LegalPost.eu

On 10 February 2025, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) filed an appeal (case number T-99/25) to the Court of Justice of the European Union, under Article 263, paragraph 4, TFEU, against the decision of the European Court of Auditors denying the request of the EPPO to allow a number of staff members of the Court of Auditors to testify in an ongoing criminal investigation.  The summary of the appeal has been published in the  Official Journal . At the end of 2022, based on a report from the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF), the EPPO opened an investigation concerning individuals serving at the European Court of Auditors. The purpose of any EPPO investigation is to ascertain the accuracy of the reported facts, as well as their relevance as a criminal offence, by impartially gathering evidence for or against the person or persons under investigation. In order to be able to do that in this particular case, the EPPO has requested to the European Court of Auditors to ...

written by Efi Thoma * The European Union (EU) does not have a harmonized, single regulatory framework for betting companies. Instead, the regulation of gambling services, including betting, remains largely within the competence of individual Member States.  This results in a diverse and often fragmented legal framework across the EU. While the EU facilitates some level of cooperation and sets overarching principles, the specifics of licensing, operational requirements, and consumer protection measures vary significantly from country to country. Despite the lack of a unified framework, several key principles and EU-level instruments influence the national regulations of betting companies. More specifically, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) guarantees the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services within the EU. These fundamental freedoms mean that Member States cannot unjustifiably restrict betting companies legally established in ano...

Editor: Giorgos Kazoleas, Lawyer in Cyprus The development of the law on the issue of harassment in the workplace in recent years aims to better protect the previously completely unprotected employee. Unfortunately, the impression has prevailed that harassing behavior by the employer or a colleague is normal, tolerated and in any case unpunished.  Thus, many employees are subjected to systematic psychological violence in their work environment due to this erroneous culture of "tolerance" that has legitimized behaviors that are rooted in the serious psychopathologies of the abusers. This article explores the legal definition of mobbing, the specific forms of workplace harassment and the relevant case law, on the occasion of the issuance of new legislation on mobbing in the Cyprus jurisdiction. What is mobbing? Mobbing occurs when an individual is systematically harassed, intimidated, or isolated by colleagues, superiors, or subordinates in a professional environment. Unl...

According to the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-292/23, the procedural acts of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) that are capable of affecting the legal situation of the persons challenging them must be amenable to judicial review.  However, it is not mandatory for that review to take the form of a direct action, provided that it includes a verification that the rights and freedoms of the person concerned are observed. The EPPO is an independent body of the European Union which is responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment the perpetrators of criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the European Union.  It is organised at two levels: first, a central level, consisting of the Central Office at the seat of the EPPO, in Luxembourg, and, secondly, a decentralised level, consisting of European Delegated Prosecutors who are to be located in the Member States.  The EPPO is conducting, in Spain, a criminal investigat...

In the case of N.D. v. Switzerland, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of the right to life in a case involving violence against a woman by her partner. The applicant, who had been unaware of her partner’s criminal record, was kidnapped by him from her home after informing him that she wished to end their relationship. She was then falsely imprisoned over an 11-hour period and subjected to rape and ill-treatment. To this day, the applicant suffers from the psychological after-effects of the treatment inflicted on her. The Court found that the authorities had not done all that could reasonably have been expected of them to avert the real and immediate risk to the applicant’s life, of which they had been or ought to have been aware. It noted that there had been neither an adequate assessment of the risk to the applicant’s life nor operational measures which might have had a real chance of altering the course of events or mitigating the da...

In its Judgment in Case C-743/24 [Alchaster II] [1] as regards the arrest warrants issued by the United Kingdom, the Court of Justice ruled that a hardening of the conditions for release on licence does not, in principle, preclude the surrender of the requested person. Such hardening does not, in principle, amount to the imposition of a heavier penalty than the one initially provided for.  The Supreme Court of Ireland, for the second time, is referring a question to the Court of Justice in a case in which the Irish authorities question whether a person suspected of having committed a series of criminal offences in the United Kingdom should be surrendered to the latter State under the relevant provisions of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) [2] between the European Union and the United Kingdom.  A District Judge of the Magistrates’ Courts of Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) issued four arrest warrants in respect of a person suspected of having committed terrorism-relat...