests guards in the field of criminal law. of representatives of the national data of the Union. It would also assist the The EDPB cautions against the major protection authorities and the European Member States in coordinating their ac- shift in the new system, i.e. addressing Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS). It tions to protect the financial interests of private companies directly. It fears that replaced the “Article 29 Data Protection the Union against fraud. private companies will not safeguard Working Party.” The EDPB contributes The Regulation entered into force individual rights to the same extent as to the consistent application of data pro- 20 days after publication in the Official judicial authorities. Hence, the EDBP tection rules throughout the European Journal, with most of the provisions being recommends the inclusion of additional Union and promotes cooperation be- applicable as of 1 January 2020. (TW) grounds in the Regulation, certifying tween the EU’s data protection authori- that service providers will protect indi- ties. It also advises the European Com- EDPB Criticises E-Evidence Proposals vidual fundamental rights; competent mission on issues of data protection as On 26 September 2018, the European data protection authorities must ensure regards new legislation. Its opinions are, Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted sufficient control. however, not binding. (TW) a critical opinion regarding the Commis- Likewise, the disappearance of loca- sion proposals on European Production tion criteria (i.e. competent authorities CCBE Makes Critical Statement and Preservation Orders for electronic can issue orders regardless of where on E-Evidence Proposal evidence in criminal matters. For the data are actually stored) has several On 19 October 2018, the Council of Bars proposals, see eucrim 1/2018, pp. 35– legal consequences. It seems that the and Law Societies in Europe (CCBE) 36; see also eucrim 2/2018, pp. 107–108. Commission has not fully thought them delivered a critical viewpoint on the The EDPB addressed 18 recommen- through. For instance, the EDPB is un- Commison’s proposal of April 2018 for dations to the co-legislators (i.e. Council sure which safeguards from the Direc- a Regulation on European Production and EP), including some fundamental tive 2016/680 protecting personal data and Preservation Orders for electronic objections to the initiative. For example, processed by the police or judicial au- evidence in criminal matters (see eucrim the EDPB believes that Art. 82 TFEU thorities when investigating/prosecut- 1/2018, pp. 35–36. cannot serve as the sole legal basis, since ing crimes must also apply to private The CCBE mainly puts forward that the proposal places its focus mainly on companies. Of concern in this context is, the instrument cannot be based on Art. 82 private entities. above all, possible access by authorities TFEU (as proposed by the Commission) Furthermore, the EDPB calls on the to data outside the European Union. The because it does not regulate mutual rec- Commission to better demonstrate the opinion of the EDPB also calls for im- ognition, but instead orders to private necessity of this new instrument, which provements to bring the new instrument entities. Further questions concern neces- comes on top of the European Investi- in line with the General Data Protection sity and proportionality. According to the gation Order (EIO) and the existing mu- Regulation. CCBE, the choice of a Regulation instead tual legal assistance (MLA) schemes. In The EDPB is also critical of the new of a Directive as a legal instrument is this context, the EDPB is of the opinion categories of data to be introduced by not only a paradigm shift in the crimi- that the proposal waters down several the e-evidence proposal. It finds that the nal law area, but also risks lowering the safeguards provided for by the EIO and Commission’s impact assessment and higher national standards by means of MLA treaties. proposal did not properly substantiate EU legislation. The added value of the Another finding is that the double the rationale for the creation of these proposal compared to existing MLA criminality requirement is a fundamental new subcategories of personal data. It treaties and the European Investigation principle of international cooperation, also expresses concern over the different Order (EIO) is also doubtful.

162 | eucrim 3 / 2018 Cooperation

The CCBE disagrees with the ap- In the present paper, the CCBE fur- lawblog>. She raised similar issues con- proach of delegating – partly or fully – ther develops its critical position it is- cerning, inter alia, the legal basis of the the protection of fundamental rights to sued in previous comments. (TW) proposal; the choice of legal instrument private entities, as it undermines the es- (i.e. the challenges of the chosen op- sential duties of national judicial author- Commission’s E-Evidence Plans tion for a Regulation); the impact of the ities to ensure that the rights of citizens Under Fire fragmented, incomplete approach; and are not compromised. In this context, the In addition to the EDPB and the CCBE, the scope of application. Franssen also CCBE is also concerned that the propos- other organisations and academics points out that, in the meantime, civil al abolishes legality checks for requests voiced critical opinions on the Commis- society organisations (such as EDRI of judicial cooperation. sion proposals of April 2014 on e-evi- and CDT) and industry representatives Hence, the CCBE suggests restrict- dence (see eucrim 1/2018, pp. 35–36): (e.g. from DigitalEurope, EurolSPA and ing the scope of the proposal to pres- two studies for the EP’s LIBE commit- Microsoft) have issued opinions and ervation orders only and to follow the tee − one by Elodie Sellier and Anne are attempting to steer the institutional MLA or EIO procedure when electronic Weyembergh, which deals with issues of discussion. For the critical viewpoint of evidence is to be produced. The latter in- European cooperation in a more general the German Bar Association, see eucrim struments might be improved. way (see also eucrim 2/2018, p. 100) 2/2018, p. 107 et seq. (TW) In the event that the European insti- and another by Martin Böse that espe- tutions proceed with the proposal, the cially focuses on the e-evidence propos- Council Conclusions to Support Law CCBE further observed and recom- al − looked into the Commission plans enforcement mends the following: and raised numerous critical issues: At its meeting of 18 October 2018, the „„Strengthening of possibilities for ju- „„Legal basis of the e-evidence proposal; European Council called for measures dicial review in the executing State; „„Added value of the proposal; to provide Member States’ law enforce- „„Clear definition of “evidence”; „„Role of service providers in safe- ment authorities, Europol, and Eurojust „„Clarification that the orders may only guarding fundamental rights; with adequate resources to face new be issued for the purpose of obtaining „„Limited legal remedies for the suspect; challenges posed by technological de- evidence in the course of specific crimi- „„Legal certainty; velopments and the emerging security nal proceedings; „„Disputable distinction between ac- threat landscape. The resources include „„Redrafting of the judicial validation cess data and transactional data in light the pooling of equipment, enhanced process, including the extension of judi- of the CJEU’s case law. partnerships with the private sector, in- cial validation to subscriber and access Legal expert Vanessa Franssen de- teragency cooperation, and improved data and including a procedure in which livered an initial analysis on

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 163 NEWS – Council of Europe

„„France, Luxembourg, and Spain pro- vide for access to courts without fees; „„In Austria, revenues from registers exceed the operating costs of the entire judicial system. As regards judges and prosecutors, there is a trend towards compulsory ad- ditional trainings in order to qualify for Council of Europe* specialist posts or functions. Great im- Reported by Dr. András Csúri portance is attached to the experience of candidates in the selection process for judges’ posts. Although Europe is still split as to the Foundations CEPEJ-STAT. A summary of the 2018 use of juries, there is a growing profes- CEPEJ study is also provided. sionalization of judges. Based on vari- European Court of Human Rights The report evaluates the efficiency of ous indicators, such as staffing level or justice systems based mainly on the fol- the number of cases, the busiest pros- Court Re-Elects President Raimondi lowing indicators: ecution services are in France, Austria, On 17 September 2018, Guido Rai- „„The availability and allocation of re- and Italy. In addition, the salary levels mondi was re-elected as President of the sources; of judges and prosecutors are becoming ECtHR. His term ends on 4 May 2019, „„The situation of prosecutors and increasingly similar. the same time as his mandate as a judge. judges and their relations to one another; Concerning parity within the judicial Before his career at the ECtHR Rai- „„The organization of courts; system, the proportion of women is in- mondi worked in the Legal Department „„The performance of the judicial sys- creasing among judges and prosecutors, of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, tems. but other legal professions remain over- and was Co-Agent of the Italian govern- Throughout the report, CEPEJ high- ridingly male. That said, only Germany ment before the ECtHR (1989 to 1997). lights numerous methodological prob- appears to have developed a global poli- Afterwards, he served at the Court of lems encountered and the choices made cy in favor of parity. Only a few specific Cassation first in the Advocate Gen- to overcome them. measures for promoting parity exist in eral’s office and then as judge. Before As regards the budget available to other Member States. his appointment as judge in Strasbourg, the individual justice systems, each As regards their organization, the Raimondi worked at the International country’s investment has been assessed courts are becoming fewer in number, Labour Organization (2003–2010). in proportion to its level of wealth. larger in size, and more specialized. This President Raimondi has been a judge The report reveals an overall, if slight, goes hand in hand with the developing at the Court since 2010 and became its increase in this area, with particularly use of Internet-based information and President on 1 November 2015. sizeable budgets in Luxembourg and communication methods. Personal con- Norway. After a series of budget cuts tact remains crucial for court users in or- due to the 2008 economic and financial der to facilitate a better understanding of Procedural Criminal Law crisis, budgets are returning to pre-crisis decisions and foster trust in justice. levels. As regards the allocation of re- The performance of judicial systems CEPEJ 2018 Report on Efficiency sources, the budgets of courts account is improving overall in civil and crimi- of Justice for the largest share (66% on average), nal cases, with asylum applications On 5 October 2018, CEPEJ published especially in states that only have pro- having had a significant impact on the its 2018 report on the main trends ob- fessional judges. In East European number of incoming cases in nine coun- served for the efficiency of justice in 45 countries, more of the judicial budget tries. The productivity of criminal courts European countries. This 7th evaluation goes towards public prosecution, while is improving, although the duration of report is based on the 2016 data and countries in northern Europe invest pre- procedures appears to be lengthening in serves as a practical tool to better under- dominantly in legal aid. In general, there Supreme Courts. stand the operation of justice in Europe, is a higher contribution by the users of including major trends, statistics, and the judicial systems to its financing via * If not stated otherwise, the news reported in common issues. All data is also publicly taxes and court fees. Two extremes in the following sections cover the period 16 Sep- available as an interactive database: this regard are as follows: tember – 15 November 2018.

164 | eucrim 3 / 2018 Articles Articles / Aufsätze

Fil Rouge

This issue focuses on whistleblowers and their protection clarify which Union body (OLAF, EPPO, or a special unit at under Union and national law as well as on witness protec- the European Ombudsman) should receive whistleblower tion for “pentiti” or “collaborating witnesses.” The overrid- disclosures and grant the necessary protection measures. ing, key concerns are the same for both Union institutions She concludes that whistleblower protection should not and Member States: the lack of adequate protection mea- only protect the internal (financial) market but also – and sures and grave consequences from disclosures for the re- primarily − persons, especially vulnerable persons. porting persons’ security, professional career, and even life. David Chiappini takes stock of the efforts recently under- Besides providing an effective protection to whistleblowers taken by the French government to ensure effective protec- or pentiti, the authorities must also adequately respond to tion of “repenti,” i.e., collaborating witnesses or suspects disclosures. who agree to reveal important information about organised Under pressure from the European Parliament, investigat- crime or terrorism in exchange for reduced penalties or ing the “Panama Leaks” affair, the European Commission other compensation. He follows up on the evolving recom- eventually decided to step up protection measures for mendations of international bodies, such as the Council of whistleblowers by using a sectoral rather than horizontal Europe and the United Nations. His in-depth analysis offers approach. Georgia Georgiadou from the European Com- insight into the policy and organisational issues inherent to mission examines the policy and legal rationale behind the the now fully operational French system and highlights the Commission’s 2018 legislative proposal for strengthening importance of adequate financing and legal clarity. Chiap- the protection of whistleblowers and the minimum stan- pini stresses that national protection schemes for “repenti” dards that should be put in place throughout the Union. should gradually become a part of mutual recognition and Simone White gives a detailed analysis of the genesis of harmonisation in the European Union in order to strengthen whistleblower protection measures in several Member the legal arsenal against organised crime and terrorism. States (Ireland, UK, France) and at the Union level, recalling This issue is rounded off with an article by Tony Marguery, the growing body of evidence that these measures need to who summarises the main findings of a legal and empiri- be harmonised across legal systems and provide equiva- cal comparative study on the limits on mutual trust in the lent protection. According to White, such harmonisation is context of the transfer of sentenced persons following the possible through either a horizontal or a sectoral approach, CJEU’s Aranyosi and Căldăraru judgment. The project was each of which has its advantages and disadvantages. She conducted by the RENFORCE research group at the Univer- demonstrates that the Commission’s sectoral approach is sity of Utrecht and covered five EU Member States. complex but contains several innovative elements, includ- ing the wide range of protected persons. She then analy- Peter Csonka, European Commission, Head of Unit, DG Jus- ses the potential impact of protection measures in the area tice and Consumers and member of the eucrim Editorial of fraud against the Union’s budget, stressing the need to Board

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 165 Protection of Whistleblowers and Collaborators with Justice

The European Commission’s Proposal for Strengthening Whistleblower Protection

Georgia Georgiadou*

Recent scandals, such as Dieselgate, Luxleaks, the Panama Papers, and Cambridge Analytica, came to light thanks to whistle- blowers who “raised the alarm” over unlawful activities in the organisation for which they worked. From their position as “insiders,” whistleblowers can provide enforcement authorities with key information that can lead to the effective detection, investigation, and prosecution of breaches of law − and they can be crucial sources for investigative journalists − thus con- tributing to protecting the public from harm. Yet, whistleblowers very often face many different forms of retaliation for their reporting: they may lose their job and their source of income, and they may suffer damage to their reputation and their health. Fear of such consequences discourages people from coming forward with their concerns. Unfortunately, the protection offered in the EU is fragmented and insufficient. Most EU Member States do not have comprehensive legislation in place that provides whistleblowers with the protection they need. Similarly, at the EU level, whistleblower protection is only provided for in specific sectors, e.g., financial services, transport safety, and environmental protection, and only to varying degrees. This article explains how the proposal for a Directive on whistleblower protection adopted by the European Commission on 23 April 2018 aims to radically change this situation. It presents the proposed legal framework to ensure that all Member States adopt high, common standards of protection for whistleblowers who unveil illegal activities relating to a wide range of EU policy areas. It analyses the various protection measures to be put in place in order to guarantee effective protection (internal and external reporting channels, protection of the confidentiality/identity of whistleblowers, broad definition of pro- hibition of retaliation, remedial actions for whistleblowers who suffer retaliation). Lastly, the article gauges the impact that the proposal is expected to have on workplace culture, in both the private and public sectors, and on good governance and accountability across the EU.

I. Introduction: Added Value of Whistleblower no protection for those reporting it. The effective protection Protection of whistleblowers against retaliation is therefore essential in order to safeguard the public interest, to protect freedom of Unlawful activities may occur in any organisation, whether expression and media freedom (as whistleblowers are vital private or public, large or small. People who work for an or- sources for investigative journalism), and to promote transpar- ganisation are often the first to know about such occurrences ency, accountability and democratic governance in general. and are, therefore, in a privileged position to inform those who can address the problem. Recent scandals, such as Dieselgate, Luxleaks, the Panama Papers, Cambridge Analytica, or Danske II. Need for Action at the EU Level Bank, came to light thanks to whistleblowers who “raised the alarm” about unlawful activities harming the environment, pub- Currently, the protection afforded to whistleblowers across the lic health, data protection, and national or EU public finances. EU is fragmented and insufficient. Some Member States have In fact, alongside complaints and audits, whistleblower reports comprehensive legislation in place, but most offer only secto- are an important means of providing national and EU enforce- ral protection, e.g. in the fight against corruption, or only for ment systems with information leading to effective detection, public servants, whilst some provide no protection at all. At investigation, and prosecution of breaches of EU rules. the EU level, whistleblower protection is provided for only in specific sectors, such as financial services, transport safety, Yet, whistleblowers often risk their careers and livelihoods and environmental protection, and only to varying degrees. and, in some cases, suffer severe and long-lasting financial, This lack of effective protection across the EU can undermine health, reputational, and personal repercussions. Fear of retali- the level-playing field needed for the internal market to func- ation dissuades people from coming forward with their con- tion properly and for business to operate in a healthy competi- cerns. For example, according to the 2017 Special Eurobarom- tive environment. It can result in unsafe products being placed eter on Corruption1 around one in three of all Europeans (29%) on the internal market, in pollution of the environment, or in think that people may not report corruption because there is other risks to public health and transport safety, which go be-

166 | eucrim 3 / 2018 The European Commission’s Proposal yond national borders. It can make it more difficult to detect, proposal thus protects not only employees, but also self-em- prevent, and deter fraud, corruption, and other illegal activities ployed service providers, contractors, suppliers, shareholders, affecting the financial interests of the EU. volunteers, unpaid trainees, and job applicants.

III. Common Minimum Standards of Protection 2. Reporting channels and information Proposed by the European Commission Potential whistleblowers should have clear, user-friendly re- On 23 April 2018, the European Commission published a pro- porting channels available to them to report both internally posal for a Directive on whistleblower protection,2 precisely (within an organisation) and externally (to an outside author- to strengthen the enforcement of EU rules in areas where vio- ity). Member States should thus ensure that legal entities in lations can seriously harm the public interest. It draws upon both the private and the public sectors establish appropriate the European Court of Human Rights case law on the right to internal reporting channels and procedures for receiving and freedom of expression and the Council of Europe 2014 Rec- following up on reports. As a rule, all private companies with ommendation on Protection of Whistleblowers.3 more than 50 employees or with an annual turnover of more than €10 million and all State and regional administrations, as well as local municipalities of over 10,000 inhabitants, are 1. Personal and material scope obliged to set up internal reporting channels ensuring confi- dentiality of the identity of the whistleblower. The proposed Directive aims at ensuring that all Member States have common high standards of protection for whistle- In addition, Member States must identify the authorities that blowers who unveil illegal activities relating to a wide range will be tasked with receiving and following up on reports. of EU policy areas, namely: These authorities should put in place specific channels to al- „„Public procurement; low for reporting and, follow-up on the reports received. Both „„Financial services, anti-money laundering, and counter- in the context of internal and external channels it is necessary terrorist financing; that the whistleblower receives, within a reasonable time- „„Product safety; frame, feedback about the follow up to the report. This is cru- „„Transport safety; cial to build trust in the effectiveness of the overall system of „„Environmental protection; whistleblower protection and reduces the likelihood of further „„Nuclear safety; unnecessary reports or public disclosures. Accordingly, it is „„Public health; provided that such feedback should be given to the whistlle- „„Food and feed safety, animal health and welfare; bower within three months (for competent authorities, this can „„Consumer protection; be extended up to six months in complex cases). „„Protection of privacy and personal data, and security of net- work and information systems. One of the main factors that has a dissuasive effect on poten- tial whistleblowers is the lack of knowledge of how and where The proposal also applies to the reporting of breaches relat- to report and what protection is available. For this reason, the ing to Union competition rules, to breaches harming the EU’s proposal aims to ensure that potential whistleblowers can eas- financial interests, and – in view of their negative impact on ily access all the information they need with a view to making the proper functioning of the internal market – to breaches or an informed decision about reporting. abuses of corporate tax rules. „„Firstly, all the private and public entities obliged to have in place internal reporting channels are also obliged to provide The proposed Directive protects from retaliation whistleblow- clear and easily accessible information on the procedures ers who acted in good faith, i.e., those who had reasonable for reporting, but also on how and under what conditions grounds to believe the information reported was true at the reports can be made externally to competent authorities. time of reporting and that this information fell within the scope „„Secondly, all competent authorities have to publish on their of the Directive. It provides protection to the broadest possible websites information, amongst others, on: the contact de- range of persons, who, by virtue of work-related activities (ir- tails for the reporting channels and the applicable proce- respective of the nature of these activities and whether they dures and confidentiality regime; the nature of the follow are paid or not), have privileged access to information about up to be given to reports; the conditions for protection; the violations of EU rules that can cause serious harm to the public remedies available in case of retaliation and the possibili- interest and who may suffer retaliation if they report them. The ties to receive confidential advice. All information regard-

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 167 Protection of Whistleblowers and Collaborators with Justice

ing reports should be transparent, easily understandable and „„Could not reasonably be expected to function properly reliable, in order to promote and not deter reporting. (e.g., in cases when it is reasonable to suspect a collusion „„Thirdly, Member States should ensure that the general pub- between the perpetrator of the crime and the state authori- lic has access to comprehensive and independent information ties responsible for prosecuting them, or in cases of urgent and advice − free of charge − on available procedures and or grave danger for the public interest or risk of irreversible remedies. For example, such advice should be available on damage, such as harm to physical integrity). whether the information is covered by the applicable rules on whistleblower protection, which reporting channel may best be used, and which alternative procedures are available in 4. Protection against retaliation case the information is not covered by the applicable rules. Access to such advice is crucial to ensuring that reports Where retaliation remains undeterred and unpunished, it has an are made through the appropriate channels in a responsible intimidating effect on potential whistleblowers. This is why the manner and to ensuring that breaches and wrongdoings are proposal obliges Member States to prohibit any form of retalia- detected in a timely manner or even prevented." tion. To further strengthen the dissuasive effect of the prohibi- tion, it requires them to provide for personal liability and effec- tive, proportionate penalties for the perpetrators of retaliation 3. Reporting conditions Effective protection of reporting persons requires a broad In general, a whistleblower should first report information to definition of retaliation, encompassing any act or omission his/her employer using internal reporting channels. This is nec- prompted by the reporting that occurs in a work-related context essary in order to ensure that information on violations of EU and causes or may cause unjustified detriment to the reporting rules swiftly reaches those closest to the source of the problem person. The proposal sets out a long, indicative list of forms and most capable of addressing it. This also helps prevent un- that retaliation may take and that shall be prohibited. These justified reputational damages. However, a whistleblower can include typical retaliatory measures taken against employees, also go directly to the competent state authorities and, where e.g., dismissal, demotion, reduction in wages, negative per- relevant, to EU bodies, if: formance assessment, intimidation or harassment, discrimi- „„Internal channels do not exist (e.g., in small and micro com- nation, disadvantage or unfair treatment. They also include panies); forms of retaliation that may be suffered by non-employees, „„The use of internal channels is not mandatory (e.g., in case e.g., non-renewal or early termination of a temporary employ- of non-employees); ment contract; damage, including to the person’s reputation, or „„Internal channels were used but did not function properly or financial loss, including loss of business and loss of income; they could not reasonably be expected to function properly; blacklisting or early termination or cancellation of a contract „„The latter may apply, for instance, in cases of fear of retali- for goods or services. ation, concerns about confidentiality, the possible implica- tion of upper management in the violation, fear that evi- In addition, the proposal provides for protection against both dence might be concealed or destroyed or if urgent action direct and indirect retaliation. This may consist in retaliatory is required because of an imminent, substantial danger to measures against the reporting persons taken by their employ- the life, health, and safety of persons or to the environment. er or the customer/recipient of services. This also extends to persons working for or acting on behalf of the latter, including In addition, EU law already allows whistleblowers to report co-workers and managers in the same organisation or in other directly to national authorities or EU bodies concerning cases organisations to which the reporting person has contact in the of fraud against the EU budget, the prevention and detection context of his/her work-related activities − where retaliation is of money laundering and terrorist financing, and in the area of recommended or tolerated by the person concerned. financial services. Protection is to be provided in cases of retaliatory measures The proposed Directive also provides protection to those taken against the reporting person him/herself but also those whistleblowers who publicly disclose information (e.g., via measures that may be taken against the legal entity he/she rep- social media, to the media, to elected officials, to civil society resents. Indirect retaliation also includes actions taken against organisations, etc.) as a means of last resort. This is the case relatives of the reporting person, who are also in a work-relat- where internal and/or external channels: ed connection with the latter’s employer or customer/recipient „„Did not function properly (e.g., the reported violation was of services, and workers’ representatives who have provided not properly investigated or remained unaddressed) or support to the reporting person.

168 | eucrim 3 / 2018 The European Commission’s Proposal

If whistleblowers do suffer retaliation, the proposal provides guarantee against such damages. Moreover, persons affected by for a set of measures to protect them. First and foremost, it the reports fully enjoy the presumption of innocence, the right is also essential that reporting persons who suffer retaliation to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, and the rights of de- have access to legal remedies. The type of retaliation suffered fence. Additionally, the proposal also requires Member States determines the appropriate remedy in each case. It may take to introduce effective, proportionate, and dissuasive penalties the form of actions for reinstatement or for restoration of a for those who make malicious or abusive reports or disclosures. cancelled contract, compensation for actual/future financial losses or for other economic damage, e.g., legal expenses and cost of medical treatment. IV . Conclusion

Interim remedies to halt ongoing retaliation, e.g., workplace The Commission proposal sets out a sorely needed legal harassment, or to prevent dismissal are of particular importance framework to provide robust protection for whistleblowers for reporting persons, pending the resolution of potentially across the EU. It follows a very balanced approach, in par- protracted legal proceedings. Moreover, retaliatory measures ticular in terms of limiting the burden for national authorities are likely to be presented as being justified on grounds other and businesses, particularly small companies and microcom- than the reporting. It can be very difficult for whistleblowers to panies. Moreover, it strikes a balance between the need to pro- prove the link between the retaliatory measures and the report- tect whistleblowers and those who are affected by the reports, ing. The perpetrators of retaliation may have greater power in order to avoid reporting abuses. and resources to document the action taken and the reasoning behind it. This is why the reversal of the burden of proof in ju- While in line with the principle of subsidiarity at the EU level, dicial proceedings is an essential protection measure. It means the proposed Directive establishes whistleblower protection that, once the whistleblower has demonstrated prima facie that measures targeting the enforcement of Union law in specific he/she made a report or public disclosure and suffered a detri- areas. When transposing the Directive, the Commission en- ment, it is up to the person who has undertaken the detrimental courages the Member States to consider extending the applica- action to prove that it was not an act of retaliation but instead tion of its rules to other areas and, more generally, to ensure a based exclusively on justified grounds. comprehensive and coherent framework at the national level.

Whistleblowers also should not incur any liability for having A consistently high level of protection of whistleblowers breached a confidentiality clause or non-disclosure agreement. throughout the EU will encourage people to report wrong- Individuals’ legal or contractual obligations, such as loyalty doing that may harm the public interest. It will also enhance clauses in contracts or confidentiality/non-disclosure agree- openness and accountability in government and corporate ments, cannot preclude employees from reporting, to deny workplaces as well as contribute to enabling journalists to per- protection, or to penalize employees for having done so. Other form their fundamental role in European democracies. measures relate to protection in judicial proceedings: if legal actions are taken against whistleblowers outside the work-re- lated context (such as proceedings for defamation, breach of copyright, or breach of secrecy), whistleblowers will be able to rely on having reported in accordance with the proposed rules as a defense to seek dismissal of the case. Georgia Georgiadou European Commission, DG JUSTICE, Deputy Head of the Unit on Fundamental Rights Policies 5. Protection of the rights of persons affected by whistleblower reports

The proposal aims at protecting responsible whistleblowing, genuinely intended to safeguard the public interest, while * This article presents the personal views of the author and does not nec- proactively discouraging malicious whistleblowing and pre- essarily reflect the official position of the European Commission. 1 https://data.europa.eu/euodp/data/dataset/S2176_88_2_470_ENG. venting unjustified reputational damage. The tiered use of 2 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the channels − whereby, as a rule, the whistleblower should first Council on the protection of persons reporting on breaches of Union law, report to his/her employer and, only if internal channels do not COM(2018) 218. See also T Wahl, “Commission Proposes EU-Wide Rules on Whistleblowers’ Protection”, (2018) eucrim, 27–29. exist or do not function, to the competent authorities, and then, 3 https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=090000 only as a last resort, to the public − already provides an essential 16805c5ea5.

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 169 Protection of Whistleblowers and Collaborators with Justice

A Matter of Life and Death Whistleblowing Legislation in the EU

Dr. Simone White*

Some EU Member States have already adopted broad-ranging whistleblowing legislation because of financial or public health scandals. In this context, the European Parliament suggested a draft directive to protect whistleblowers by offering a “horizon- tal” approach covering all public and private sectors. In 2018, the European Commission, by contrast, proposed widening the existing EU sectoral approach and including the protection of the financial interests of the European Union in a directive “on the protection of persons reporting on breaches of Union law.” The author argues that this broader sectoral approach − while making a step forward − still raises a number of issues.

I. Introduction having been given excessive doses of opioid drugs through pumps by medical staff.6 It is tragic that the whistleblowers “Un attachement passionné au droit” – this is the way Fran- were not listened to. çois Ost described the relationship of a whistleblower with the law, adding At present, there is a tendency to try to move away from con- risquant son emploi et s’exposant à toutes sortes de poursuites judi- cepts connected with the intention of the whistleblowers, such ciaires, parce qu’il dénonce la corruption de ses supérieurs hiérar- as “good faith,” and to move towards tests that focus on the chiques, la fraude fiscal de sa banque, la fraude environnementale 7 ou sanitaire de l’entreprise qui l’occupe.1 nature of the information itself. The notion of “public inter- est”8 can be equally slippery and is undergoing some careful In this context, it becomes clear that lives, the environment, recalibration in some Member States. money, and reputations are at stake. However, this attache- ment passionné au droit is often viewed with suspicion and Arguably, an independent service is needed to implement the alarm, rather than as the positive contribution to the rule of protection of whistleblowers. The efficacy and independence law that it is. of such a system can only be gauged and improved through practice over a certain period of time, as recent changes in the At the international level, the jurisprudence of the European law of the Netherlands (Wet Huis voor klokkenluiders 2016) or Court of Human Rights has been constant in affirming the the present review of the 2014 Irish Protected Disclosure Act rights of whistleblowers to freedom of expression and to pro- have shown.9 tection against retaliation,2 as well as the duties of employers in this respect.3 International organisations have promoted the In France, the “Sapin II” law adopted in December 201610 re- improvement of whistleblowing regulation for a number of quires a number of organisational measures to be put in place years. 4 Despite this chorus at the international level, some EU in order to protect whistleblowers. They include the setting Member States continue to show a distinct lack of enthusiasm up of internal reporting mechanisms for firms with more than in adopting legislation.5 500 employees and with a turnover of over € 100 million. This requirement also applies to municipalities with more than In other Member States, legislation exists but proves inade- 10,000 inhabitants. The French Anti-Corruption Agency has quate in the face of some of the challenges and so continues acquired a new role in ensuring the respect for procedures. to evolve. The UK Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) of 1998, one of the earliest pieces of dedicated legislation in the However, new legislation alone is no “magic bullet” and, with EU, shows that even this legislation has had to be “tweaked” recently enacted legislation, time needs to pass before whistle- on several occasions, based on jurisprudence and practice. blowers begin to understand and trust systems that have been Even so, it is not clear that the necessary change in culture has put in place. Hence, there may not be a noticeable increase taken place across all sectors. In the public health sector, for in the number of whistleblowers reporting immediately after instance, whistleblowers in the recent Gosport hospital trag- the adoption of legislation. A change in culture in the work edy were “fired, gagged and blacklisted” for drawing attention place must also take place for whistleblowers to begin to trust to the fact that 456 elderly people had died in the hospital after reporting procedures.

170 | eucrim 3 / 2018 Whistleblowing Legislation in the EU

Whistleblowing does not lend itself well to statistical analysis, throughout the EU. Harmonised rules would cover both the as the number of disclosures or the number of recognised or public and private sectors and apply horizontally to all sectors presumed whistleblowers are a crude measuring tool and do of the economy, with as few exceptions as possible (typically not give any idea of the interests at stake. A presumed whistle- and controversially: national security). All workers would be blower in the nuclear safety sector or in the public health sector covered, whatever their status. giving information on dangerous behaviour or products counts as one data entry in statistical terms. In prevention terms, the Member States have also discussed the need for horizontal human misery and financial costs potentially prevented may legislation. For example, when considering their legislative be much higher indeed. Thus, in the future, it will be necessary option in 2018, the Irish Government Reform Unit considered to develop more sophisticated statistical models in relation to the following option: “Do nothing and continue with sectoral whistleblowing, which are based on the grounds for prevent- legislation.” However, they found that:13 ing harm – in this way, the small number of whistleblowers The sectoral approach resulted in a number of separate protected could no longer be used as a reason for not putting an adequate disclosure provisions across a number of statutes. While there are similarities between these provisions, there are also significant legal framework in place. This should be taken into account differences. This uncoordinated approach led to an unsatisfactory when developing benchmarks and indicators for whistleblow- patchwork of sector specific provisions which are potentially con- ing policies, as advocated by the European Parliament.11 It is fusing in nature and which fail to provide clarity in the law relating to protected disclosures. The continuation of such a policy, even on a challenging task for criminologists, who are undoubtedly a coordinated basis, would take some considerable time to ensure needed in this area. a sufficiently broad sectoral coverage. Such an approach would not be in accordance with best international practice and would also militate against the generally recommended concept of a robust and We are conscious here that investigative journalists and their comprehensive pan-sectoral approach. […] Not recommended. sources are also exposed through the nature of their work. This is beyond the scope of this article however, as is whistleblow- The International Bar Association echoed this sentiment in ing regulation within the EU institutions. Both these topics – 2018:14 journalists and their sources and regulation of whistleblowing Whistleblower legal frameworks should not be sector-specific (sub- within the EU institutions – deserve further analysis. ject to some qualifications) and should apply to public, private and not-for-profit sectors.

The European parliament has put forward solutions at the EU The Greens/European Free Alliance (EFA) group in the Eu- level in the form of a proposal for a horizontal approach cover- ropean Parliament had such a horizontal approach in mind ing all sectors, both public and private. This horizontal approach when it put forward its draft directive in 2016, with Arts. 151 is consistent with that adopted in a number of Member States.12 and 153(2)(b) TFEU as legal bases.15 These legal bases con- cern working conditions and the health and security of work- In 2018, the European Commission, mindful of securing ers, respectively. In October 2017, the European Parliament strong legal bases in relation to the EU internal market, pro- also adopted a resolution calling for a proposal from the Eu- posed a directive extending the sectoral approach. As we shall ropean Commission for a horizontal (trans-sectoral) directive see, this proposed directive does potentially widen the ambit providing for whistleblower protection.16 However, as will be of whistleblowing rules, but also raises a number of issues. discussed in the next section, the European Commission sub- In the following, both approaches are briefly presented and sequently opted for the continuation of pre-existing sectoral juxtaposed. approaches at the EU level.

II. Horizontal Approach Favoured III. Sectoral Approaches Favoured by the European by the European Parliament Commission

Recent, highly publicised whistleblowing incidents in the fi- The EU approach to whistleblowing, as applicable in the nancial and public health sectors have suggested that harmo- Member States, has hitherto been one tailored to specific sec- nisation at the EU level could ensure that minimum standards tors and issues in order to include investment products,17 in- on the protection of whistleblowers are respected. The harmo- surance distribution,18 securities,19 statutory audits,20 market nisation level should at least require that national legislation abuse,21 money laundering,22 credit institutions,23 and trade be in compliance with the existing ECtHR case law. Such har- secrets24. Provisions on whistleblowing vary in accordance monisation would also make it possible for all Member States with the sector: they are comprehensive in market abuse legis- to draw on the experience already acquired in some Member lation, whilst whistleblowing is mentioned only briefly in the States, and it would promote the equal treatment of workers directive on trade secrets, as an exception to the general rule

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 171 Protection of Whistleblowers and Collaborators with Justice on secrecy.25 The limited protection that whistleblowers enjoy As a result, a legislative initiative under Art. 153(1)(a) and at present in EU law therefore depends on the Single Market (b) TFEU was not attempted. Such an initiative would have sectors in which the whistleblower seeks to act. regulated aspects of whistleblower protection relating, respec- tively, to improvement of the working environment to protect workers’ health and safety and to working conditions, and it 1. The Commission initiative of April 2018 – would have provided protection to workers reporting on viola- Scope, aims, legal bases tions of both national and EU law. It was argued that the per- sonal scope of such an initiative would be too limited, in the With its proposed directive of April 2018,26 the Commission sense that it would not allow for protection of all the categories continues a sectoral approach covering various aspects of the of persons referred to in the Council of Europe Recommen- Single Market and, for the first time, the protection of the fi- dation.31 Thus, such a horizontal approach would only have nancial interests of the EU (“PIF”). The legal bases put for- limited effectiveness in terms of improving the enforcement ward are Arts. 16, 33, 43, 50, 53(1), 62, 91, 100, 103, 109, 114, of EU law. 168, 192, 207 TFEU27 for the Single Market and Art. 325(4) TFEU for “PIF”. The Single Market areas covered are: (i) pub- lic procurement; (ii) financial services, prevention of money 2. The innovative aspects of the Commission proposal laundering and terrorist financing; (iii) product safety; (iv) transport safety; (v) protection of the environment; (vi) nucle- Notwithstanding the limitations in the applicability of the pro- ar safety; (vii) food and feed safety, animal health and welfare; posed EU directive, the Commission’s proposal is innovative (viii) public health; (ix) consumer protection; and (x) protec- especially in five aspects. This innovation results from the fact tion of privacy and personal data and security of network and that these aspects are not always present in the most advanced information systems. The following are also covered: breach- EU and/or national legislations. es relating to the Internal Market, as referred to in Art. 26(2) TFEU, as regards acts breaching the rules of corporate tax or Firstly, the Commission proposes a wide definition of a “re- arrangements whose purpose is to obtain a tax advantage that porting person.” A reporting person may be a natural or a legal defeats the object/purpose of the applicable corporate tax law. person and persons working in the private or public sectors. We will return to the material scope of this proposed directive According to the given definition “reporting persons” may in- and the issues it raises later. clude the following: „„Persons having the status of worker within the meaning of It is important to be familiar with the following aims of the Art. 45 TFEU; Commission proposal: „„Persons having the status of being self-employed within the „„Strengthen the protection of whistleblowers and avoid re- meaning of Art. 49 TFEU; taliation against them; „„Shareholders and persons belonging to the management „„Provide legal clarity and certainty; body of an undertaking, including non-executive members, „„Support awareness-raising and the fight against socio-cul- volunteers, and unpaid trainees; tural factors leading to under-reporting. „„Any persons working under the supervision and direction of contractors, as well as sub-contractors and suppliers. The impact assessment on the proposed directive28 shows how the decision to continue sectoral approaches was reached. It Reporting persons whose work-based relationship is yet to be- recollects that, in 2016, the Commission announced that it gin are also included. It may be useful to compare this with would assess the scope for horizontal or further sectoral EU the situation that exists in the Irish Protected Disclosure Act action with a view to strengthening the protection of whistle- of 2014.32 The Act’s definition of the term “worker” includes blowers. This commitment was affirmed by PresidentJuncker employees and former employees, trainees, people working in the Letter of Intent complementing his 2016 State of the Un- under a contract for services, independent contractors, agency ion speech and in the 2017 Commission Work Programme.29 workers, people on work experience, and the Gardaí (Police The impact assessment found that the EU Treaty did not pro- force). The Irish legislation does not, however, mention vol- vide for a specific legal basis for the EU to regulate the legal unteers, that is to say persons without contract of employment. position of whistleblowers in general; that is to say, it did not provide a basis for a horizontal approach: in particular, free- Secondly, the proposed directive has adopted the “tiered” ap- dom of expression, as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental proach to reporting that is already evident, for example, in Ire- Rights of the European Union, cannot serve as a standalone land, France, the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, or Romania. legal basis. 30 This tiered approach involves a separation between “report-

172 | eucrim 3 / 2018 Whistleblowing Legislation in the EU ing” (internally or externally) and disclosing (making the dis- approach has already been adopted by a number of Member closure public) in the draft directive. States. A harmonisation of thresholds seems desirable, particu- larly in cross-border cases. A tiered approach usually means that, in order to be protected against retaliation, a whistleblower must follow prescribed Thirdly, protection against retaliation is construed widely and routes and must first of all report internally, if at all practica- deems access to remedial measures against retaliation as ap- ble. The draft directive (Art. 13(2)) states that a person report- propriate, including interim relief, pending the resolution of ing externally shall qualify for protection, inter alia, according legal proceedings, in accordance with the national legal frame- to the following comprehensive criteria: work (cf. Art. 15(6)). The prohibited measures of retaliation „„No appropriate action was taken after internal reporting; are listed in Art. 14, i.e., the draft directive takes an enumera- „„Internal reporting channels are not available; tive approach in this regard. There is, of course, always a dan- „„The use of internal channels was not mandatory; ger associated with this method, in that a particular measure „„The reporting person could not be expected to make use of could be omitted. However, Art. 14(k) seems wide enough, internal reporting channels in light of the subject matter of when it stipulates: the report; Member States shall take the necessary measures to prohibit any „„The reporting person has reasonable grounds to believe that form of retaliation, including damage, including to the person’s reputation, or financial loss, including loss of business and loss of the use of internal reporting channels could jeopardise the income. effectiveness of investigative actions by the competent au- thorities; Fourthly, Art. 16 contains measures for the protection of the „„The reporting person was entitled to report to a competent identity of concerned persons, i.e., natural or legal persons authority directly through the external reporting channels who are referred to in the report or disclosure as persons to by virtue of Union law. whom the breach is attributed or with which they are associ- ated. Where the identity of the concerned persons is not known In addition, the draft directive provides that public/media to the public, competent authorities must ensure that the iden- disclosure may also justify protection under certain circum- tity is protected for as long as the investigation is ongoing. stances: According to Art. 13(4)(b) a person making a public This echoes the need to protect the identity of the whistle- disclosure qualifies for protection if he or she could not rea- blower specified in Arts. 5 and 7. According to Art. 5(1), in- sonably be expected to use internal and/or external report- ternal channels for receiving the reports must be designed, set ing channels, due to imminent danger in terms of the public up, and operated in a manner that ensures the confidentiality interest, or to the particular circumstances of the case, or of the identity of the reporting person and prevents access to where there is a risk of irreversible damage. This provision non-authorised staff members. According to Art. 7(c), external allowing public disclosure is meant to avert environmental or reporting channels must be designed, set up, and operated in a public health disasters and extends the boundaries of legally manner that ensures the completeness, integrity, and confiden- acceptable action by whistleblowers. tiality of the information and prevents access to non-author- ised staff members of the competent authority. Art. 7(4) goes Another aspect of the tiered approach in the Commission pro- into detail by requiring Member States to establish procedures posal is that the obligation to set up internal reporting channels to ensure that, where a report being initially addressed to a per- is subject to certain thresholds (cf. Art. 4). In the private sec- son who has not been designated as responsible handler for re- tor, the directive is to apply to the following: ports that person is refrained from disclosing any information „„Legal entities with 50 or more employees; that might identify the reporting or the concerned person.33 „„Legal entities with a turnover of €10 million or more; „„Legal entities of any size operating in the area of financial Fifthly, Art. 17 lays down penalties applicable to natural or services or those that are vulnerable to money laundering or legal persons who hinder or attempt to hinder reporting, take terrorist financing; retaliatory measures against reporting persons, bring vexa- „„Vulnerable small private entities, following a risk assess- tious proceedings against reporting persons, or breach the duty ment to be conducted by the Member State. of maintaining the confidentiality of the identity of reporting persons. According to Art. 17(2), Member States must also Public sector entities obliged to set up internal reporting chan- provide for effective, proportionate, and dissuasive penalties nels are state or regional administrations or departments, mu- applicable to persons making malicious or abusive reports nicipalities of more than 10,000 inhabitants, and other entities or disclosures, including measures for compensating persons governed by public law. The thresholds are considered neces- who have suffered damage from malicious or abusive reports sary so as not to unnecessarily burden small entities, and this or disclosures.

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 173 Protection of Whistleblowers and Collaborators with Justice

3. Points of discussion any action taken by the recipient of the report, made internally or externally, to assess the accuracy of the allegations made in the re- port and, where relevant, to address the breach reported, including These five points show that the legislation intends to address actions such as internal enquiry, investigation, prosecution, action situations in the public and private sectors, whilst paying at- for recovery of funds and closure. tention to the rights and obligations of the various parties. It In the same way, the reporting person must receive “feedback” is worth remembering, however, that this will only apply to about the “follow-up of the report” – feedback is not defined aspects of the Single Market and to “PIF.” The defined ma- here. The precise nature of follow-up and feedback will there- terial scope of the proposed directive may exclude practices fore be left to Member States’ competent authorities. in hospitals, residential homes, schools, etc. unless there is a recognisable, single-market issue at stake, which is covered by In its draft opinion of July 2018,35 the EP Committee on one of the above-mentioned Single Market legal bases. It may Budgetary Control made a number of suggestions for the be difficult for employees and members of the public to know amendment of the draft directive. It suggests, inter alia, the whether a particular “report” or “disclosure” would justify following: protection against retaliation. In this context, the draft direc- „„Creation of a European referral body associated with the tive does not mention a whistleblower’s access to legal advice Office of European Ombudsman to receive and handle re- in this admittedly complex regulatory framework. ports at the Union level; „„Protection under the directive for both reporting persons An EU internal market perspective makes sense from the and persons facilitating the reporting; European Commission’s point of view. However, from a hu- „„Obligation to provide advice and legal support for reporting man rights perspective, it is not clear why the internal market persons and those facilitating the reporting. should be privileged in terms of whistleblower protection. As the EU is not yet a party to ECHR, perhaps this level of coher- Let us also look at the procedure for internal reporting in Art. 4 ence is not yet required; in any case it would seem desirable. of the proposed directive. It requires “a diligent follow up to the report by the designated person or department.” This does Art. 1 of the draft directive refers to an annexe with a nine not have quite the same bite as a “duty to investigate and take pages of legal instruments the directive would apply to. One the necessary remedial measures.” The term “follow up” (at wonders therefore it would be immediately clear to a prospec- least in English) tends to suggest that one is waiting for some- tive whistleblower whether his information would fall within one else to act. But who would be acting in this case? And the ambit of any of these instruments. would this be any clearer in national legislation?

Would it protect whistleblowers in hospitals and institutions dealing with vulnerable people, for example? The answer IV. The Potential Impact for “PIF” Whistleblowers seems to be: it depends! Protection would be guaranteed only if the public health issue concerned the quality and safety As mentioned in the introductory remarks, the proposed of organs and substances of human origin or the quality and whistleblower directive includes the protection of the EU’s fi- safety of EU medicinal products and devices. There is there- nancial interests (PIF). The financial interests of the EU have fore scope for the protection of a whistleblower with infor- been usefully defined in Art. 2(1) of Regulation 883/2013 to mation on faulty or dangerous products. The directive would include revenues, expenditures, and assets covered by the not, however, cover a whistleblower such as Heinisch, with budget of the European Union and those covered by the budg- information on ill-treatment in an institution. In such cases of ets of the institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies and the ill-treatment in institutions, national law on whistleblowing budgets managed and monitored by them. In the context of (when it exists) would have to apply. As a consequence, one PIF, three points are worth mentioning. whistleblower reporting on both aspects (faulty products and ill-treatment) might only be protected for part of his or her The first point is that “PIF” whistleblowers may not know disclosure by the implementating rules of the directive. It is whether EU funds are involved, but the directive might not not clear yet how this can work in practice. bring the required elucidation. Both EUROCADRES and the European Court of Auditors have voiced several misgivings Another point worthy of discussion is the issue of “follow up.” about the material scope of the directive. In their opinion, the The draft directive also regulates reporting in some detail34 and auditors are concerned about the complexity surrounding the the follow-up of reports (but curiously not the follow-up of dis- scope of the proposed directive. Its scope is based on a list closures). It does not require competent authorities to investi- of EU directives and regulations in an annex to the directive. gate but rather to “follow up”. Art. 3 defines the latter notion as The Commission encourages Member States to consider ex-

174 | eucrim 3 / 2018 Whistleblowing Legislation in the EU tending the directive to ensure a comprehensive and coherent draft directive does not, however, provide any framework for framework at the national level. If there is no such voluntary the protection of informants – indeed it was not intended to do extension, warn the auditors, potential whistleblowers would so, the legal framework for the protection of informants being need to know whether the breach they were planning to report the sole competence of the Member States. This means how- is covered or not, ergo whether or not they could benefit from ever that only a small proportion of “PIF” information provid- protection. This could deter them.36 ers would be protected on the income side of the EU budget.

The second point relates to institutional dynamics that do not appear altogether propitious. The European Parliament called V . Conclusion on the Commission, and on the European Public Prosecu- tor’s Office, as far as it is within its mandate, to create efficient Whistleblowing legislation will remain a matter of striking channels of communication between the parties concerned, to a delicate balance between the rights and obligations of the likewise set up procedures for protecting whistleblowers who whistleblower, the employer, and all persons concerned. Con- provide information on irregularities relating to the financial in- trary to popular belief, such legislation does more than just terests of the Union, and to establish a single working protocol ensure whistleblower protection, but also ensures that an ad- for whistleblowers.37 It also calls for the creation of a special unit equate response is given in reaction to disclosures and that the with a reporting line as well as dedicated facilities within Parlia- above-mentioned delicate balance is scrupulously respected. ment for receiving information from whistleblowers relating to As such, it is complex legislation, obviously touching on many the financial interests of the Union.38 This mechanism would be areas of law: criminal, civil, labour, and sector-specific laws. in addition to the establishment of a European referral body as- sociated with the Office of the European Ombudsman to receive Whistleblowing is often discussed as an antidote to financial and handle reports at the Union level. malpractice. There certainly is plenty to deal with, and the proposed directive represents a real advancement, with Single It seems that the optimum trajectory for PIF whistleblow- Market-related and finance-related sectors being well covered ers’ information still needs to be clearly defined, as does the – including, inter alia: procurement, insurance, money laun- role of the EPPO in this area. Perhaps from the potential PIF dering, protection of the EU’s financial interest of the EU. At whistleblower’s point of view, it should be crystal clear who the same time, there is a wider range of problems in relation receives the information, who is responsible for acting on it – to which the potential of whistleblowing has yet to be fully and who may grant protection. OLAF’s role and cooperation explored or supported by EU legislation, as pointed out by the with EPPO in relation to whistleblowers should also be clari- European Parliament. At their extreme, these problems con- fied. Too circuitous a route for “PIF” disclosures could lead to cern life-and-death situations, affecting the greater population information not reaching the person habilitated to take action (when exposed to chemical or biological hazards) and vulner- in time and to whistleblowers not obtaining timely protection able groups in society (for example, the sick and/or aged, as from those with authority to grant it. illustrated by the UK’s Gosport tragedies). The present patch- work of legislative responses are only steps on the road to pro- The third point has to do with a specific conundrum related gress in this legal area. to EU expenditure. EU budget funding is often mixed with national, regional, or private funding. This can lead to a con- Should the directive be adopted, the issues raised in this ar- fusing legal situation. Member States may decide to apply one ticle could no doubt be resolved in time. It is in the nature of whistleblower regime to the national part of funding in accord- whistleblowing legislation that it evolves in practice, so we ance with existing national legislation (if any exists), whilst look forward to following the proposed directive’s journey – the EU whistleblowing regime would apply to only the EU and not just in relation to “PIF”. part of the funding. Yet other Member States may consider the whistleblowing directive to apply to the entire funding (which, by the way, would not correspond to the present definition of the financial interests of the European Union). * The information and views in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official opinion of the European Commission. 1 F. Ost, «Le droit, objet de passions? I crave the law», Académie Royale The same remark would apply mutatis mutandis on the income de Belgique, see side of the EU budget (customs duties, VAT), as national tax is accessed 20 November 2018. often evaded at the same time as EU tax. In the area of indirect 2 The right to freedom of expression is enshrined in Art. 10 ECHR and also in Art. 11 CFR. taxation, however, experience shows that information often 3 ECtHR, 21 July 2011, Heinisch v Germany, Appl. no. 28274/08; 12 Feb- comes from informants, rather than from whistleblowers. The ruary 2008, Guja v. Moldova, Appl. no. 14277/04; 18 December 2008,

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 175 Protection of Whistleblowers and Collaborators with Justice

12 These include: France, Hungary, Ireland, Malta, The Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Slovakia and the UK. Other Member States are in the Dr. Simone White process of adopting horizontal legislation. Legal Officer in the Legal Advice Unit of the European 13 Ireland: Government Reform Unit – Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, “Protected Disclosures Bill 2013 – Regularly Impact Analy- Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) sis”, July 2013, available at: , p. 10. 14 International Bar Association, op. cit. (n. 7), p. 18. 15 Cf. V. Abazi and A. Alemanno, “Whistleblower protection in the public Zakharov v. Russia, Appl. no. 14881/03; 26 February 2009, Kudeshkina v and private sector in the European Union – A draft directive”, available at: Russia Appl. no. 29492/05; 19 January 2016, Aurelian Oprea v. Romania, accessed 20 November 2018; see also T. Wahl, “Green Initiate blower Protection”, 2016, ; 16 European Parliament resolution of 24 October 2017 on legitimate Transparency International, “International principles for whistleblower measures to protect whistle-blowers acting in the public interest when legislation, best practices for laws to protect whistleblowers and support disclosing the confidential information of companies and public bodies, whistleblowing in the public interest”, 2013, accessed 20 November 2018; Council of Europe “Recommen- 17 Art. 28 of Regulation 1286/2014 on key information for packaged retail dation CM/Rec(2014)7 of the Committee of Ministers to member States and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs), O.J. (2014) L 352/1. on the protection of whistleblowers”, ; ETUC, Whistleblower- L 26/19. protection.eu accessed 20 November 2018; Eurocadres – Council of European ment in the EU and on central security depositories, O.J. (2014) L 257/1. Professional and Managerial Staff, “Directive on whistleblower protection” 20 Art. 30 of Directive 2014/56 amending Directive 2006/43 on statu- ; European Court of Auditors (ECA), “Opinion No 4/2018 concerning L 158/196. the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 21 Commission Implementing Directive 2015/2392 on Regulation 596/2014 on the protection of persons reporting on breaches of Union law” ; G20 Anti- infringements of that Regulation, O.J. (2015) L 332/126. Corruption Action Plan – Protection of Whistleblowers (2011) “Study on 22 Arts. 37 and 38 of Directive 2015/849 on the prevention of use of the Whistleblower Protection Frameworks, Compendium of Best Practices and financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financ- Guiding principles for Legislation” , all links accessed 20 November 2018. Commission Directive 2006/70, O.J. (2015) L 141/73. 5 Blueprint for Free Speech, “Analysis of whistleblower protection laws, 23 Art. 71 of Directive 2013/36 on access to the activity of credit institu- , accessed tions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment 20 November 2018. firms, O.J. (2013) L 176/338. 6 Express, “After scandal of Gosport … time to act to protect whistle- 24 Art. 5 of Directive 2016/943 on the protection of undisclosed know- blowers” accessed acquisition, use and disclosure, O.J. (2016) L 157/1. 20 November 2018. 25 See Art. 5 of Directive (EU) 2016/943, ibid. 7 See, for example, International Bar Association – Legal Policy & Re- 26 European Commission, “Proposal for a Directive of the European search Unit and Legal Practice Division “Whistleblower Protections: Parliament and of the Council on the protection of persons reporting on A Guide”, April 2018, available at: , accessed 20 November 2018, pp. 22–23: “An T. Wahl, “Commission Proposes EU-Wide Rules on Whistleblowers’ Pro- inquiry into the whistleblower’s motives in lodging the complaint is almost tection”, (2018) eucrim, pp. 27–29. always irrelevant and detracts from the misconduct reported”. 27 Areas covered include: data protection, customs cooperation, the 8 See UK jurisprudence: Parkins v Sodexho [2002] IRLR 109; Chesterton Common Agricultural Policy, the right of establishment, mutual recognition Global Limited and Another v Murmohamed [UK EAT/U335/14]; Underwood of qualifications, transport and transport safety, competition, state aid, v Wincanton Plc [UK EAT/0163/15]. health, safety, environmental protection and consumer protection, public 9 Cf. 33 258 Voorstel van wet van de leden Van Raak, Heijnen, Schouw, health, the environment, and the common commercial policy of the EU. Voortman, Segers en Ouwehand, houdende de oprichting van een Huis 28 Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment, voor klokkenluiders (Wet Huis voor klokkenluiders), ; Irish Department of Public 29 Ibid, p. 1 of the Impact Assessment. Expenditure and Reform, Statutory Review of the Protected Disclosures 30 Ibid, pp. 30–31 of the Impact Assessment. Act 2014, 2018. 31 Ibid, Impact assessment. 10 Loi n°2016-1691 du 9 décembre 2016 relative à la transparence, à la 32 The Act is presently under review; see: Department of Public Ex- lutte contre la corruption et à la modernisation de la vie économique. penditure and Reform, “Statutory Review of the Protected Disclosures 11 European Parliament resolution of 14 February 2017 on the role Act 2014”, July 2018,

176 | eucrim 3 / 2018 Whistleblowing Legislation in the EU

content%2Fuploads%2FStatutory-Review-of-the-Protected-Disclosures- 35 European Parliament, Committee on Budgetary Control, “Draft Opinion Act-2014.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2V_BIu11sfkeGKlb-BU76n> accessed on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Coun- 20 November 2018. cil on the protection of persons reporting on breaches of law” rapporteur: 33 The draft directive does not, however, contain rules about the com- Dennis de Jong, 2018/0106 (COD) PE623.726v623.761 munication of reporting persons’ identities to judicial authorities or courts; 36 ECA, Opinion No 4/2018, op. cit. (n. 4). national provisions would therefore apply. 37 European Parliament resolution of 14 February 2017, op. cit. (n. 11), 34 Art. 11 of the draft directive (Record-keeping of reports received), point 24. op. cit. (n. 26). 38 Ibid, point 19.

État des lieux des programmes de protection des témoins et des collaborateurs de justice dans le domaine du crime organisé et du terrorisme Regard croisé du système pénal français à la lumière des instruments internationaux

David Chiappini

Collaborators with justice and witnesses are the most important impact factors when combatting organized crime and terror- ism, since they provide information on the goals of criminal groups, on criminal networks, and on planned or committed crimes. Protective measures can be applied to guarantee the personal safety of collaborators with justice as well as witnesses and their relatives both requiring protection. The efforts of European institutions aim to establish common criteria in this field (pro- tection programmes, protection measures for witnesses and collaborators of justice, etc.). For a few years now, the necessity of European legislative instruments has been under discussion. The Council of Europe, whose active role on matter has been proven through their recent suggestions on the modernization of their work on witnesses' and collaborators' protection, has carefully studied this question. The French system has been influenced by different European instruments, whose resources were later used in France for its own protection programmes. The implementation of the law on such protection should be considered in the context of the numerous retaliation murders since 2012. After the Paris attack in November 2015, however, a new act to increase protection measures against terrorism was introduced, thus increasing the protection for witnesses. This article explores the legal framework on witness protection and protection for collaborators with justice in France.

Grâce à leur coopération, les collaborateurs de justice et les té- tés administratives ou judiciaires, permet d’éviter une activité moins menacés jouent un rôle déterminant dans le démantèle- criminelle, d’en réduire les conséquences ou d’en identifier les ment d’organisations criminelles. Afin d’encourager leur témoi- auteurs et/ou les complices. En 2005, le Conseil de l’Europe a gnage, certains Etats comme la France ont adopté des mesures défini le collaborateur de justice comme procédurales et non procédurales spécifiques de protection à toute personne qui est poursuivie ou a été condamnée pour avoir leur profit. Le développement de dispositif ad hoc de protection participé à une association de malfaiteurs ou à toute autre orga- nisation criminelle ou à des infractions relevant de la criminalité est devenu un enjeu prioritaire de politique pénale dans de organisée, mais qui accepte de coopérer avec la justice pénale, en nombreux pays. L’accroissement du crime organisé transna- particulier en témoignant contre une association ou une organisa- tional aujourd’hui soulève la question de l’adaptation et de la tion criminelle ou toute infraction en relation avec la criminalité organisée ou avec d’autres infractions graves.2 pertinence de ces mécanismes dans une dimension internatio- nale. Le témoin est défini en droit pénal français comme la personne à l’encontre de laquelle il n’existe aucune raison plausible Le terme de collaborateur de justice, plus communément de soupçonner qu’elle a commis ou tenté de commettre une dénommé « repenti » en référence à la pratique italienne des infraction. En cas de crimes ou délits punis d’au moins trois pentiti,1 désigne la personne qui, collaborant avec les autori- ans d’emprisonnement, la loi lui offre la possibilité de pouvoir

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 177 La protection des lanceurs d’alerte et des collaborateurs de justice témoigner sans que son identité apparaisse dans le dossier de Après dix ans de silence depuis la reconnaissance officielle procédure, lorsque son audition est susceptible de mettre gra- « des repentis à la française », le gouvernement Ayrault signe vement en danger sa vie ou son intégrité physique, celles des le 17 mars 2014 le décret d’application8 du volet protection membres de sa famille ou de ses proches. Le Conseil de l’Eu- qui jusque-là n’existait pas en droit français. Toutefois, les té- rope a une approche plus pragmatique de la notion de témoin moins restaient exclus du champ d’application de ces mesures en définissant ce dernier comme la spéciales de protection renforcées. Les attentats meurtriers personne détenant des informations pertinentes pour une procédure perpétrés à Paris et Saint-Denis le 13 novembre 2015 ont mis pénale et/ou en mesure de les communiquer dans le cadre de celle-ci en lumière certaines limites du système de protection appli- (quel que soit son statut et quelle que soit la forme du témoignage – directe ou indirecte, orale ou écrite – selon le droit national), qui cables aux témoins. Le législateur français en tire les con- n’est pas incluse dans la définition de « collaborateur de justice ».3 séquences et procède à un alignement du régime sur celui des témoins gravement menacés en adoptant l’article 22 de la loi Les évolutions récentes de la criminalité ont conduit le légis- n°2016-731 du 3 juin 2016 renforçant la lutte contre le crime lateur français à développer des moyens procéduraux adap- organisé, le terrorisme et son financement. Les modalités de tés en recourant notamment au dispositif des collaborateurs mise en œuvre du régime de protection des témoins menacés de justice dans certaines catégories d’infractions graves sont aujourd’hui prévues et unifiées par décret modificatif spécialement déterminées telles que l’association de malfai- n°2016-1674 paru le 6 décembre 2016. teurs, le proxénétisme, la traite des êtres humains, le trafic de stupéfiants ou encore le terrorisme. De manière générale, S’il incombe, tout d’abord, aux systèmes nationaux de résoudre le processus de collaboration se fonde essentiellement sur la plupart des questions relevant de la protection des témoins une « négociation » du quantum de la sanction encourue à et des « repentis », l’analyse de la situation et notamment travers l’octroi de réduction ou d’exemption de peines dans française démontre l’existence d’une dimension européenne les cas prévues par la loi. En ces domaines, il est néanmoins et internationale non négligeable sur laquelle il convient de apparu primordial, autant pour l’agent infracteur que pour le se pencher plus en détail. En effet, de nombreux travaux9 témoin qui collaborent activement avec les autorités admi- ont été préalablement engagés par les différentes institutions nistratives et judiciaires de pouvoir bénéficier de la mise en chargées de proposer « des solutions dotées d’une valeur ajou- œuvre de programmes spécifiques de protection compte tenu tée »10 avant de déboucher sur l’adoption de textes normatifs des risques importants de représailles. Pendant longtemps, non contraignants (I). Sensibilisé, le législateur français s’est l’absence de mécanismes institutionnels de « protection ren- résolu à exploiter le présent dispositif de la collaboration-pro- forcée » en droit français suscitait les réticences d’éventuels tection dans son arsenal juridique (II). prétendants à s’engager dans la voie de la collaboration pro- cédurale. I. Le rôle moteur des institutions européennes et À la différence d’autres modèles étrangers, plus familiers de internationales dans la construction d’une législation ces pratiques à l’instar des Etats-Unis ou de l’Italie, le sys- harmonisée en matière de protection des témoins tème français a toujours été considéré en net recul en matière et des collaborateurs de justice de législation spéciale sur la protection des collaborateurs de justice et des témoins menacés. Pour ces derniers, seules Les différentes institutions européennes et internationales quelques mesures procédurales4 étaient prévues par le législa- se sont, chacune à leur niveau, emparées de la question des teur pour assurer leur protection dans les affaires criminelles systèmes de protection élaborés pour les témoins et les col- les plus sensibles. La loi n°2004-204 du 9 mars 2004 portant laborateurs de justice dans le cadre de la lutte contre le crime adaptation de la justice aux évolutions de la criminalité5 dite organisé et le terrorisme. « Perben II » instaure officiellement la possibilité de recourir à un programme spécial de protection afin d’assurer la sécurité Dès les années 90, le Conseil de l’Union européenne a convié et la réinsertion des « repentis » juridiquement reconnus par les Etats membres à réfléchir à l’instauration de dispositifs la loi.6 Cependant, il incombait au pouvoir exécutif le soin de spéciaux de protection dans leurs propres législations internes. fixer les conditions d’application pour rendre opérationnel le Ces objectifs prioritaires se sont matérialisés, tout d’abord, présent dispositif. En l’absence de parution du décret d’appli- par l’adoption le 7 décembre 1995 d’une résolution relative cation et de sources de financement, le système de protection à la protection des témoins, entendue au sens large, dans le restait en pratique lettre morte. Le problème de la mise en cadre de la lutte contre la criminalité organisée internationale. place effective d’un dispositif de protection ad hoc ressurgit Une autre résolution relative aux collaborateurs à l’action de en France dans un contexte de recrudescence des règlements la justice dans le cadre la lutte contre la criminalité organisée de compte sur son territoire7 entre 2011 et 2013. sera adoptée le 20 décembre 1996. Enfin, le Conseil a préco-

178 | eucrim 3 / 2018 protection des témoins et collaborateurs de justice dans le domaine du crime organisé nisé dans son programme d’action stratégique en matière de ment les jalons d’une véritable législation européenne dans le prévention et lutte contre la criminalité organisée adopté le 3 domaine de la protection des témoins et des collaborateurs de mai 200011 la nécessité d’élaborer un instrument qui contienne justice. Celle-ci s’inscrit dans la continuité des réflexions déjà des mesures de protection des témoins et des collaborateurs amorcées courant 2003 en matière de terrorisme par le Comité de justice ainsi que la possibilité d’accorder à ces derniers des d’experts sur le fonctionnement des conventions européennes remises de peine. À l’échelle internationale, il convient de dans le domaine pénal (PC-OC) dans le cadre de l’article 2315 noter que la Convention des Nations Unies contre la crimina- du second protocole additionnel à la Convention européenne lité transnationale organisée (UNTOC) du 15 décembre 2000 d’entraide judiciaire en matière pénale. comporte des dispositions spécifiques relatives à la protection des témoins et des victimes,12 ainsi que des mesures propres à Ces travaux d’ampleurs parachèveront ces efforts de construc- renforcer la coopération des suspects et des co-prévenus avec tion, entamés quelques années plus tôt, dans l’instauration les autorités judiciaires.13 de mesures concrètes dédiées à la protection des témoins et des personnes qui participent ou ont participé à des organi- Force de propositions, le Conseil de l’Europe14 s’est également sations criminelles. En effet, l’objectif assigné de la recom- employé à promouvoir la protection des témoins et des colla- mandation Rec (2005)9 est de garantir que les témoins et les borateurs de justice au sein de ses Etats membres. Ce thème collaborateurs de justice puissent témoigner librement sans d’actualité est de nouveau débattu depuis 2014. faire l’objet d’actes de représailles ou d’intimidation. Mal- gré l’importance de cet instrument dans le cadre de la lutte contre les formes modernes de criminalité et de terrorisme, 1. Les apports du Conseil de l’Europe un premier constat en demi-teinte est dressé sur l’effectivité de la recommandation. Les témoins restent menacés et le Actif depuis de nombreuses années dans le domaine de la pro- plus souvent réticents à coopérer, ce qui illustre les difficul- tection des témoins et des collaborateurs de justice, le Conseil tés rencontrées dans la pratique en contrariété avec les axes de l’Europe s’est saisi avec une attention particulière de cette directeurs de la recommandation. problématique, considérée comme l’un des cinq domaines prioritaires de son champ d’action. En effet, ce dernier a joué un rôle pivot à travers ses travaux dont le Livre blanc sur le 2. Vers une révision de la recommandation crime organisé transnational, approuvé par le Comité européen Rec 2005(9) des problèmes criminels (CDPC), retrace de façon détaillée la mise en œuvre des programmes de protection des témoins, de Dans l’optique de remédier les différents points d’achoppe- la collaboration des co-accusés et des mesures d’incitation à ment, le Conseil de l’Europe se penche actuellement sur les la coopération. nécessités d’une éventuelle actualisation de la recommanda- tion Rec 2005 (9) du Conseil des ministres adoptée le 20 avril Plusieurs actes normatifs ont été adoptés au premier rang 2005. Ce choix de révision16 démontre un regain d’intérêt de la desquels figurent la recommandation Rec(1997)13 du 10 sep- thématique à l’échelle européenne, laquelle s’inscrit plus glo- tembre 1997 sur l’intimidation des témoins et les droits de la balement dans le cadre du Plan d’Action sur le Crime Organisé défense qui aborde les différentes situations dans lesquelles Transnational pour la période 2016–2020. Le projet de révi- les témoins peuvent prétendre à une protection. Plus tard, la sion actuellement en cours de discussion17 a pour objectif de Recommandation Rec (2001)11 du 19 septembre 2001 concer- combler les lacunes relevées dans le domaine de la protection nant des principes directeurs pour la lutte contre le crime orga- des témoins et des collaborateurs de justice. L’objectif recher- nisé préconise que la protection des témoins se fasse à tous ché est de répondre aux imperfections qui ont pu être mises les niveaux de la procédure pénale (avant, pendant et après en exergue à ce sujet, notamment de comprendre pourquoi les le procès). Cependant, de nombreuses insuffisances restaient instruments existants à l’heure actuelle ne sont pas correcte- encore à déplorer et le cadre initial loin d’être satisfaisant. ment mis en œuvre. Le 20 avril 2005, de nouvelles études davantage ciblées ont abouti à l’élaboration de la recommandation Rec 2005(9) rela- En définitive, la démarche du Conseil de l’Europe s’oriente tive à la protection des témoins et des collaborateurs de jus- vers le perfectionnement du cadre juridique pour la coopéra- tice, instrument juridique dont le contenu est plus cohérent et tion internationale en matière de protection des témoins et des mieux structuré. Elle vise expressément à ce que des témoins collaborateurs de justice, tout en élargissant le champ d’appli- ou collaborateurs de justice exposés au même genre d’intimi- cation de la Recommandation sur la base des nouvelles expé- dation puissent bénéficier d’une protection similaire. Sur le riences et informations acquises depuis son adoption en 200518 fond, cette importante recommandation pose immanquable- En effet, il convient nécessairement de prendre en compte les

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 179 La protection des lanceurs d’alerte et des collaborateurs de justice

évolutions législatives récentes19 intervenues dans chaque Etat Le Bureau de la protection des repentis du service intermi- membre à l’instar du modèle français qui connait un important nistériel d’assistance technique (ci-après SIAT), rattaché à la bouleversement de sa législation ayant trait à la protection des Direction centrale de la police judiciaire, joue un rôle primor- témoins et des collaborateurs de justice. dial dans la mise en œuvre des programmes de protection. Interlocuteur direct de la CNPR et de son président, le secréta- riat permanent de ce service spécialisé est chargé de présenter II. L’émergence d’une pratique française les dossiers des différentes personnes pouvant bénéficier de la de protection des témoins et des collaborateurs procédure spéciale de protection et se voit confier l’instruction de justice des demandes d’identité d’emprunt.

Le système français s’est doté tardivement d’un modèle ad La confidentialité des différentes mesures de protection-ré- hoc de protection au bénéfice de personnes qui collaborent insertion et d’identité d’emprunt élaborées sous le contrôle avec les autorités. Longuement attendus, les décrets d’appli- effectif de la CNPR et dont la mise en œuvre matérielle cation apportent désormais des précisions sur la composition, incombe au SIAT doit être intégralement assurée à tous les le fonctionnement et la saisine de la Commission nationale de stades de la procédure. Il s’agit ici d’une exigence fonda- protection et réinsertion (ci-après CNPR) dont le rôle est de mentale du dispositif et la garantie de son bon fonction- définir les mesures de protection et de réinsertion destinées nement dont le non-respect est pénalement sanctionné. En aux repentis et aux témoins menacés.20 effet, la divulgation de l’identité réelle d’un collaborateur de justice, d’un témoin protégé ou de leurs conjoints, enfants En France, la CNPR, clef de voûte du dispositif, est chargée de ou ascendants directs peuvent leur être gravement préjudi- garantir l’application homogène et cohérente de la protection ciables (dommage, infirmité) ou avoir des conséquences irré- des collaborateurs de justice et des témoins. Placée sous la tu- versibles (la mort). C’est pourquoi, le législateur a érigé en telle du ministère de l’intérieur, cette commission administra- infraction pénale la révélation d’identité en réprimant qui- tive, présidée par un magistrat hors hiérarchie, comprend des conque se rendrait coupable de ce délit à des peines de cinq personnalités issues d’horizons divers du monde de la sécurité à dix ans d’emprisonnement et de 75 000 à 150 000 euros et de la justice.21 Parmi ses attributions, la Commission peut d’amende selon les cas d’aggravations. Plus récemment, la décider de toutes mesures proportionnées qu’elle définit au loi n°2017-1510 du 30 octobre 2017 renforçant la sécurité regard de la nature du dossier, de la portée des déclarations des intérieure et la lutte contre le terrorisme a étendu le périmètre personnes bénéficiaires et de la gravité des risques encourus de protection des collaborateurs de justice. Cette nouvelle loi par celles-ci (notamment de protection physique et de domici- vient incriminer, non plus seulement la révélation de l’iden- liation). Elle peut également définir des mesures de réinsertion tité d’emprunt de ces personnes, mais également tout élé- eu égard à la situation matérielle et sociale de la personne, ment permettant son identification ou sa localisation. Enfin, de sa famille et de ses proches (mise en place d’un soutien autre évolution notable, il est également prévu de garantir la psychologique, formation, etc.). L’opportunité des mesures est sécurité de ces personnes lorsqu’elles comparaissent devant examinée à la lumière de nombreux paramètres laissés à la une juridiction de jugement en permettant soit d’ordonner discrétion de la Commission. le huis clos lorsque cette comparution est de nature à mettre gravement en danger leur vie ou leur intégrité physique ou Par ailleurs, elle dispose de la possibilité de recourir à la procé- celle de leurs proches, soit de recourir à l’utilisation d’un dure relative à l’identité d’emprunt.22 Si cela s’avère indispen- dispositif technique permettant leur audition à distance ou de sable, le président de la Commission devra saisir à cette fin, le rendre leur voix non identifiable. président du tribunal de grande instance de Paris, exclusive- ment compétent en la matière pour autoriser par ordonnance motivée une telle mesure, lequel aura préalablement sollicité III. Conclusion les réquisitions du procureur de la République. En effet, le ma- gistrat du parquet, gardien de l’état civil au regard de l’article La gestion processuelle des programmes de protection en 53 du code civil français, est le seul à être en mesure de com- France reste encore à l’état embryonnaire sans que l’on puisse muniquer l’ensemble des éléments permettant d’apprécier le tirer à ce jour de réel bilan sur l’efficacité de ces mesures caractère impérieux de l’autorisation sollicitée.23 Enfin, le re- dans le paysage juridique français. Les moyens de finance- trait de l’autorisation peut être prononcé lorsque cette mesure ment restent encore timides et très insuffisants,24 à l’inverse n’apparaît plus nécessaire ou si la personne qui en bénéficie d’autres pays qui investissent des crédits conséquents dans les adopte un comportement incompatible avec la mise en œuvre programmes dédiés à la protection des témoins et des collabo- ou le bon déroulement de cette mesure. rateurs de justice. Partant d’une bonne intention, le système

180 | eucrim 3 / 2018 protection des témoins et collaborateurs de justice dans le domaine du crime organisé français tel qu’il est conçu n’est pour autant pas à la hauteur de mettront plus précisément de connaitre les tenants et les abou- ses ambitions. En effet, celui-ci reste marginalisé sur le plan de tissants des problèmes soulevés en la matière dont la pratique la volonté politique et demeure très difficile à mettre en œuvre commence seulement à se développer.26 d’un point de vue procédurale. Sans compter que structurel- lement, le mécanisme actuel demeure lacunaire à plusieurs Au-delà, les pistes de travail doivent être renforcées au plan titres s’agissant notamment de la rédaction parfois confuses européen autant que les difficultés posées de l’adoption d’un des textes ou encore de la restriction du champ d’application instrument législatif contraignant doivent être dépassées. Il est législatif du dispositif où certaines infractions particulière- impératif aujourd’hui pour les Etats membres de poursuivre ment graves sont exclues. À ces critiques de fond, il faut égale- les efforts entrepris d’une mutualisation des mécanismes de ment souligner l’absence d’encrage culturel d’une criminalité récompenses et des mesures de protection ainsi que de ren- mafieuse en France qui vient relativiser la portée du recours forcer le volet de la coopération transfrontalière. Il s’agit là de au dispositif des repentis, à l’exception de la Corse,25 véritable l’assurance d’un meilleur développement de cet outil novateur laboratoire test qui justifie pour partie l’expérimentation du dont l’objectif commun est la lutte contre la criminalité orga- statut. En tout état de cause, seules les prochaines années per- nisée et le terrorisme.

1 C. Ducouloux-Favard, « Réflexion sur les repentis et les collaborateurs de justice au regard du droit italien », Gaz.Pal, n°183, 2003, p. 1. ; G-C. Caselli, « Les repentis de la mafia », LPA, 26 février 1999, p. 33. David Chiappini 2 REC(2005)9 du Conseil des ministres adoptée le 20 avril 2005. Doctorant à l’Université Paris Nanterre, Centre 3 Op. cit. (n. 2). 4 Jusqu’en 2016, le code de procédure pénale français connaissait de droit pénal et de criminologie. seulement un dispositif de protection des témoins à deux niveaux à savoir la domiciliation du témoin dans une brigade de gendarmerie ou un com- missariat de police (art. 706-57) et le témoignage anonyme (art. 706-58). Aujourd’hui, un troisième niveau de protection est prévu (art 706-62-2). 5 B. De Lamy, « La loi du 9 mars 2004 portant adaptation de la justice aux évolutions de la criminalité (crime organisé – efficacité et diversification de la réponse pénale) », D. 2004, p.1910. session plénière des 29–31 mars 2017. Les premiers résultats ont donné 6 Art.132-78 du Code pénal français et Art. 706-63-1 du Code de procé- lieu à la publication le 8 novembre 2017 d’un rapport d’évaluation provi- dure pénale français. soire, https://rm.coe.int/assessment-of-the-answers-to-the-question- 7 « Le statut de repenti sera bientôt effectif », Journal Le Monde, 14 sep- naire-review-of-the-recommend/1680764f16. tembre 2013. 17 Le Comité européen pour les problèmes criminels (CDPC) a tenu à 8 Décret n°2014-346 du 17 mars 2014 relatif à la protection des personnes Strasbourg sa réunion plénière du 28 Novembre au 1er Décembre 2017, mentionnées à l’article 706-63-1 du code de procédure pénale bénéficiant qui a conduit ultérieurement à la production d’un rapport sommaire en d’exemptions ou de réductions de peines. mai 2018 lors de la première réunion du groupe de travail et de rédaction 9 G. Vermeulen « EU standards in witness protection and collaboration chargé de la révision de la recommandation. with justice », IRCP, 2005 18 CDPC (2016)18 – Révision de la recommandation REC(2015) 9 – 10 Document de travail de la Commission « sur la faisabilité d’un instru- document préparé par Lorena Bachmaier Winter, https://rm.coe. ment législatif européen dans le domaine de la protection des témoins et int/168070d2cd . des collaborateurs de justice », 13 novembre 2007, COM(2007) 693. 19 Sur la base d’un questionnaire détaillé adressé aux différents États 11 Recommandation n°25 du Document intitulé « Prévention et contrôle membres afin d’obtenir des informations sur les cadres de protection des de la criminalité organisée : une stratégie de l’Union européenne pour le témoins et des repentis. prochain millénaire», JOCE C 124 du 3 mai 2000, p.1. 20 C. Sorita-Minard, « Le nouveau dispositif français de protection des 12 Art. 24 et 25 de la convention UNTOC. repentis », Revue GRASCO, Sept. 2014, p.39. 13 Art. 26 de la convention UNTOC. 21 Composition de la Commission modifiée depuis le décret n°2016-1674 14 Selon Marie-Aude BEERNAERT, le Conseil de l’Europe « n’a, certes, du 5 décembre 2016 jamais expressément recommandé de recourir aux collaborateurs de justice 22 Articles 18 à 25 du décret, op. cit. (n. 7). mais il a, par contre insisté à plusieurs reprises sur la nécessité d’organiser 23 Circulaire CRIM 2004-13 GI / 02-09-2004 présentant les dispositions à leur profit des mesures de protection effectives et appropriées », in relatives à la criminalité organisée de la loi n°2004-204 du 9 mars 2004 M.-A. BEERNAERT, Repentis et collaborateurs de justice dans le système portant adaptation de la justice aux évolutions de la criminalité, BOMJ, pénal : analyse comparée et critique, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 2002, p. 5. n°95 (1er juillet – 30 septembre 2004). 15 «Lorsqu’une Partie fait une demande d’entraide en vertu de la Conven- 24 Un financement à hauteur de 450 000 euros annuel financé par tion ou de l’un de ses Protocoles concernant un témoin qui risque d’être l’Agence de gestion et de recouvrement des avoirs saisis et confisqués exposé à une intimidation ou qui a besoin de protection, les autorités (AGRASC). compétentes de la Partie requérante et celles de la Partie requise font de 25 « Patrick Giovannoni, premier repenti, devant les assises», Journal Le leur mieux pour convenir des mesures visant la protection de la personne Monde, 20 février 2018, p. 10. ; « Le repenti Giovannoni jugé à huis clos », concernée, en conformité avec leur droit national ». Journal Le Monde, 21 février 2018, p. 12. 16 L’annonce de ce projet de révision de la recommandation par un 26 On dénombre un peu moins de dix repentis éligibles en France aux collège d’experts a été remise à l’ordre du jour à l’occasion de la 72ème programmes de protection depuis l’instauration de la CNPR en mars 2014.

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 181 La protection des lanceurs d’alerte et des collaborateurs de justice

La confiance mutuelle sous pression dans le cadre du transfert de personnes condamnées au sein de l’Union Européenne

Dr. Tony Marguery*

This article discusses the limits on mutual trust in the context of transfer of sentenced persons following the CJEU’s Aranyosi and Căldăraru judgment. It summarizes the main findings of a recent legal and empirical analysis of mutual recognition cases conducted in fiveEU Member States: Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Romania, and Poland. The research conducted contends that the presumption of mutual trust existing between the EU Member States is a legal fiction. In the context of transfer of a custodial sentence from one country to another based on mutual recognition and mutual trust, failure of the latter can have very negative effects on judicial cooperation and, consequently, on the fight against crime. Non-compliance with individuals’ fundamental rights can undermine the very essence of judicial cooperation and, with it, the European project. Such failure can only be prevented if the EU endeavours to establish and maintain a truly integrated penal policy − with concern for individuals at its very core − and if the Member States accept and abide by the common European values.

I. Introduction ment et adéquatement protégé lors de la mise en œuvre, par les États membres des politiques Européennes en matière de lutte Au sein de l’Union Européenne (UE) et, en particulier, dans contre le crime et de protection des droits fondamentaux. C’est les domaines de compétence de l’Espace de Liberté, de Sécu- en gardant cet objectif présent à l’esprit qu’a été entreprise la rité et de Justice (ELSJ),1 les relations entre États membres recherche dont les résultats furent publiés en janvier 2018 sous sont basées sur l’existence d’une confiance mutuelle. Cette le titre « Mutual Trust under Pressure, the Transferring of Sen- confiance existe car tous les États membres sont censés par- tenced Persons in the EU. Transfer of Judgments of Convic- tager un ensemble de valeurs énumérées à l’article 2 du Trai- tion in the European Union and the Respect for Individual’s té sur l’Union Européenne (TUE) de respect de la dignité hu- Fundamental Rights ».4 Cette recherche, cofinancée par la maine, de liberté, de démocratie, d’égalité, de l’État de droit, Commission Européenne, a été conduite sous l’égide de l’Uni- ainsi que de respect des droits de l’homme, y compris des versité d’Utrecht dans cinq pays membres de l’UE, à savoir droits des personnes appartenant à des minorités.2 Le respect l’Italie, la Pologne, la Roumanie, la Suède et les Pays-Bas.5 pour les droits de l’homme, plus particulièrement, est censé Son objectif était, dans ces cinq pays, d’analyser les consé- être équivalent dans toute l’Union en raison de la Charte des quences concrètes de la jurisprudence Aranyosi et Căldăraru Droits Fondamentaux de l’Union Européenne (la Charte) et, plus généralement, du respect des droits fondamentaux de qui a force obligatoire pour tous les États membres dès lors l’individu dans le cadre des opérations de transfert de prison- qu’ils agissent dans le cadre du droit de l’Union et, dans les niers en application du principe de reconnaissance mutuelle. autres cas,3 de la Convention Européenne de sauvegarde des Droits de l’Homme (CEDH) à laquelle tous les État membres Ce court article a pour but de faire état de certains résultats sont partis. obtenus au terme de cette recherche. A cette fin, il sera néces- saire, premièrement, de rappeler le champ d’application du Toutefois, l’équivalence dans le respect des droits de l’homme principe de confiance mutuelle dans le cadre du transfert de existe peut-être sur le papier, mais il en va tout autre en pra- prisonniers au sein de l’Union ; puis, dans un second temps, de tique. D’une manière générale, ainsi que le rappelle le Préam- résumer les principaux résultats de la recherches entreprises. bule de la Charte, l’Union place la personne au cœur de son Finalement, la conclusion s’aventurera sur de possibles pistes action en instituant la citoyenneté de l’Union et en créant un de réflexion pour répondre à la crise de confiance que traverse espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice. Il est donc de la na- actuellement la coopération pénale, voire la construction euro- ture même de l’Union que l’intérêt de l’individu soit concrète- péenne dans son ensemble.

182 | eucrim 3 / 2018 La confiance mutuelle sous pression

II . Conditions de détention et confiance mutuelle du mandat d’arrêt Européen (MAE), la CJUE a décidé qu’une autorité judiciaire chargée de l’exécution d’un tel mandat ne Dans le domaine pénal, la confiance mutuelle est nécessaire pouvait pas remettre vers un autre État membre une personne afin de faciliter la libre circulation des décisions judiciaires suspectée de la commission d’une infraction pénale, ou déjà et de compenser l’absence de frontières et la liberté de cir- condamnée à une peine d’emprisonnement, sans être certaine culation des personnes dans l’Union. Elle a permis la mise que cette remise ne conduirait pas à un traitement inhumain en œuvre du principe de reconnaissance mutuelle qui régit ou dégradant de cette personne au sens de l’article 4.13 La la coopération pénale et la lutte contre le crime.6 Ce der- décision prise dans les affaires Aranyosi et Căldăraru permet nier principe oblige les autorités d’un État membre (autorité au juge de l’exécution de retarder le transfert de la personne d’exécution), qui reçoivent une décision judiciaire prise par requise tant qu’il n’a pas de certitude que cette personne sera les autorités d’un autre État membre (autorité d’émission), à détenue dans une prison conforme aux exigences minimums reconnaître cette décision et à l’exécuter. En sus de la Charte, de dignité humaine. un ensemble de garanties procédurales fondamentales ont été imposées aux États membres pour assurer le bon fonctionne- Le contrôle se fait en deux étapes : Premièrement, le juge ment de la reconnaissance mutuelle.7 Si d’aventure il existait doit être en possession « d’éléments objectifs, fiables, précis un doute quant à la conformité de cette décision avec les droits et dûment actualisés sur les conditions de détention qui pré- fondamentaux de l’individu qu’elle affecte, celui-ci devrait se valent dans l’État membre d’émission et démontrant la réalité retourner contre les autorités d’émission de la décision. Les de défaillances soit systémiques ou généralisées, soit touchant seules exceptions au principe qui permettent un contrôle de certains groupes de personnes, soit encore certains centres de la décision étrangère par l’autorité d’exécution sont restric- détention ».14 En second lieu, il doit apprécier « de manière tivement énumérées et doivent être interprétées de manière concrète et précise, s’il existe des motifs sérieux et avérés de stricte.8 Autrement dit, les autorités d’exécution du pays A croire que la personne concernée courra ce risque en raison qui reçoivent une décision prise par le pays B ont une obliga- des conditions de sa détention envisagées dans l’État membre tion, au sens du droit de l’Union, de considérer cette décision d’émission ».15 Afin d’écarter tout doute, il lui est demandé comme un ‘produit’ de fabrique quasi nationale. de s’informer auprès des autorités d’émission sur le lieu et les conditions précises de détention prévues pour la personne Ainsi, il est interdit aux autorités d’exécution, non seulement requise.16 De manière ultime, si ce juge n’obtient pas cette cer- de vérifier si l’autre État membre, sauf dans des cas excep- titude dans un délai raisonnable, il lui est permis de mettre fin tionnels,9 a effectivement respecté, dans un cas concret, les à la procédure de remise du MAE.17 droits fondamentaux de l’UE, mais encore, lorsqu’un contrôle est autorisé, d’exiger de cet État un niveau de protection natio- Cette décision était attendue dans la mesure où contrairement nal des droits fondamentaux plus élevé que celui de l’UE.10 Il à ce qu’une lecture « sur papier » du principe de confiance mu- va sans dire que la confiance mutuelle pèse particulièrement tuelle laisse suggérer, le respect des droits fondamentaux au lourd sur les épaules des juges nationaux qui peuvent se sen- sein de l’UE n’est, en pratique, certainement pas parfait. Nom- tir relégués à l’état de simple «juge enregistreurs» – contrô- breux sont les pays où les prisons souffrent de défaillances leurs de la forme des décisions sans pouvoir de contrôle sur systématiques contraires aux droits de l’homme et dénoncées le fond. Le poids est d’autant plus lourd à porter que la recon- régulièrement par les organes du Conseil de l’Europe18 ou naissance mutuelle peut avoir pour conséquence le transfert les jugements pilotes de la Cour Européenne des Droits de d’une personne vers un autre État où elle sera détenue dans des l’Homme (la Cour Européenne).19 Le jugement Aranyosi et conditions contraires à l’interdiction de la torture protégée par Căldăraru a apaisé certains doutes des autorités d’exécution en l’article 4 de la Charte correspondant à l’article 3 de la CEDH. ce qui concerne le respect futur du droit à ne pas souffrir d’un traitement dégradant. Compte tenu du caractère absolu de ce droit et du lien privilé- gié qu’il entretient avec le droit à la dignité humaine, la Cour de Mais qu’en est-il, par exemple, des situations où le juge s’in- Justice de l’Union Européenne (CJUE) a autorisé un renverse- quiète de la validité même de la décision étrangère au regard ment de la présomption de confiance mutuelle lorsqu’il existe du droit à un procès équitable ? Doit-il accepter toute déci- un risque réel de violation de l’article 4 de la Charte. En parti- sion au nom de la confiance mutuelle même lorsque le pro- culier, le 5 avril 2016, dans les affaires jointes Pál Aranyosi et cès qui l’a précédé semble entaché de violations graves de ce Robert Căldăraru, la CJUE a rendu une décision capitale pour droit ? Qu’en est-il du droit au respect de la vie privée auquel l’avenir de la coopération judiciaire en matière pénale dans la décision de transfert peut sérieusement porter atteinte ? Par l’Union Européenne.11 Étendant sa jurisprudence en matière ailleurs, quelle sont les conséquences pratiques d’un renver- d’asile12 au domaine pénal, et plus particulièrement, à celui sement du principe de confiance mutuelle sur l’obligation de

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 183 La protection des lanceurs d’alerte et des collaborateurs de justice transmettre un jugement de condamnation pénale, voire une damentales encadrant la mise en œuvre de la reconnaissance personne condamnée, dans le cadre d’autres procédures que mutuelle sont-elles suffisantes pour renforcer la confiance mu- le MAE ? Ainsi comment le respect des droits fondamentaux tuelle ou bien la reconnaissance mutuelle souffre-t-elle d’in- influence-t-il la mise en œuvre de la Décision Cadre 2008/909 suffisances procédurales limitant ou empêchant son bon fonc- concernant l’application du principe de reconnaissance mu- tionnement (violations présentes) ? En dernier lieu, la décision tuelle aux jugements en matière pénale prononçant des peines adoptée par la CJUE dans les affaires Aranyosi et Căldăraru ou des mesures privatives de liberté aux fins de leur exécu- est-elle de nature à apaiser de manière suffisante les craintes tion ou la Décision Cadre 2008/947 concernant l’application des autorités nationales compétentes vis-à-vis du risque de du principe de reconnaissance mutuelle aux jugements et aux violation future des droits fondamentaux dans un État membre décisions de probation aux fins de la surveillance des mesures voisin (violations futures) ? de probation et des peines de substitution ?20

2. Les principaux résultats de la recherche III. De l’impact pratique de la jurisprudence Aranyosi et Căldăraru en Italie, Pologne, Roumanie, Les résultats de la recherche ont mis à jour, que d’une manière Suède et aux Pays-Bas générale, le principe de confiance mutuelle dans le cadre du transfert de personnes condamnées à la prison ou de juge- 1. Le cadre de la recherche ments de condamnation autres qu’à des peines de prison est accepté dans la législation et/ou jurisprudence nationale. La C’est dans le but de répondre à ces questions, que la recherche violation passée du droit à un procès équitable ne semble pas précitée dans l’introduction a été mise en place afin non seule- poser de problèmes majeurs. En particulier, l’harmonisation ment de faire une analyse légale de la mise en œuvre du MAE, du principe ne bis in idem et des droits de la défense dans le des décisions-cadres 2008/909 et 2008/947 et de la politique cadre de procès par contumace offrent suffisamment de garan- de respect des droits de l’homme incarnée par la Charte et les ties aux praticiens nationaux quant au respect de ces droits.21 directives procédurales adoptées en matière pénale, mais sur- En revanche, certains États membres, tels que les Pays-Bas22 tout de procéder à une analyse « sur le terrain » de la mise s’interrogent sur l’application au MAE de la jurisprudence de en œuvre de ces politiques et de l’influence du principe de la Cour Européenne en matière de déni de justice flagrant. Ce- confiance mutuelle sur l’obligation de reconnaissance mu- tte jurisprudence interdit à un État de procéder à l’extradition tuelle. En particulier, les conséquences pratiques de la juris- d’une personne lorsque le procès qui a abouti au jugement est prudence Aranyosi et Căldăraru ont été analysées. Ainsi, des vicié par un déni de justice flagrant du droit à un procès équita- entretiens avec des juges, procureurs, avocats, détenus et or- ble ou de la prohibition de la torture.23 Quant à elles, les viola- ganisations non gouvernementales ont été menés, analysés et tions (présentes) possibles du droit à un procès équitable dans transcrits par des criminologues. le cours de la procédure de reconnaissance ne semblent pas affecter la décision de reconnaissance. Les autorités compé- Le cadre théorique établi pour la recherche s’est concentré sur tentes étant confiantes que de telles violations seront réparées trois droits fondamentaux, à savoir : dans le pays d’origine de la décision. „„Le respect du droit à un procès équitable tel que protégé par l’article 6 de la CEDH, les articles 47 et 48 de la Charte et Il n’en demeure pas moins que certaines tensions perdurent en les directives 2010/64, 2012/13 et 2013/48 ; pratique en ce qui concerne le risque de violation future des „„Le droit au respect à la vie familiale tel que garantit par droits fondamentaux de la personne affectée par la reconnais- l’article 8 de la CEDH et 7 de la Charte et, sance mutuelle. C’est essentiellement le respect des articles 3 „„Le respect des articles 3 de la CEDH et 4 de la Charte sur de la CEDH et 4 de la Charte et le champ d’application de l’interdiction de la torture et des traitements inhumains ou la jurisprudence Aranyosi et Căldăraru qui posent problèmes. dégradants. Deux types de problèmes sont mis en avant : d’un côté, il ex- iste des divergences importantes dans la mise en œuvre de L’influence du respect de ces droits fondamentaux a été analy- cette jurisprudence entre les États membres et, plus générale- sée de manière chronologique aux trois étapes du processus de ment, de celle du principe de confiance mutuelle et, d’un au- reconnaissance mutuelle. En premier lieu, la question était po- tre côté, le régime de la confiance mutuelle reste flou dans le sée de savoir si une possible violation dans le passé affectant cadre des décisions-cadres 2008/909 et 2008/947. un jugement de condamnation devant être reconnu avait une influence sur la décision de reconnaître ce jugement (viola- En ce qui concerne le premier type de problème, il doit tout tions passées). En second lieu, les garanties procédurales fon- d’abord être fait état du manque de clarté concernant la

184 | eucrim 3 / 2018 La confiance mutuelle sous pression charge de la preuve des conditions de détention au premier qu’elles soient émettrices ou exécutrices d’une demande de stade du contrôle dans l’application de la jurisprudence Ara- reconnaissance mutuelle. Toutefois, les conditions de déten- nyosi et Căldăraru. Dans la plupart des cas, c’est à la défense tion qui peuvent affecter le transfert d’un prisonnier, contraire- d’apporter cette preuve, mais en l’absence de critères précis ment au MAE, ne joue pas au niveau du refus d’exécution de et de réseau officiel transnational entre conseils, il existe des la demande, mais à celui de son émission. Rien n’oblige une divergences dues aux différences socio-économiques entre les autorité à procéder au transfert d’un prisonnier vers un autre personnes concernées. Les problèmes sont plus marqués en État membre, et il est rapporté qu’il est peu probable qu’un ce qui concerne la deuxième étape du contrôle de la jurispru- pays d’exécution mette en avant les conditions de détention dence Aranyosi et Căldăraru. L’échange d’informations entre dans ses propres établissements pour refuser la requête. Quand autorités judiciaires se révèle parfois difficile soit en raison de bien même il le ferait, un tel motif de refus n’est pas prévu par la barrière linguistique, soit en raison de l’important pouvoir la décision-cadre. La raison officielle pour procéder à un trans- discrétionnaire accordé aux autorités d’exécution pour poser fert est l’objectif pénal de réhabilitation poursuivi par la déci- des questions aux autorités d’émission. L’étendue et la nature sion-cadre. Un transfert devrait être commandé par la volonté du contrôle ainsi exercé s’illustrent parfois par des question- de permettre une meilleure réhabilitation du détenu.30 Il résulte naires très longs et détaillés. Par exemple, en Italie, il n’est pas toutefois de la recherche que la Décision Cadre n’impose pas rare que les questions posées portent non seulement sur le lieu de critères minimums pour déterminer s’il existe de bonnes de détention, mais encore, pour n’en nommer que quelques- chances de réinsertion dans tel ou tel pays. Par conséquent, unes, sur les conditions exactes d’hygiène ou la propreté de chaque pays procède de manière différente. Le même constat la cellule.24 est fait en ce qui concerne la Décision Cadre 2008/947. Deux observations peuvent ici être faites. Par ailleurs, il existe aussi d’importantes divergences entre les pays en ce qui concerne le délai pour l’obtention des informa- Premièrement, les contrôles des conditions de détention dans tions.25 Il faut aussi noter que certains pays, comme les Pays- le pays d’exécution ne sont pas clairement pris en compte Bas, réclament des « assurances » que la personne requise ne lorsqu’un transfert est décidé. Bien entendu, la jurisprudence sera pas détenue dans tel ou tel établissement26 alors que de Aranyosi et Căldăraru ne s’adresse pas, a priori, aux autorités telles assurances ne sont pas considérées comme élément de en charge du transfert de prisonniers, qui d’ailleurs ne sont preuve suffisant dans d’autres pays, comme la 27 Suède. En- pas nécessairement des autorités judiciaires au sens du MAE. fin, il semble que certains pays font preuve de réticence et Il n’en reste pas moins que sur le fond une autorité décidant n’appliquent simplement pas la jurisprudence Aranyosi et du transfert d’un prisonnier devrait clairement s’y opposer s’il Căldăraru. En particulier, des entretiens avec des juges Rou- existe un risque réel de violation de l’article 4 de la Charte, et mains montrent que le refus de considérer les conditions de ce aux mêmes conditions que celles qui s’appliquent au MAE. détention à l’étranger résulte du fait que les conditions de dé- Toutefois, la recherche a démontré qu’il existe d’importantes tention en Roumanie sont elles-mêmes préoccupantes.28 Ces carences en l’espèce. Par exemple, un détenu peut être trans- juges justifient leurs décisions par une application stricte du féré sans son consentement dans certaines circonstances, et principe de confiance mutuelle. Il existe donc une « polarisa- la décision de transfert ne peut pas faire l’objet d’un recours tion » entre pays « sceptiques » et pays « confiants ». effectif.31 Dès lors, il peut paraître difficile, pour ne pas dire impossible, d’obliger l’autorité d’émission à procéder à une En ce qui concerne le second type de problème, l’étude de évaluation au titre de l’article 4 de la Charte. la Décision Cadre 2008/909 en particulier, révèle qu’il existe d’importantes différences entre pays sur la prise en compte Deuxièmement, la première observation est confortée, voire des conditions de détention dans le contrôle exercé au titre du aggravée, par le fait que certains pays, tel que l’Italie, affichent transfert de prisonniers. Bien sûr le système de reconnaissance clairement l’objectif d’utiliser la Décision Cadre dans le but mutuelle mis en œuvre par la Décision Cadre 2008/909 est de se « débarrasser » des prisonniers étrangers et de contribuer différent de celui du MAE. Les rôles des autorités nationales à l’amélioration des conditions de détention nationales à la sont en quelque sorte inversés. Ce sont les autorités d’émission suite de l’arrêt Torreggiani rendu par la Cour Européenne qui du pays qui a procédé à la condamnation de la personne qui a condamnée l’Italie pour ses prisons surpeuplées.32 Aux Pays- décident de transférer vers l’État d’exécution, le prisonnier, ou Bas, en revanche, il est clairement décidé que le transfert de le jugement le concernant au cas où cette personne réside dans prisonnier ne doit pas avoir pour but de réduire la population ce dernier État. L’exécution de la peine d’emprisonnement carcérale d’un pays dont les conditions de détention souffrent n’aura donc pas lieu dans le pays d’émission comme c’est le de déficiences systématiques.33 Il est clair que les divergences cas dans le MAE, mais dans le pays d’exécution.29 Bien en- de conception concernant la réhabilitation des prisonniers et tendu la confiance mutuelle lie toutes les autorités nationales, la différence entre MAE et transfert de prisonnier en ce qui

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 185 La protection des lanceurs d’alerte et des collaborateurs de justice concerne les conditions de détention sont pour le moins prob- du Conseil de l’Europe en particulier.38 Les efforts produits lématiques dans une Union Européenne censée respecter les par certains États afin d’améliorer les conditions de détention droits fondamentaux des citoyens. dans leurs prisons doivent être poursuivis, voire amplifiés. Mais cela serait une erreur de croire que seuls les problèmes pratiques liés à la prohibition de la torture et des traitements IV . Conclusion dégradants mettent en danger la coopération judiciaire et la lutte contre la criminalité. Les observations faites lors de la recherche menée appellent non seulement à un respect impératif des valeurs communes Les observations faites dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre de sur lesquelles l’Union est fondée mais aussi à une meilleure la jurisprudence Aranyosi et Căldăraru sont valables lorsque intégration des politiques pénales en Europe. Des mesures tant l’essence même de certains droits fondamentaux, quand bien au niveau européen qu’au niveau national doivent être prises.34 même il ne s’agirait pas de droits absolus, est mise en péril par la politique d’un État membre. Les évènements récents Tout d’abord au niveau européen, l’œuvre de clarification du relatifs aux violations de l’État de droit qui ont entraînées le principe de confiance mutuelle et de ses implications pour déclenchement de l’article 7 TUE par la Commission Euro- l’obligation de reconnaissance mutuelle entreprise par la CJUE péenne à l’encontre de la Pologne viennent confirmer cette doit être poursuivie dans un esprit d’intégration et de respect conclusion. Prenant en compte la proposition motivée de la des droits fondamentaux.35 La clarification peut aussi être Commission constatant l’existence, dans ce pays, d’un risque menée à bien grâce à des mesures de droit souple adoptées par clair de violation des valeurs communes visées à l’article 2 la Commission Européenne.36 Il est aussi temps d’envisager TUE,39 la CJEU a récemment étendu sa jurisprudence Aran- l’adoption de critères minimums concernant les conditions de yosi et Căldăraru aux garanties d’un procès équitable rendu détention dans les prisons européennes.37 L’article 82(2)b du par un tribunal indépendant.40 La haute juridiction décide ainsi TFUE (voire l’article 352) concernant le droit des personnes que la présomption de confiance mutuelle peut être réfutée s’il dans la procédure pénale peut servir de base légale. En effet, existe un risque réel de violation du droit fondamental à un de bonnes conditions de détention doivent être exigées tant procès équitable garanti par l’article 47 (2) de la Charte, en pour les personnes définitivement jugées que pour celles qui raison de défaillances systémiques ou généralisées en ce qui sont en détention préventive en attendant d’être jugées. En- concerne l’indépendance du pouvoir judiciaire de l’État mem- fin, il est urgent de procéder à une analyse plus profonde du bre d’émission et que la personne concernée court un tel risque respect de l’article 4 de la Charte dans le cadre du transfert de si sa remise a lieu. Les conséquences de cette nouvelle étape prisonniers opéré à l’aune de la Décision Cadre 2008/909. Le dans la polarisation entre États ne se sont pas fait attendre et rôle de la défense doit être renforcé, et si nécessaire, la Déci- les premières décisions nationales de refus de remise ont déjà sion Cadre amendée. Dans une Union où l’individu doit être été prises.41 au centre de la construction européenne et de son ELSJ, les déclarations d’intention devraient être suivies d’effet. Il est loisible aux autorités politiques des pays concernés42 de prétendre que leurs politiques aux couleurs totalitaires sont Au niveau national, il est essentiel que tous les États mem- justifiées par une identité nationale spécifique et différente.43 bres respectent les normes communes établies dans l’Union. Toutefois, ces différences ne doivent pas aller à l’encontre des Ce d’autant plus que certaines de ces normes sont établies valeurs qui soutiennent le projet Européen et qui ont été ac- pour sauvegarder les valeurs de l’Union. Les gouvernements ceptées par l’ensemble des pays membres comme le seraient doivent accepter que la lutte contre le crime, et donc, la pro- les termes d’un contrat. Le non-respect de ces valeurs n’a pas tection des citoyens, impliquent nécessairement le respect qu’un prix politique. Il a aussi un prix bien plus précieux pour des droits fondamentaux des personnes sujettes à la justice tout le monde, celui de la coopération judiciaire et de la lutte pénale garantis par le droit de l’Union. Dans un contexte de contre le crime. coopération rapprochée entre autorités judiciaires fondée sur la confiance mutuelle, l’un ne va pas sans l’autre. Si les droits fondamentaux Européens sont bafoués en pratique, une crise de confiance s’installe et il n’y a pas de coopération possible. * Je souhaite remercier Thomas Wahl, rédacteur en chef de la revue En fin de compte, personne n’est gagnant car une absence de eucrim à l’Institut Max Planck de droit pénal étranger et international et coopération peut aboutir à une absence de condamnation ou à Anna Pingen, doctorante à l’Institut, pour leurs commentaires concernant la remise en liberté d’une personne condamnée. Les mesures une première version de cet article. 1 Article 3(2) du TUE et 67 TFUE. nécessaires pour l’amélioration des conditions de détention 2 Cour de Justice de l’Union Européenne, Avis 2/13 du 18 décembre 2014, sont connues et constamment mises en avant par les organes paragraphe 168.

186 | eucrim 3 / 2018 La confiance mutuelle sous pression

3 Cour de Justice de l’Union Européenne, Affaire C-256/11 du 15 no- vembre 2011, Murat Dereci et autres contre Bundesministerium für Inneres, paragraphe 72. Dr. Tony Marguery 4 T. Marguery (ed.), Mutual Trust under Pressure, the Transferring of Assistant Professor, Utrecht University, Sentenced Persons in the EU (Wolf Legal Publishers, Oisterwijk, 2018). RENFORCE research group Voir ausi https://euprisoners.eu (dernier accès octobre 2018). https://renforce.rebo.uu.nl. 4 Universités de Babes Bolej, de Wroclaw, de Lund, de Bologna et d’Utrecht. 5 Articles 67 et 82 TFUE. 6 En particulier, le droit à l’assistance d’un avocat, le droit à l’interpréta- tion et à la traduction dans le cadre des procédures pénales et le droit à l’information dans le cadre des procédures, ont fait l’objet d’une harmo- nisation minimale. Voir Directive 2010/64/UE du 20 octobre 2010 relative and 9717/13 ; Jugement du 10 mars 2015, Varga et autres c. Hongrie, au droit à l’interprétation et à la traduction dans le cadre des procédures Requêtes nos 14097/12, 45135/12, 73712/12, 34001/13, 44055/13, and pénales [2010] JO L 280/1 ; Directive 2012/13/UE du 22 mai 2012 sur le droit 64586/13 ; Jugement du 6 septembre 2016, W.D. c. Belgique, Requête à l’information dans le cadre des procédures pénales [2012] JO L 142/1 ; no. 73548/13 et Jugement du 25 avril 2017, Rezmiveș et autres c. Roumanie, et, Directive 2013/48/UE du 22 octobre 2013 relative au droit d’accès à un Requêtes nos 61467/12, 39516/13, 48231/13 et 68191/13. avocat dans le cadre des procédures pénales et des procédures relatives 19 Décision Cadre 2008/909/JAI du 27 novembre 2008 concernant l’appli- au mandat d’arrêt européen, au droit d’informer un tiers dès la privation de cation du principe de reconnaissance mutuelle aux jugements en matière liberté et au droit des personnes privées de liberté de communiquer avec pénale prononçant des peines ou des mesures privatives de liberté aux des tiers et avec les autorités consulaires [2013] JO L 294/1. fins de leur exécution [2008] JO L 327/27 et Décision Cadre 2008/947/JAI 7 Voir ainsi Cour de Justice de l’Union Européenne, Affaire C-220/18 PPU du 27 novembre 2008 concernant l’application du principe de reconnais- du 25 juillet 2018, ML, paragraphe 54 et C-216/18 PPU du 25 juillet 2018, LM, sance mutuelle aux jugements et aux décisions de probation aux fins de paragraphe 41. la surveillance des mesures de probation et des peines de substitution 8 Cour de Justice, Avis 2/13 op. cit., paragraphe 191. [2008] JO L 337/102. 9 Cour de Justice, Affaire C-220/18 PPU op. cit., paragraphe 50. 20 Il doit être noté que cette harmonisation a eu lieu tant par voie 10 Cour de Justice, Affaires Jointes C-404/15 et C-659/15 PPU du 5 avril législative que par voie judiciaire. On notera ainsi la présence de motifs 2016, Pál Aranyosi et Robert Căldăraru. Pour des annotations de cette de non-exécution des décisions cadres en cas de violation du principe décision voir notamment A. Willems, “Mutual Trust as a Term of Art in EU ne bis in idem ou des droits de la défense dans le cadre d’un procès par Criminal Law: Revealing its Hybrid Character”, European Journal of Legal contumace. Concernant ces motifs, l’harmonisation a été complétée par Studies, 2016 Vol 9 No 1 p. 211–249 ; G. Anagnostaras, “Mutual confidence la jurisprudence de la CJUE, voir par exemple concernant ne bis in idem is not blind trust! Fundamental rights protection and the execution of Cour de Justice de l’Union Européenne, Affaire C-261/09 du 16 novembre the European arrest warrant: Aranyosi and Căldăraru”, Common Market 2010, Gaetano Mantello et concernant l’article 4a les décisions suivantes Law Review, 2016 Vol 53 No 6 p. 1675–1704 ; T. Marguery, “Rebuttal of Cour de Justice de l’Union Européenne, Affaire C-270/17 PPU du 10 août Mutual Trust and Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters: Is ‘Exceptional’ 2017, Tadas Tupikas ; Cour de Justice de l’Union Européenne, Affaire Enough?,” European Papers, 2016 Vol 1 No 3 p. 943–963. C-108/16 PPU du 24 mai 2016 Paweł Dworzecki ; Cour de Justice de l’Union 11 Cour de Justice de l’Union Européenne, Affaires Jointes C-411/10 et Européenne, Affaire C-271/17 du 10 août 2017 Sławomir Andrzej Zdziaszek. C-493/10 du 21 décembre 2011, N. S. (C-411/10) contre Secretary of State 21 Voir, en particulier, T. Marguery (ed.), Mutual Trust under Pressure, the for the Home Department et M. E. et autres (C-493/10) contre Refugee Ap- Transferring of Sentenced Persons in the EU, op. cit., p. 206–209 and 236. plications Commissioner et Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. 22 En particulier, Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme, Jugement du Voir sur ce sujet C. Costello, M. Mouzourakis, “Reflexions on reading Tara- 7 juillet 1989, Soering c. Royaume Unis, Requête no. 14038/88, para- kel: Is ‘How Bad is Bad Enough’ Good Enough?,” Asiel&Migrantenrecht, graphe 113 ; Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme, Jugement du 17 jan- 2014 Vol 10 p. 404–411. vier 2012, Othman (Abu Qatada) c. Royaume Unis, Requête no. 8139/09, 12 Cour de Justice, Affaires Jointes C-404/15 et C-659/15 PPU op. cit., paragraphes 259 et 263. Concernant la notion de déni flagrant voir aussi paragraphe 88. Conclusion de l’Avocat Général Sharpston dans l’Affaire C-396/11, Ciprian 13 Cour de Justice, Affaires Jointes C-404/15 et C-659/15 PPU op. cit., Vasile Radu. paragraphe 89. 23 T. Marguery (ed.), Mutual Trust under Pressure, the Transferring of 14 Cour de Justice, Affaires Jointes C-404/15 et C-659/15 PPU op. cit., Sentenced Persons in the EU, op. cit., p. 155–156. paragraphe 92. 24 Par exemple, 30 jours maximum en Italie et aucun délai spécifique aux 15 Cet échange d’information doit se faire dans l’urgence en applica- Pays Bas (toutefois la détention provisoire ne peut excéder 9 mois). tion de l’article 15(2) de la Décision Cadre 2002/584/JAI du 13 juin 2002 25 Voir T. Marguery (ed.), Mutual Trust under Pressure, the Transferring relative au mandat d’arrêt européen et aux procédures de remise entre of Sentenced Persons in the EU, op. cit., p. 216–218. Voir aussi le récent États membres [2002] JO L 190/1 ; voir aussi Cour de Justice de l’Union rapport écrit pour le Comité LIBE “Criminal procedural laws across the Européenne, Affaire C-367/16 du 23 janvier 2018, Dawid Piotrowski, para- Union – A comparative analysis of selected main differences and the im- graphes 60 et 61. pact they have over the development of EU legislation” (2018), p. 106–107 16 Cour de Justice, Affaires Jointes C-404/15 et C-659/15 PPU, op. cit., disponible sur http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document. paragraphe 104. html?reference=IPOL_STU(2018)604977 (dernier accès octobre 2018). 17 Voir en particulier les rapports annuels du Comité européen pour la 26 Voir T. Marguery (ed.), Mutual Trust under Pressure, the Transferring of prévention de la torture Sentenced Persons in the EU, op. cit., p. 396–397. et des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dégradants, sur https://www. 27 Voir T. Marguery (ed.), Mutual Trust under Pressure, the Transferring of coe.int/fr/web/cpt (dernier accès octobre 2018). Sentenced Persons in the EU, op. cit., p. 352. 18 Voir les jugements pilotes concernant les conditions de détention dans 28 Il doit toutefois être précisé que dans le cadre d’un MAE, une les prisons des pays membres de l’Union, par exemple Cour Européenne personne de la nationalité de l’État d’exécution peut aussi effectuer sa des Droits de l’Homme, Jugement du 8 janvier 2013, Torreggiani et autres condamnation dans ce pays s’il en a la nationalité ou en est résident et c. Italie, Requêtes nos 43517/09, 46882/09, 55400/09, 57875/09, 61535/09, que ce pays s’engage réellement à exécuter la peine, voir les articles 4(6) 35315/10 et 37818/10 ; Jugement du 25 janvier 2015, Neshkov et autres c. et 5(3) de la Décision Cadre. Bulgarie, Requêtes nos 36925/10, 21487/12, 72893/12, 73196/12, 77718/12 29 Cet objectif est aussi celui recherché par la Décision Cadre 2008/947.

eucrim 3 / 2018 | 187 La protection des lanceurs d’alerte et des collaborateurs de justice

30 Ceci est le cas du prisonnier dont la nationalité est celle de l’État le surpeuplement des prisons et l’inflation carcérale ; Recommandation membre d’exécution, ou si cette personne sera déportée ou a fui vers ce No R(99) 22 concernant la surpopulation carcérale ; Conseil de l’Europe, le pays ou y a retourné en raison d’une procédure pénale à son encontre Livre blanc sur le surpeuplement carcéral. (article 6(2)). 38 Commission Européenne, Proposition de Décision du Conseil relative 31 Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme, Jugement du 8 janvier 2013, à la constatation d’un risque clair de violation grave, par la République de Torreggiani et autres c. Italie, op. cit. Pologne, de l’état de droit, COM (2017) 835. 32 Voir T. Marguery (ed.), Mutual Trust under Pressure, the Transferring of 39 La CJUE a récemment décidé d’étendre sa jurisprudence Aranyosi et Sentenced Persons in the EU, op. cit., p. 237–238. Căldăraru au droit à un procès équitable mis en danger par les réformes 33 Les mesures mentionnées ici sont loin d’être exhaustives. Voir aussi législatives en Pologne qui mettent en danger l’État de droit et l’indépen- “Criminal procedural laws across the Union – A comparative analysis of dance de la justice, voir Cour de Justice Affaire C-216/18 PPU op. cit. selected main differences and the impact they have over the development 40 Voir, par exemple, la décision rendue le 4 octobre 2018 par le Tribunal of EU legislation” (2018), op. cit. d’Amsterdam qui suspend l’exécution d’un MAE émit par la Cour de 34 A cet égard, il est utile de mentionner la récente décision prise par la Poznań en Pologne et concernant une personne suspectée de trafic de CJUE dans l’affaire C-220/18 PPU op. cit. qui réponds à un certain nombre drogue, affaire 13/751441-18 RK 18/3804, Tribunal d’Amsterdam disponible de questions concernant le champ d’application de la jurisprudence Ara- sur https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBA nyosi et Căldăraru. Ainsi la CJUE décide au paragraphe 87 que le contrôle MS:2018:7032 (dernier accès octobre 2018) ou bien la décision rendue par des conditions par les autorités d’exécution ne doit porter que sur « les la Cour Régionale de Rzeszów (Pologne) suite aux questions posées par la établissements pénitentiaires dans lesquels, selon les informations dont Cour Centrale d’Investigation 002 de Madrid http://themis-sedziowie.eu/ elles disposent, il est concrètement envisagé que cette personne soit déte- materials-in-english/common-position-of-judges-of-regional-court-in- nue, y compris à titre temporaire ou transitoire. » Par ailleurs, la liste des rzeszow-with-reference-to-madrid-court-request/ (dernier accès octobre questions posées au titre de l’article 15(2) MAE doit être strictement limitée 2018). aux questions nécessaires pour évacuer le risque de violation de l’article 4 41 La Hongrie est, elle aussi, sous le coup d’une procédure d’article 7 de la Charte et 3 ECHR au sens de la jurisprudence de la Cour Européenne TUE, cette fois-ci ouverte par le Parlement Européen, voir Résolution des Droits de l’Homme, par exemple, dans son Jugement du 20 octobre 2016, du Parlement européen du 12 septembre 2018 relatif à une proposition Muršić c. Croatie, Requête no. 7334/13 paragraphes 102–141. invitant le Conseil a constater, conformément à l’article 7, paragraphe 1, 35 Voir par exemple la Communication de la Commission – Manuel du traite sur l’Union européenne, l’existence d’un risque clair de violation concernant l’émission de l’exécution d’un mandat d’arrêt européen 2017/C grave par la Hongrie des valeurs sur lesquelles l’Union est fondée 335/01. (2017/2131(INL)) P8_TA-PROV(2018)0340. Voir sur le sujet H. Labayle, 36 Il y a lieu de rappeler l’absence regrettable de suivi du Livre Vert Winter is coming : la Hongrie, la Pologne, l’Union européenne et les valeurs sur les conditions de détention publié par la Commission le 14 juin 2011, de l’Etat de droit, disponible sur http://www.gdr-elsj.eu/2018/09/26/ voir Commission Européenne « Renforcer la confiance mutuelle dans informations-generales/winter-is-coming-la-hongrie-la-pologne-lunion- l’espace judiciaire européen – Livre vert sur l’application de la législation europeenne-et-les-valeurs-de-letat-de-droit-deuxieme-partie/ (dernier de l’UE en matière de justice pénale dans le domaine de la détention » accès octobre 2018). COM (2011) 0327 final. 42 Voir le discours du Président Hongrois devant le Parlement Euro- 37 Voir par exemple : Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme, Jugement péen le 11 septembre 2018, disponible sur https://visegradpost.com/ du 10 mars 2015, Varga et autres c. Hongrie, op. cit., paragraphe 104 ; fr/2018/09/11/viktor-orban-denonce-le-chantage-de-lue-discours-com- Conseil de l’Europe, Comité des Ministres, Recommandation R(99)22 sur plet/ (denier accès octobre 2018).

188 | eucrim 3 / 2018 Imprint Impressum

Published by:

Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science The publication is co-financed by the c/o Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International European Commission, European Criminal Law Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), Brussels represented by Director Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Ulrich Sieber Guenterstalstrasse 73, 79100 Freiburg i.Br./Germany Tel: +49 (0)761 7081-0 © Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law Fax: +49 (0)761 7081-294 2018. All rights reserved: no part of this publication may be repro- E-mail: [email protected] duced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by Internet: http://www.mpicc.de any means, electronic, mechanical photocopying, recording, or oth- erwise without the prior written permission of the publishers. Official Registration Number: The views expressed in the material contained in eucrim are not nec- VR 13378 Nz (Amtsgericht essarily those of the editors, the editorial board, the publisher, the Berlin Charlottenburg) Commission or other contributors. Sole responsibility lies with the VAT Number: DE 129517720 author of the contribution. The publisher and the Commission are not ISSN: 1862-6947 responsible for any use that may be made of the information con- tained therein.

Editor in Chief: Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Ulrich Sieber Subscription: Managing Editor: Thomas Wahl, Max Planck Institute for eucrim is published four times per year and distributed electroni- Foreign and International Criminal Law, Freiburg cally for free. Editors: Dr. András Csúri, Utrecht University; Cornelia Riehle, In order to receive issues of the periodical on a regular basis, ERA, Trier please write an e-mail to: Editorial Board: Peter Csonka, Head of Unit, DG Justice and [email protected]. Consumers, European Commission Belgium; Francesco De An- For cancellations of the subscription, please write an e-mail to: gelis, Directeur Général Honoraire, Commission Européenne [email protected]. Belgique; Prof. Dr. Katalin Ligeti, Université du Luxembourg; Lorenzo Salazar, Ministero della Giustizia, Italia; Prof. Rosaria Sicurella, Università degli Studi di Catania, Italia For further information, please contact: Language Consultant: Indira Tie, Certified Translator, Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Freiburg Thomas Wahl Typeset: Ines Hofmann, Max Planck Institute for Foreign Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law and International Criminal Law, Freiburg Guenterstalstrasse 73, Produced in Cooperation with: Vereinigung für Europäisches 79100 Freiburg i.Br./Germany Strafrecht e.V. (represented by Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Ulrich Sieber) Tel: +49(0)761-7081-256 or +49(0)761-7081-0 (central unit) Layout: JUSTMEDIA DESIGN, Cologne Fax: +49(0)761-7081-294 Printed by: Stückle Druck und Verlag, Ettenheim/Germany E-mail: [email protected]