No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
The Directive on the Fight against Fraud to the Union’s Financial Interests by means of Criminal Law (PFI Directive) : Laying down the foundation for a better protection of the Union’s financial interests?
... Uzimajući u obzir složenu strukturu postupanja počinitelja i teškoće u otkrivanju i sprečavanju počinjenja djela, kao i razmjere štete nastale za proračune država članica te za proračun EU-a, i države članice i tijela i organizacije EU-a ulažu značajne napore i sredstva u pronalaženje učinkovitih mehanizama za rješenje tog problema. Pristupi nacionalnih i europskih tijela protežu se od preventivnih mjera, informiranja i educiranja javnosti i poduzetnika, jačanja mogućnosti domaće i međunarodne detekcije prijevarnog postupanja, razmjene informacija i intenzivne suradnje između poreznih i upravnih tijela država članica, širenja kruga osoba potencijalno odgovornih za štete nastale prijevarama s PDV-om, 17 pa sve do implementiranja sankcija na razini uprav- 12 European Commission, Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, Poniatowski, G., Bonch-Osmolovskiy, M., Śmietanka, A., VAT gap in the EU: report 2021, Publications Office, 2021, preuzeto s: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2778/447556. 13 Jaz u PDV-u podrazumijeva gubitak prihoda od PDV-a u odnosu na kalkulaciju očekivanih prihoda. ...
... europol.europa.eu/crime-areas-and-statistics/crime-areas/economic-crime/mtic-missing-trader-intra-community-fraud. 16 17 Presudama Europskog suda pravde iz 2015. godine u predmetima Kittel (C-439/04) i Recolta Recycling (C-440/04) potvrđena je mogućnost uskrate prava na odbitak pretporeza onom poduzetniku za kojega se na temelju objektivnih okolnosti utvrdi da je znao ili morao znati da su isporuke u kojima je sudjelovao i za koje traži odbitak PDV-a povezane s prijevarama u PDV-u. ...
Rad se bavi razvojem i prikazom materijalnopravnog okvira za procesuiranje prijevara s PDV-om u europskom i hrvatskom kaznenom pravu te prikazom i analizom rezultata prikupljenih iz prakse u predmetima u kojima su ta djela procesuirana pred hrvatskim pravosudnim tijelima. U prvom dijelu rada analizirani su pojavni oblici prijevara s PDV-om i razvoj njihove inkriminacije kroz donošenje europskih propisa, prije svega Direktive PIF, i njihovu implementaciju u hrvatsko materijalno pravo. U drugom dijelu rada prikazani su podaci iz prakse prikupljeni iz javno dostupnih izvješća USKOK-a i EPPO-a, kao i neposredno od USKOK-a, te je iznesena njihova analiza u svjetlu relevantnosti kaznenih djela prijevare s PDV-om za nacionalni i europski proračun i učinkovitosti kaznenog progona njihovih počinitelja u dosadašnjoj praksi hrvatskih pravosudnih tijela. Poseban naglasak stavljen je na aktualne probleme u mogućnosti optuživanja za ta kaznena djela zbog ograničenja uzrokovanih propustima u implementaciji europskih propisa, kao i na evidentirane probleme u reakciji tijela kaznenog progona na prijetnju nacionalnim i europskim financijskim interesima koju uzrokuju prijevare s PDV-om.
... 19 Accordingly, if a Member State provides for criminal law sanctions for offences against its own budget under national law, it must also penalize acts committed against the same supranational legal interests, i.e. against the EU budget. 20 In this respect, the principle of assimilation has imposed an explicit criminalization obligation on Member States for the first time in the history of the European integration. ...
The objective of the article is to analyse the efforts of the European Union for the protection of its financial interests. The first part of the paper sets out the brief historical development of the criminal law protection of the financial interests of the European Union with particular emphasis on the strengthened and reinforced legal framework provided by the Treaty of Lisbon. The second part of the study focuses to the newly adopted Directive of the EU on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law. However, the paper does not intend to analyse the provisions of the Directive in details, it only aims to examine whether it can provide for an effective and unified protection to the financial interests of the European Union.
Estudio de la normativa europea relativa a la protección de los intereses financieros de la Unión Europea a través del derecho penal. En particular se aborda el papel de la Fiscalía Europea como principal garante de tales intereses.
RESUMEN: La protección penal de los intereses financieros de la Unión Europea ha recorrido un dificultoso camino hasta alcanzar la presente etapa de profunda integración y rasgos federales distintivos. El presente capítulo aborda esta evolución ilustrando los fundamentos funcionales y sustantivos de dicha protección penal y las diferentes técnicas a las que recurre el ordenamiento europeo (asimilación, armonización y europeización del ejercicio de la acción penal), mostrando su diferente alcance y sus rasgos principales.
ABSTRACT: The criminal protection of the financial interests of the European Union has experienced a profound evolution towards the current stage of criminal integration, in which distinct federal elements can be identified. This chapter focuses on this evolution stressing the functional and substantive foundations of this criminal protection and reviewing its techniques, such as assimilation, harmonization and europeanised enforcement.
Palabras clave: intereses financieros UE, protección penal, evolución.
Key words: financial interests EU, protection under criminal law, evolution.
The book series Legal Studies on Central Europe seeks to publish comparative legal scholarship on a wide variety of topics. The primary goal of the series is to present and address legal issues which arise in connection with the Central European region, taking into account the legal traditions, culture and approach of the countries therein. The series consists and will consist of titles on not only private and public law but also legal and integration history. Furthermore, it aims to encompass titles which deal with and analyse international law and EU law aspects related to the countries in the Central European region. The books published in the series are written for both academics and legal practitioners who are interested in contemporary legal problems connected to Central European countries.
The article focuses on the recent jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the context of the national criminal laws of the Member States, concerning the scope of application of the Charter. Drawing conclusions from this jurisprudence the Author answers the question when the Member State is 'implementing Union law' in the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter in the criminal law context. It is considered that Member States implement Union law when interpreting framework decisions (Lanigan, JZ, Vilkas), when assessing the conformity of the national measures with framework decisions (Jeremy F., Radu), when executing judgements in the framework of the mutual recognition (Aranyosi and Caldararu) and when assuring the effectiveness of EU law by enacting criminal sanctions (Tarrico). In addition, in some situations Member States may be considered to be implementing Union law while enacting national measures which may affect the rights derived from Union law (Delvigne). It is assumed in the article that CJEU is often called to strike the fair balance between the different (and sometimes diverging) interests of three categories of actors: interests of individuals (to have their fundamental rights protected), interests of Member States (to exercise ius puniendi) and interests of the European Union as a whole (to ensure effectivess of EU law).
A significant phase in the protection of the financial interests of European Union has been completed within adoption of Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law, as well as the Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (“the EPPO”). The purpose of this paper is to determine the extent to which national criminal law is harmonized with the recent European legislation in the field of the protection of the Union’s financial interests and to detect what steps should be taken in order to accomplish effective protection of EU financial interests. The establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and its material competences is burdened with some important issues: vagueness in prescribing criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the Union, problems with interpretation of the terms inextricably linked offences and offences regarding participation in a criminal organization if the focus of the criminal activity of such a criminal organization is to commit any of the offences affecting the financial interests of the Union.
Financial crimes represent a significant problem at the EU level since they are damaging the integrity of the financial sector. In that context, it should be noted that there is a range of offences concerning financial crimes, so it became undisputed that such criminal activities should be prescribed in a comprehensive manner at the EU level. In that regard, it is worthwhile noting that Directive (EU) 2017/1371 on the fight against fraud to the EU’s financial interests by means of criminal law establishes the definition of criminal offences concerning combating fraud and other illegal activities affecting the EU’s financial interests. This is the reason why the first part of the paper is dedicated to the analysis of the criminal offences affecting the EU’s financial interests. However, the prescribed list of financial crime in Directive (EU) 2017/1371 represented only required but not the sufficient step for combating this type of criminal activities since there was a lack of legal possibilities for national and European authorities to access to relevant financial information as well as the lack of cooperation between them. On these grounds, the Directive (EU) 2019/1153 laying down rules facilitating the use of financial and other information for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of certain criminal offences was adopted on 20 June 2019. For that reason, the second part of the article deals with the legal measures referred to in Directive (EU) 2019/1153 concerning the possibilities for the access by competent authorities to financial information as well as the conditions for the exchange of information between competent authorities and financial intelligence units as well as between financial intelligence units and Europol. Furthermore, since the protection of the financial interests by means of criminal law, cannot be sufficiently achieved only with individual measures adopted by Member States, it seems compulsory to take into consideration significant improvements achieved in this area at international level in order to examine whether the new EU framework is in compliance with existing international standards. Finally, since the Republic of Serbia has, in the context of accession and negotiations process to EU, recently amended the framework concerning criminal offences with regard to combatting fraud and other illegal activities affecting the financial interests, the third part of the paper is dedicated to the analysis of the national framework in order to examine its compliance with EU framework. In concluding remarks, it is noted that although in the recent period there have been significant improvements in the framework on the protection of the EU financial interests against financial crimes there is still a lack of effective implementation of adopted standards. Bearing in mind the above, some recommendations for accelerating the implementation of adopted measures are listed.
Six Member States voted against the Council's position at first reading of 25
- Germany Cyprus
- Hungary
- Ireland
- Poland Malta
Six Member States voted against the Council's position at first reading
of 25 April 2017, namely Cyprus, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Malta and
Poland, but they were not able to reach a blocking minority in accordance
with the applicable voting rules in the legislative procedure.
COM(2016) 472 final of 14 July 2016 and Protection of the European Union's financial interests -Fight against fraud
Protection of the European Union's financial interests -Fight against
fraud 2015 Annual Report, COM(2016) 472 final of 14 July 2016 and Protection of the European Union's financial interests -Fight against fraud 2014
Annual Report, COM(2015) 386 final of 31 July 2015.
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of
criminal law, COM(2012) 363 final.
European Parliament position at first reading of 16
- Cf
Cf. European Parliament position at first reading of 16 April 2014,
Document P7_TA(2014)0427.
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott
- Cf
Cf. Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, 30 April 2015, case C-105/14,
Ivo Taricco and Others, para. 97.
EU) L 281, 31 vom 23.11
- Abl
ABl. (EU) L 281, 31 vom 23.11.1995.
Art. 6 II, III; 9 IIa), IV; 37 IV
- Vgl
Vgl. Art. 6 II, III; 9 IIa), IV; 37 IV, 88 DS-GVO.
EU) L 350, 60 vom 30.12
- Abl
ABl. (EU) L 350, 60 vom 30.12.2008.
25 der RL (EU) 2016/680
- Erwägungsgrund Nr
Erwägungsgrund Nr. 25 der RL (EU) 2016/680.
die Regelungen der Art. 13 III, 15 RL (EU) 2016/680 einerseits und Art. 6 RL (EU) 2016/680 andererseits
- Vgl
Vgl. die Regelungen der Art. 13 III, 15 RL (EU) 2016/680 einerseits und
Art. 6 RL (EU) 2016/680 andererseits.
Siehe Europäische Kommission
Siehe Europäische Kommission, COM(2017) 9 final.