The European Criminal Bar Association Autumn Conference was a resounding success, bringing together leading criminal defence lawyers and human rights advocates from across Europe and beyond. Hosted in the vibrant and historic city of Belgrade, the conference marked the long-awaited fulfilment of the ECBA’s commitment to holding an event in Serbia. Participants engaged in high-level legal discussions, practical breakout sessions, and vital networking, focusing on the most urgent issues confronting defence rights today, including the Rule of Law, procedural safeguards, cybercrime, sanctions, and international cooperation.

The gathering's events began with a warm welcome reception on Friday evening, where delegates connected with colleagues at the stunning Kalemegdan Terrace, overlooking the confluence of the Sava and the Danube rivers. ECBA Chair Vânia Costa Ramos officially welcomed participants, setting the stage for the crucial discussions ahead. Vladimir Hrle, ECBA Advisory Board member from Belgrade, underscored the local significance of the event. Both Vânia and Vladimir paid heartfelt tribute to the late Mr. Holger Matt, former ECBA Chair and an early champion of holding a conference in Belgrade.

The Saturday morning session featured a significant association development: the launch of the ECBA brand and visual identity. Dr. Oliver Kipper, Advisory Board member, unveiled the contemporary branding, featuring a bold typeface and the symbolic leaf motif—representing the fragility and the enduring strength of the rule of law and of the great network of members. Following this, Vice Chair Gwen Jansen - de Wolf presented the new ECBA website, described as a "living organism" structured around the two core pillars of Improving Justice and Connecting the Community.

The main conference panels then delved into two critical subjects. The first, focused on the Rule of Law and chaired by Mikolaj Pietrzak, explored the challenges lawyers face in upholding justice where democratic norms are under pressure. Vladimir Beljanski (Serbia) detailed the role of Bar Associations in defending public freedoms amidst political unrest. Sylwia Gregorczyk-Abram (Poland) shared the impactful work of the Free Courts Foundation and Justice Defence Committee in protecting judicial independence through strategic litigation. Concern over deteriorating governance was also raised by Irene Jaroslaw (USA), while András Kádár (Hungary Helsinki Committee) warned of the dangers of "rule by law" being used to dismantle judicial checks.

The second panel, chaired by Alex Tinsley (UK), focused on Procedural Safeguards nearly a decade after the adoption of the EU directives. Laura Stelzer (DG Just, EU Commission) discussed enforcement mechanisms and forthcoming initiatives, while Chryssa Mela (Fair Trials) offered vital insight into ongoing infringement actions. Jugoslav Tintor (Serbia) spoke on the evolving role of defence lawyers and raised specific concerns regarding the admissibility of digital evidence, such as SKY ECC data, obtained internationally. The session concluded with Mr. Tinsley outlining future priority areas where gaps in the directives' implementation remain.

Following the main panels, delegates participated in three fully-subscribed, interactive breakout sessions that provided deep dives into highly practical areas:

a) Business Crime: Dos and Don’ts in Sanctions Cases. Led by Salomé Lemasson, the session focused on best practices in sanctions litigation, risk mitigation, and regulatory engagement. Cases for discussion were submitted by William Jullié, Elena Fedorova, Carla Reyes, Stefanie Schott, Jorge Walser Boserman and Thom Dieben

b) Cyber, Tech and AI: OSINT and Defence Challenges - chaired by Judith de Boer, this session addressed the use of OSINT and digital investigations in cybercrime cases, with a strong emphasis on evidence chain of custody and defence strategies in tech-heavy trials. Guest speakers: Ovidiu Valea and David Timofte from CyberOps Network (Romania) explained the more technical details of the subject

c) International Cooperation: INTERPOL and Transnational Repression -chaired by Sören Schomburg with Rebecca Niblock, this session presented the ECBA’s draft position on INTERPOL reform, including misuse of red notices, asylum policies, and transparency. A moot scenario helped participants engage practically with red notice deletion procedures.

The conference concluded with the exciting announcement of the next Spring Conference in Barcelona, Spain, on April 24–25, 2026. The final networking opportunity took place over dinner at the scenic Ambar restaurant. The Belgrade Conference clearly underscored the ECBA’s enduring commitment to strengthening the rule of law, enhancing procedural safeguards, and proactively confronting the emerging challenges of criminal defence across all jurisdictions.

For this year’s Spring Conference, we had the spectacular setting of the Sorrento peninsula, known for its lemon groves and picturesque coastline, which seemed to welcome us with its rays of sunshine after an intense storm on Friday, April 25th.

The event began with a magnificent Italian aperitivo on the rooftop of Continental hotel, where Vânia Costa Ramos, our Chair, officially welcomed all delegates, together with Amedeo Barletta, ECBA Vice Chair and Pasquale Damiano, president of the Torre Annunziata Bar Association, as we all raised our glasses with an Aperol or Limoncello Spritz. 

As usual, the Board met on Friday morning, where we discussed the progress of our association and explored possible ways to make our organisation and its mission even more visible in all European forums where criminal law is debated. We hope to unveil at the Autumn Conference a project that would become a key reference for many criminal lawyers both within and beyond the Schengen area. 

The speakers, carefully selected for their expertise and experience in the topics under discussion, took the floor at the Palazzo Municipale of Sorrento. As a brilliant opening, we enjoyed outstanding presentations from highly esteemed magistrates, such as Francesco Viganò, Vice President of the Italian Constitutional Court, and Raffaelle Sabato, Judge at the European Court of Human Rights. The keynote speeches were moderated by our Vice Chair, Amedeo Barletta, a distinguished Italian representative of our association in many forums. 

The conference continued to focus on the real challenges faced by trial lawyers, such as the issue of professional privilege. In a modern open-discussion format, several speakers representing various European and British jurisdictions shared their experiences and approaches regarding how different countries interpret this essential element of the right to defense. In the end, together with contributions from the audience, the panel turned into a highly stimulating think tank for all attendees, brilliantly moderated by Carla Reyes, ECBA Advisory Board member.

There was also space to discuss how asset confiscations should be carried out when no final conviction has yet been issued—an especially relevant topic for those involved in ongoing criminal proceedings. We had the privilege of hearing from high-profile speakers, such as Susana Fonte from Eurojust, who explained how that institution interprets the legal framework. Other outstanding contributions came from Prof. Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque from Portugal and Italian post-doctoral investigator Catarina Scialla. while renowned litigator Christophe Marchand shared by personal experiences, all moderated by David Apelbaum, from the ECBA Advisory Board.

Before the last panel we dedicated a moment to commemorate Mischa Wladimiroff, one of the founders of the ECBA back in the 90s and a towering figure in international criminal law, who passed away in April 2025.

No criminal law conference would be complete without addressing the new trends in the public disclosure of criminal proceedings to the media, a matter that has become increasingly important due to its potential to seriously damage the reputation of defendants who have not yet been convicted. We heard first-hand experiences, such as those shared by Italian investigative journalist Stefania Maurizi, along with the opinions of experienced human rights litigation lawyers Nicola Canestrini and Roberto Chenal from the European Court of Human Rights, brought together by panel chair Ed Grande, Advisory Board member.

The day concluded in yet another privileged location, Hotel Tramontano, where we enjoyed a delightful Mediterranean dinner, seasoned with the collegial ties that were continued around every table after being formed throughout the day.

On a not so sunny day at the back end of September in a country far, far away, for most delegates at least, the ECBA held its Autumn Conference 2024, benefiting from the support of the Finnish Bar Association.

The organising committee managed to fulfil expectations and even exceed them, continuing a trend of raising the bar every time again. The Friday evening reception welcomed the delegates at the iconic XIX century Old Student’s House/ Vanha Ylioppilastalo, showing one of the first reasons why it was a great idea to travel to Helsinki for a conference.

Since the ECBA is not a tour operator but an organisation of outstanding professionals, the speakers on Saturday had the difficult task to match the beauty of the city with intellectually qualitative contributions. And did they succeed as well!

Our Chairperson Vincent Asselineau addressed a powerful opening speech, which was also his last as Chairperson, since he is passing the torch after having managed the position for six years, which he did with style and grace. He used his goodbye speech to honour our beautiful profession and thank all those who contribute to make a lawyer’s (professional) life possible.

He briefly referred to the difficult position many of our colleagues are in who are less fortunate and find themselves prosecuted and incarcerated just because they do their jobs. He herewith opened the floor for Alexis Anagnostakis from the ECBA Human Rights Committee, who announced the recipients of the Scott Crosby Human Rights Award: three Belarusian lawyers who are in prison for more than a year purely because they fight for their clients and to have the rule of law applied in their country. Their names should be mentioned and remembered as an example of bravery: Vitaly Brahinets, Aliaksandr Danilevich and Maxim Znak, all sentenced to 6 to 10 years in prison for no valid reason other than doing their jobs as a lawyer.

Iryna Kozikava accepted the award on behalf of her brother and rightfully received a standing ovation from the delegates, an ECBA record of 145 participants. She delivered an acceptance speech which silenced the crowd because most of the public can’t even imagine the struggle for lawyers in Belarus, who nevertheless persist and fight for their clients, risking their freedom but meanwhile making us proud.

Although it is not easy to follow after such powerful and emotional speeches, the first panel maintained the high quality and discussed the work of the Committee of Experts on the Protection of Lawyers (CJ-AV) and the European Convention on the Legal Profession that resulted from it. Via video connection the Secretary General or the Convention and head of the Legal Co-operation Unit, Sophio Gelashvili, explained the work done, followed by Vasvija Vidovic, defense lawyer from Bosnia and Herzegovina, who not only spoke about the protection of lawyers but also testified on her personal prosecution, herewith demonstrating once more the challenging times for lawyers in several European countries. Nathan Roosbeek from the CCBE explained carefully why there is a need of such Convention. Valérie Dupong, Luxembourg representative at CJ-AV, closed the panel reporting on some shocking cases of violence against lawyers that one can only become both furious and terrified about.

After a much-needed coffee break to exchange views on the topics of the first panel, the audience was thrilled to follow the second panel about Business & Human Rights. Since companies are getting exposed to litigation increasingly resulting from their business activities, legal assistance from (criminal) lawyers is becoming more of a necessity, or is it just a marketing tool to sell legal fees?

Salomé Lemasson chaired the panel that was able to get the views of legal professionals with different backgrounds. Two defence lawyers, Vladimir Hrle and Sylvain Savolainen, expressed their opinion on the topic, reporting on cases they handled in their practice, herewith testifying that Business & Human Rights is a reality now and not some distant future. Sonia Finér from NGO Finnwatch and Juho Saloranta, sustainability lawyer, shared their interesting takes on the matter from their experiences.

Those two panels contained enough information to take in before lunch and obviously people couldn’t withhold themselves from continuing the lively discussions during the lunch break.

After a fine meal the delegates were ready for the third and final panel, addressing another extremely sensitive topic that can’t ever get enough airtime and attention, the ongoing Rule of Law crisis in Hungary. Dr. Péter Bárándy, former Minister of Justice, Prof. Petra Bard and judge Tamás Matusik shared personal experiences and detailed information on why Hungary is going through said crisis, again silencing the audience and leaving them wondering what can be done to help the system structurally improve once and for all, leading to a proper application of the rule of law and the assurance that people will get a fair trial at any time, regardless of their background and means.

A lot of work needs to be done as was shown during the presentations of our Hungarian colleagues, and one can only hope that the continuous efforts of lawyers from within the Hungarian system as well as abroad result in change for the better as soon as possible.

The Conference was closed with the elections of the members of the Executive Committee and Advisory Board for a term of three years. Old faces are mixed with newcomers that will inject energy to the Advisory Board to lift the ECBA to new heights in the years to follow, undoubtedly. We congratulate Vania Costa Ramos, a longstanding member of the ECBA and the Advisory Board and ExeCom and contributor to many great projects, on being elected as Chairperson.

She will get the support of the ExeCom and Board, with new additions to the ExeCom Gwen Jansen-de Wolf (Vice Chair) and Arturas Gutauskas (Secretary), and to the Advisory Board Stefan Hyman, David Apelbaum, María Barbancho Saborit, Nicola Canestrini, Katarzyna Dabrowska, Edward Grange, Salomé Lemasson, Andreas Pollak, Adrian Sandru and Sören Schomburg.

After many years in the ExeCom and the Advisory Board, our Chair Vincent Asselineau and Secretary Hans Van de Wal resigned, as did Board member Jaime Campaner Muñoz. A warm thank you to them for their efforts over the years to help the ECBA grow to what it has become is appropriate.

Hard work needs to be followed by a decent meal, which is exactly what we had at restaurant Pörssitalo/Stock Exchange building. After the success of the recent Berlin, Warsaw and Brussels conferences that saw the party continue at the restaurant venue, this new tradition was fully honoured in Helsinki, where delegates got the chance to stretch their legs and show off their dance moves at the restaurant venue at the ECBA afterparty, legendary as always. Details are not to be written in a conference report, because a true gentleman never tells… (Hans Van de Wal, Belgium)

The Spring Conference in Brussels started on Friday 3 May with a reception at the BELvue Museum of Belgian history, a beautiful and historical location. Over a hundred delegates had the opportunity to meet new colleagues and catch up with old friends.  Vincent Asselineau, chair of the ECBA, welcomed everyone as warmly as ever. The speech of the Chairman of the Brussels French Bar Association, Adv. Emmanuel Plasschaert, made all delegates feel very welcome in the Belgian capital. 

The next morning, Saturday 4 May, the conference proceeded in the Hall des Marbres of the Université Libre de Bruxelles/ULB.

Vincent Asselineau opened with a warm welcome and thanked our Belgian colleagues for their hospitality. There were over 120 delegates in Brussels - this conference was a great success.

After a short introduction by our Chair, the floor was given to Alexis Anagnostakis, ECBA Human Rights Officer, to introduce the Scott Crosby Human Rights Award 2023. This moment was one of the highlights of the conference, a moment that underscored the importance of recognising individuals who have made indelible marks on the global stage. The son and daughter of Scott Crosby joined the occasion. The award this year rewarded the two-following women for their amazing work on the field:

• Françoise Tulkens, former Judge and Vice-President of the ECHR, Belgium; and
  
  
• Nancy Hollander, defence lawyer, USA.

Françoise Tulkens, a distinguished Belgian lawyer and former Vice-President of the European Court of Human Rights, symbolises brilliance and unwavering commitment to justice. Her groundbreaking achievements not only exemplify excellence in legal practice but also inspire generations of legal professionals.
Equally deserving of accolades is Nancy Hollander, a renowned U.S. criminal defence lawyer known for her fearless representation of Guantanamo Bay detainees and of whistleblower Chelsea Manning. Her portrayal in the film "The Mauritanian" brought to light the challenges faced by those seeking justice in complex legal landscapes. The conference served as a reminder of the pivotal role women continue to play in shaping legal discourse and advancing human rights globally. Ms. Tulkens and Ms. Hollander stand as beacons of hope and determination, showcasing that dedication and perseverance can break barriers and pave the way for a more just society. Their achievements reverberate beyond their respective fields, igniting passion and drive among attendees to uphold the principles of fairness and equality in their own legal endeavors. The conference's theme of celebrating excellence and pushing boundaries in law and human rights resonated deeply, reminding us all of the ongoing journey towards a more equitable and just world.

As women historically have a marginalised role, it is important to see that these two women have been able to make their way in this masculine dominated field. These women have shattered the glass ceiling and should be an inspiration for all of us to dream big and aim high.

In her acceptance speech Françoise Tulkens reminded us that receiving this award is a responsibility to continue to promote human rights in everything. While it is true that the situation is sometimes frustrating, one needs to remind that the European Court of Human Rights is the last rampart of the human rights in Europe and each lawyer is important and plays an important role in the defence of human rights.

Nancy Hollander explained that she comes from a country that is shameful on many levels when it comes to the respect of human rights. She talked about the role of the United States in the slaughters happening around the globe and the importance of our job as lawyers.

Panel 1: Visions for the future of European policy in the field of criminal matters

Chair: Vânia Costa Ramos, ECBA Vice Chair, and Mona Giacometti, defence lawyer and ULB Professor, Belgium

Panel:

• Anne Weyembergh, Law Professor ULB, Belgium
• Daniel Flore, General Director of Legislation, Freedoms and Fundamental Rights Department, Ministry of Justice, Belgium
• Fabio Giuffrida, Team Leader, DG Just, EU Commission, Belgium
• Q&A  

This panel was a very interesting mix of presentations and sharing visions for the future of EU Criminal Law, from the perspective of academics, member states and the European Commission.

Vânia Costa Ramos first introduced Prof. Anne Weyembergh. A recent agreement was found between the ECBA and the ULB with the help of Prof. Weyembergh. The idea is to promote criminal law defence and connect with young lawyers.

Anne Weyembergh started with two transversal remarks. She reminded that 1) many provisions at the EU level have an impact on criminal policy even if they are not part of the core rules of criminal law 2) many EU instruments have been adopted during certain crisis and the external factors have led some rules to be adopted in a hurry without a real reflection. There are over-criminalisation risks. There is for instance no basis for alternative detention, also there is a reluctance to deepen procedural safeguards, on the one hand, but there are lots of criminal repressive measures, on the other hand. There is a need of coherence, the need to respect the rules of proportionality and subsidiarity. Criminal law should be an ultimum remedium.

She then talked about the three pillars of EU criminal regulation.

Anne Weyembergh explained that in her opinion there is an important need to ensure coherence and harmonisation between the criminal policies. There is a real need to improve the defence rights. A reflection should be relaunched in the field of approximation of sanctions for instance. As far as the admission of evidence in criminal proceedings are concerned, it is very important to have common standards.

Regarding the mechanism of judicial cooperation and recognition, there is a real need for the legislator to modernise the rules. She gave for instance the example of the application of the rule ne bis in idem which is today totally outdated, among other things. There is a need for reflection regarding mutual recognition of extradition decisions.

Several other questions were discussed such as:

• Detention conditions,
• Minimum set of investigative measures,
• Measures to facilitate mutual recognition,
• Compensation for unjustified damage,
• Transformation into Directives to rationalise the mutual recognition approach,
• EU actors,
• European Public Prosecutor’s Office: is there a need for the creation of an elite corps of financial fraud investigators?

Mona Giacometti then introduced Daniel Flore. He reacted to what was previously said and further explained that it is now a right time to have an in-depth discussion on the development of substantive criminal law. The other texts that are not per say criminal law, but that have an impact on criminal law should also be scrutinised. There is right now a lack of coherence in criminal law. In that respect, he also took the example of sanctions. He reminded the importance of statistics for modern provisions as statistics are what allow the official bodies to adapt the policies and ensure consistency. There is a lack of good statistics. Daniel Flore further explained that Member States were reluctant to harmonise certain measures which often resulted in bypassing defence rights / protection. Finally, he insisted on the fact that there is a need to efficiently combat organised crime at the EU level.

Last but not least, Vânia Costa Ramos introduced Fabio Giuffrida. He also reacted to what was previously said and further reminded that a new Commission will soon be elected and that whatever he was going to say would not bind the new Commission, but were only his own reflections. Regarding substantive criminal law, he also insisted on the need to harmonise and the need to consider new areas of crime such as crimes related to artificial intelligence (AI) and crimes related to crypto assets. Regarding the field of procedural criminal law, he again said that AI will need to be considered, as well as digitalisation. Regarding agencies and police, he talked about the possibility to extend the competence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (environmental crime, restrictive measures violation etc.), and he insisted on the need for the different agencies and bodies to work better together. Finally, regarding the international aspects, he reminded the ambition of the European actors to become a global actor in the field of criminal law. There is for instance a prominent role of the EU after the war in Ukraine.

At the end of the panel, there was an actively moderated Q&A session by the co-chairs with contributions from the floor. Among other things, the panelists were asked about what they believed were the top priorities going forward. These three following things were put forward:

• Criminal procedure to correct the imbalance between defence rights and the EU authorities/agencies;
• Transnational organised crime: EPPO / EUROJUST / Transnational criminal proceedings;
• AI and digital evidence.

Panel 2: The challenges of modern practice

Chair: Neil Swift, ECBA Executive Committee, United Kingdom

Panel:

• Louise Hodges, defence lawyer, UK
• Jaanus Tehver, defence lawyer, Estonia
• Jeroen Soeteman, defence lawyer, The Netherlands
• Veronica Spiteri, defence lawyer, Malta

Neil Swift started explaining that rather than talking about law, the panelists will have an in-depth look at the challenges faced by lawyers managing criminal defence practices of different sizes and in different countries, including the specific ones faced by women running a practice. The focus will be on attracting, encouraging, and retaining talent; business development; and whether accommodating the elusive work-life balance is possible. Neil encouraged contributions from the floor, as the aim of the panel was to make interactive.

Each panelist first introduced herself/himself and their practice. They all have different backgrounds. Louise Hodges comes from a large, full service law firm, Jeroen Soeteman comes from a middle size law firm and Veronica Spiteri and Jaanus Tehver come from quite smaller firms in size.

Jaanus Tehver explained that unlike in the UK and in the Netherland, the largest firm in Estonia is less than 100 lawyers. Veronica Spiteri explained that Malta is an even smaller market.

Here are some of the takeaways of this insightful discussion:

• The time you have to devote to management obviously depends on the size of your firm. When you are in a small law firm, you end up doing most of the operational yourself, but it does not take that much of your time as the size of the operations remain small. On the opposite, when you are in a large law firm, you devote a lot of time to management and administration and you have people devoted to the management and administration that have been hired for that specific purpose. Continuous improvement and innovation are important for any size of law firm;
• Regarding pro bono and/or legal aid work: In the UK and in Estonia, there are law firms that mostly only do legal aid work and that really rely on that kind of legal work for their business model. In the Netherlands, it is quite common for law firms to do both legal aid work and private work;
• In Malta, social media is an important tool to find legal work. In general, for all practices, reputation is key. Conflict of interests also generates work. In full service law firms, work circulates a lot internally. As far as outside referrals are concerned, they are more likely to come from people you have worked with. The profile and the branding of the firm can also have an impact. For instance, if you are part of a particular organisation or if you publish a particular article that could of course have an impact on the work that is referred to the firm. At the end, your job and the way you do it is the best advertisement one can have. The responsibility to bring work to the firm starts with the partners, but younger lawyers have of course a role to play.
• The clients nowadays have changed and so has the market. Clients are more demanding, they ask for more, they use more private means of contact at any given time (WhatsApp).
• The global pandemic had an impact on the way the work is performed. Part home office is now globally accepted and the people on the management have now accepted it as well.
  However, everyone agrees that nothing beats in-person interactions. In terms of technology, one of the challenges is that now there are expectations that people are available 24/7;
• Work life balance is a real challenge in a world where you need to be available 24/7. It is something difficult to achieve and also, one has to keep in mind that work life balance means something different for everyone;
• Gender equality and diversity is an important goal for each practice. In Malta, it is a real challenge, especially in the field of criminal law defence since there are very few women active in that field. In UK, things are moving in the right direction, but there are still a lot of biases. In the past, women were not particularly good in helping women and that is changing;
• All panelists agreed that while technology cannot be disregarded, the human should still be at the center of all reflections in the future.

Panel 3: INTERPOL – Perspectives from the CCF, General Secretariat and Practitioners

Chair: Jago Russell, defence lawyer, United Kingdom

Panel:

• Yaron Gottlieb, Head of INTERPOL's Notices and Diffusions Task Force (NDTF)
• Sandra Grossman, defence lawyer, USA
• Raphaël Nicolle, Senior Counsel, CCF Secretariat, Interpol
• Rebecca Niblock, defence lawyer, UK

At the beginning of the discussion, Jago Russell drew everyone's attention to the fact that what was going to be discussed needed to remain in the room in order to allow the panelists to discuss openly. As a result, the report on this topic is very general.

In this panel a focus has been given on INTERPOL alerts, primarily red notices and wanted person diffusions. The discussion looked at pertinent issues pertaining to individual rights, the weight that should be given to red notices in immigration / asylum or removal proceedings, due process, and international cooperation. With speakers from INTERPOL, the panel offered a rare opportunity to learn about INTERPOL's existing policies and practices, and to foster a discussion about common challenges faced by practitioners, emerging trends, and best practices when engaging with INTERPOL.  In general, communication and providing information in a timely manner are key.

General Assembly - ECBA Treasurer – 2023 financial report

At the end of the Conference the ECBA Treasurer presented the 2023 financial report, that shown very good results, the ECBA finances being in a very healthy shape.

Future Conferences

Oliver Kipper, EFCL Chair  and Vincent Asselineau, ECBA Chair, closed the Conference announcing the future events: the EFCL annual Conference in Milan on 14 June 2024 and the ECBA Autumn Conference in Helsinki on 27 and 28 September.

 
Dinner

In the evening the delegates had a tasty traditional dinner at the trendy Alice restaurant and cocktail bar. It offered an additional opportunity for delegates to mingle with old and new friends. Most delegates then enjoyed drinks together until late in the evening, some others until very early the next morning.  

Those who were able to stay until later on Sunday 5 May could attend the Brussels morning sightseeing tour "Art Nouveau in the Squares" and eventually have a good-bye lunch.

Report by Carla Reyes

On Friday 6 October 2023, the Autumn Conference in Sofia started with a reception at the Concert Hall of the Central Military Club, a beautiful and historical location. Over a hundred delegates had the opportunity to meet new colleagues and catch up with old friends.  Vincent Asselineau, chair of the ECBA, welcomed everyone warmly as ever. The speech of the Chairman of the Supreme Bar Council of Bulgaria, Adv. Dr. Ivaylo Dermendjiev, made all delegates feel very welcome in Bulgaria. 

7 October 2023

The next morning, 7 October 2023, the conference proceeded in the conference hall of the Intercontinental Hotel.

After a short introduction by Vincent Asselineau, the floor was given once more to Dr. Ivaylo Dermendjiev, who gave some insight on the practice of criminal defence lawyers in Bulgaria.

In Bulgaria, criminal law is not widely practiced. There is no official statistics, but out of 14,000 lawyers in this country, those practicing criminal law are fewer than 500. In comparison, 500 out of 6,000 lawyers in Rome practice criminal law, which share is similar in other EU Member States. The work of a criminal lawyer is not so attractive because it is harder than that of trade and civil lawyers. Also, a criminal lawyer works with people’s fates, while a civil lawyer deals with their money, Dermendzhiev said. 

The language barrier also leads to problems related to cross-border disputes. There are simply not enough good criminal lawyers who also speak foreign languages.

The Bulgarian News Agency reported on the ECBA conference being hosted in Sofia:

“ECBA Chairman Vincent Asselineau told BTA that Bulgaria is extremely important for the ECBA in that the country is well-situated geopolitically while being poorly represented in Europe in the field of criminal law. In his words, they want to get to know their colleagues here so that Bulgarian criminal lawyers can become visible in the whole of Europe. The ECBA, which is a link between European countries, the European Commission and the European Parliament, wants to create contacts and structures in Bulgaria, Asselineau added.”

Then Alexis Anagnostakis, officer of the ECBA Human Rights Committee announced that the Scott Crosby Human Rights Award 2023 will be handed out during the Spring conference in Brussels. The original plan was to do so in Sofia, but the recipients were not able to make it to the conference. Alexis Anagnostakis informed the ECBA about the great and important work of both soon to be award winners. Francoise Tulkens, former Judge and Vice-President of the ECHR and Nancy Hollander, who is a defence lawyer in the US. She is a renowned and fearless lawyer, also defending prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. In 2021 a movie has been made about one of her cases, called ‘The Mauritanian’. The movie depicts a Guantanamo Bay prisoner who had been sentenced to death but was released after years of Hollanders’ persistent work.

Alexis furthermore stressed that both award winners could and should be role models for other women in the professional field of law. As women historically have a marginalized role, it is important to see that these two women have been able to make their way in this masculine dominated field.

These women have shattered the glass ceilings and should be an inspiration for all of us to dream big and aim high.

Panel 1: Sanctions - implementation, enforcement, challenges

Chair: Rebecca Niblock, ECBA Vice Chair, UK

Panel:

• Amélie Beauchemin, defence lawyer, France
• Anna Bradshaw, defence lawyer, UK
• Maya Ivanova, defence lawyer, Bulgaria
• Violetta Zeppa-Priedite, defence lawyer, Latvia

The Chair firstly stressed that this is a controversial topic and requested the audience not to post any tweets or posts about the discussion. The panelists face criticism when assisting listed clients, especially when country-based sanctions apply, and especially in the case of a current conflict. Many of these clients are not even accused of committing an offence but are simply based in the wrong country.

The listing decisions are political. Sometimes arbitrary. The evidence is mostly based on public sources, which are sometimes anonymous. Think about tabloids or Wikipedia. The quality of the evidence can be very poor but is being considered sufficient in times of war. Although the evidence is thin as it is based on media articles, the evidence could be sufficient to target someone and get this person on the list.

If a lawyer succeeds in getting someone delisted, for example because the reason for being listed is not an actual criterion provided for in the sanctions, this criterion may be included in the amended sanctions shortly after this positive decision, and the person will be listed again. This is frustrating for lawyers who engage in delisting procedures.

Sanctions are an important and powerful tool but include a huge infringement of human rights as well. The panelists observe that sanctions are sometimes used as an alternative to prosecution, probably because it is much easier to impose sanctions than to initiate a successful prosecution.

In Bulgaria, banks and institutions treat sanctions very seriously. They wish to avoid the potential risk sanctioned persons impose, including the European Commission's and Bulgarian National Bank's fines for failure to observe and comply with the sanction regimes. This leads to banks refusing any kind of transactions by sanctioned Russian nationals. However, non-sanctioned Russian nationals experience difficulties as well, even if they are against Putin's regime, because they are considered high-risk clients and must present more documents and undergo more complex procedures to prove the origin of their money.

In this sense, sanctions are self-enforcing: sanctions enforce themselves because the financial institutions are so risk averse.

In some jurisdictions, lawyers may face financial problems when assisting sanctioned persons. A realistic problem would be that lawyers cannot take on these cases anymore. If that happens these cases will not make it to the courtroom anymore. If lawyers cease to take on these types of cases, then the cases will no longer be brought before the court, which leads to a lack of control over the legislative and executive powers, who already have a lot of influence when it comes to sanctions. If judicial control over sanctions or listing decisions ceases to exist, harm is done to the separation of powers.

Panel 2: Anti-corruption legislation in Europe and Fundamental Rights

Chair: Amedeo Barletta, ECBA Vice Chair, Italy

Panel:

• Vladimir Hrle, ECBA Anti-Corruption in Europe Working Group Co-Chair, Serbia
• Danielle Goudriaan, defence lawyer and former EPPO Prosecutor, The Netherlands
• Hristo Kutiev, defence lawyer, Bulgaria
• Juan Palomino, defence lawyer, Spain

Amedeo Barletta explained in his introduction that the ECBA has made a statement on the new proposed Directive on Combating Corruption. The ECBA focused on the need to preserve procedural safeguards. Vladimir Hrle clarified that the parts about the procedural safeguards are vague and in the recitals and not in the text itself. The mere minimum should be that it is put in the main body of the text. The commission has not been consistentin this regard. They copied the text from the United Nations Convention against Corruption, but there the procedural safeguards are in the text.

Danielle Goudriaan presented the new Directive as a welcome development as there is great importance in efficiency, from a perspective of citizens and from a perspective of the accused. The aim was to transpose the United Nations Convention against Corruption and to go beyond.

She elaborated that the EU directive also covers prevention and provides for measures to prevent and fight corruption. Criminal law should be an ultimum remedium.

Based on her experience at the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, she stressed that anti-corruption bodies need to be independent of investigative authorities. From her own experience, she says it is good to have prosecutors independent of the national administration. Furthermore, she stressed the importance of explanations of the offences in the directive.

Kristo Kutiev intervened with a presentation on countering corruption from a Bulgarian perspective. The definition of corruption is that criminal corruption is always a criminal offence. Kristo Kutiev stated that corruption could exist out of the criminal field. The Bulgarian principles of corruption show that the protection of rights is only in the fourth place, which shows the Bulgarian attitude to fundamental rights.

He furthermore stressed that there are too many bodies dealing with investigation of corruption, while only one is actually able and allowed to gather evidence that can be used in court.

He also discussed the methods to counteract corruption. In the articles there are no guarantees for fundamental rights.

Juan Palomino made reflections on the Proposal for the anti-corruption directive from the perspective of company liability. He stated that the proposal lacked practical reflections on how companies will handle certain situations, especially when it comes to mitigating circumstances.

The mitigating circumstances are regulated in article 18.2, and one of them is that the offender provides the competent authorities with relevant information. This can be problematic as legal persons have the right to defend themselves and the right against self-incrimination.

Mitigating circumstances seem not to be well calibrated and this will make some of them unapplicable. The intensity of the action that companies are required to take is so high that the pros do not meet the cons.

The only practically realistic mitigating circumstance would be the implementation of effective corporate compliance program. But there should be a larger incentive to invest in such programs.

Kristo elaborated that criminal liability of companies has been problematic for a very long time in Bulgaria. There is no criminal liability as the liability is administrative. There are several parallels between the problems in the EU regulations as on a national level.

An interesting discussion on the criminal liability of companies in different member states emerged.

The panel concluded with the important note from the audience that the proposal will be published soon and therefore any comments must be provided swiftly.

Panel 3: Procedural Safeguards

Chair: Miroslav Krutina, ECBA Vice Chair, Czechia

Panel:

• Maria Barbancho Saborit, defence lawyer, Spain
• Adelina Hadjiiska, defence lawyer, Bulgaria
• Stefan Hyman, defence lawyer, United Kingdom
• Holger Matt, defence lawyer, Germany

Unfortunately, Adelina Hadjiiska could not make it to the conference. Miroslav Krutina referred to her written contribution.

Firstly, Holger Matt elaborated on the history on the roadmap of the ECBA. The issue of procedural safeguards became an issue in 2003. There was a political process towards minimum standards in procedural safeguards. After the Directives following the Stockholm Programme of 2009, further procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings have not been harmonized yet. There are so many issues that are yet to be resolved, for instance on minimum standards for trials.

ECBA published a political program. An agenda to achieve the political goals to adopt the procedural safeguards: “Agenda 2020: A new Roadmap on minimum standards of certain

procedural safeguards”.

Maria Barbancho elaborated on the steps that have been taken within the European Union when it comes to minimum standards in pretrial detention. She discussed the caselaw of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. Her conclusion was that there is no harmonization in the circumstances of pretrial detention and described pretrial detention as a ‘hot potato’.

In her view, articles 4 and 6 of the Directive on the presumption of innocence 2016/343 should be applicable to pre-trial detention, since there is no time to waste in the protection of unlawful detained persons.

Stefan Hyman discussed the procedural rights in jury trials in England & Wales. The sources are the Police and Criminal evidence Act, codes of practice made under that Act and caselaw made thereunder. However, if the police do not act in accordance with these regulations, one would normally include this in considerations on the fairness of the trial during the trial.

But in jury trials there should be control on what evidence goes to the jury, especially since in these trials it does not become clear how exactly a verdict is built up and which evidence is used in what manner.

The suggestion was made to Maria Barbancho to create a new working group within the ECBA to take action on pretrial detention and her concrete suggestion to make article 4 and 6 binding in pretrial detention.

Last but not least, Holger Matt discussed the impact of political discussions on the development of minimum standards for procedural safeguards.

In principle there should be no conflict of jurisdictions in this regard. The main interest should be the interest of the suspect. A criminal proceeding is focused to investigate a case and to determine guilt or not. We need clear standards if a proceeding is transferred from one member state to another, as less discretion as possible.

General Assembly

Neil Swift explained that due to formalities the General Assembly will take place during the Spring Conference in Brussels.

Dinner

In the evening the delegates had a tasty and traditional dinner at the Moma restaurant, accompanied by traditional Bulgarian music and dance.

8 October 2023

Those who were able to stay until 8 October 2023 could attend a walking tour through Sofia on Sunday morning.

Report by Rosa van Zijl

The 2023 ECBA Spring Conference opened with the usual Friday reception, this time at the Warsaw Bar Association of Advocates historical venue, where Vincent Asselineau, Chair of the ECBA, welcomed the delegates. The guests also received a warm welcome from Mikolaj Pietrzak, Dean of the Warsaw Bar Council and co-recipient of the 2021 Scott Crosby human rights award, together with the Polish Judge Igor Tuleya, who was a guest at the reception too.

After a joyful evening of reunion, the ECBA members, old and new, guests and speakers, attended the auditorium of the Fine Arts Academy of Warsaw on Saturday. Mikolaj Pietrzak, Dean of the Warsaw Bar Council and ECBA member, set the tone of the conference by reminding us the current populist climate in Europe, the backsliding of human rights and the crisis of the rule of law.

Vincent Asselineau, Chair of the ECBA, recalled the essential work of the ECBA in this context as a direct and key interlocutor of the EU Commission, EU Parliament, Council of Europe and ICC.

He then left the floor to Vânia Costa Ramos who, despite her ankle injury, in few well-chosen words reminded us of our role in upholding the rule of law before introducing the two keynote speakers: Prof Marek Safjan, judge at the CJEU, a specialist of constitutional law and keen interest around constitutional identity and Prof Piotr Hofmański, President of the International Criminal Court [ICC], a specialist of criminal and international law heading the ICC since 2015. The ICC recently took a brave step in the context of the Ukrainian War.

For Prof Hofmański, a Polish native, the support to the rule of law derives from an understanding that any society protects the rights of the individual and seeks for its betterment. In that pursuit criminal law is indispensable. The creation of the ICC in 2002 is the fruit of the necessity to have a mechanism of enforcement to ensure effectiveness of the rule of law at international level when national judicial systems fail. After a brief history of the ICC and after a presentation of the key statistics of ICC’s action, Prof Hofmański called for the attendees to join the list of counsel allowed to practice before the ICC.

Prof Safjan shared his reflections around rule of law by starting with discussing the idea of an EU identity born not from the existence of a constitution but from shared values. There is a trend among MS to attempt to reverse the course of the EU history by replacing solidarity and art. 2 TEU values by populism and national egoism (e.g. Brexit or ruling of the Polish constitutional court). After stating the important place of the legal profession in defending the rule of law by defending the independence of the judiciary Prof Safjan turned to future prospects: use of art.2 TEU as ground for infringement proceedings separate from art 70 infringement proceedings, and call for the civil society to get more involved.

The first panel, chaired by Mikolaj Pietrzak, provided a stark picture of the problem of rule of law faced by the legal profession in their daily practice. Judge Tamasz Matusik, head of investigation of the Hungarian National Judicial Council, detailed the new structure of the Hungarian judiciary and how the government engages in chilling tactics to discourage members of the judiciary fighting for the respect of rule of law. Hope is placed in the upcoming election of the National Judicial Council and implementation of the 2023 judicial reform, adopted following the requests addressed by the EU.  Mikolaj Pietrzak noted with concern the similarities with the current issues in Poland.

Judge Dariusz Mazur, Vice President of the Polish independent judges association who faced oppression for supporting the independence of the judiciary, compared the rule of law to oxygen: as long as it exists we don’t notice it but when it starts lacking we feel strangled. Judge Mazur gave a very frank and troubling exposé of the Polish judicial reform and how neo judges subservient to the executive power had replaced most of the independent judges. He encouraged us to check the KOD at rushokd.pl which lists the neo judges by court. The lack of independence of the Polish judiciary was challenged before the CJEU (Celmer) and ECHR. Despite these, the pressure on independent judges increases every day (criminal/disciplinary prosecution opened against judges).

Katarzyna Wiśniewska, a human rights lawyer renowned for her action against violation of the rule of law in Poland completed the panel. After a brief introduction of the Polish justice system’s score on the EU scoreboard (not brilliant) she pointed out the concrete reality of working within a justice system where the Constitutional Court is not independent. Is it still required to refer a violation of rule of law to the Constitutional Court before an application to the ECHR? In Xero Flor -v- Poland (ECHR, 4908/18) the Court found that the appointment of the judge doesn’t satisfy the criteria of a court of law. Other rulings of the ECHR point toward a lack of independence of the Constitutional Court, but no decision on the criminal chamber of the Supreme Court yet.

Q&A

Q: for Poland: How to purge the system from all judges appointed after the reform once measure for independence implemented?

A (judge Mazur): draft process prepared by association of judges. Re-evaluation process to avoid undermining judgment issued by neo judges in order to protect judicial stability.

Q: How can we support Hungarian judges?

A (judge Matusik): Judiciary is very neutral in Hungary. Hope that at the next election the judges will elect the right people.

Q: Which body has disciplinary power over the judiciary in Hungary?

A (judge Matusik): the National Judicial Council elects judges to the disciplinary court. It is very rare to have disciplinary proceedings against judges in Hungary or criminal investigations (all procedure opened have been withdrawn), the executive relies more on chilling effect tactics like smear campaign against judges.

Judge Matusik had a last warning for the delegates: you are not protected in your democracies. Populism can emerge everywhere and now they have blueprints with Hungary and Poland.

Judge Mazur recalled the importance of cohesion and solidarity between the judiciary and advocates. Many Polish judges targeted with disciplinary proceedings found strong support in the advocates who assisted them.

Judge Safjan agreed with the necessity for solidarity among the legal professional. He noted the apparent lack of concern of civil society about questions around the rule of law. He wondered how initiate such change in civil society.

After a timely coffee break, the conference resumed for the second panel; this time focused on human rights.

Alexis Anagnostakis, ECBA advisory member and ECBA Human Right Committee officer, guided enthusiastically a panel of defence lawyers through their presentations about the enforcement of human rights in Poland, UK, Belarus and Norway.

Małgorzata Mączka-Pacholac, Polish defence lawyer, brought to our attention the threat on lawyer-client confidentiality presented by the Polish surveillance law. That specific piece of legislation does not provide for any exception to admissibility of evidence when lawyers are caught by the surveillance. She detailed the various aspects of the surveillance law in Poland and linked it to the ECHR case on that topic to which the ECBA intervened as amicus curiae.

Alaksiej Michalevic, defence lawyer in Belarus and former presidential candidate tortured for his activities, described the tragic situation of lawyers in Belarus. In 2023, 7 lawyers were detained as political prisoners. He reported the ingenious idea of the Minsk bar to bypass the prohibition of pro bono work in Belarus by allowing victims of torture and protesters to obtain legal representation for one symbolic ruble. Since the introduction of discriminatory rules of access to the bar Belarus lost 12% of its lawyers. He concluded with the example of Vitali Braginets who was convicted to 8 years of custody by a trial in camera for support to extremist activities – in this case, defending people in politically motivated cases.

Maria Hessen Jacobsen, Norwegian human right lawyer and member of the HR committee, presented the strategic litigation program developed by the local bar. Norway prisons are renowned for their rehabilitation program but all struggle with HR violations, especially for solitary confinement and strip search. The rules for reparation of such violations are wholly insufficient. There was an impulse to create a wave of civil lawsuits (with the bar as amicus curiae) which was quite successful but expensive cases to bring thus the introduction of strategic litigation. HR violations are argued at the sentencing stage to obtain reduced sentence in lieu of reparation (and monetary compensation).

Ed “the magician of extradition” Grange, Barrister at law in UK, told us about his experience with ChatGPT (not conclusive) and tracing his ancestry (more conclusive) across the history of human rights in UK. Retracing the emergence of human rights in UK with the Magna Carta to the 2023 Bill of Rights which aim at curtailing the effect of ECHR interim measures, he painted a dark portrait of the enforcement and protection of human rights in UK. His conclusion on the grave rollback on the human rights acquis was a tale of caution.

Anna Demenko, Polish defence lawyer, discussed the recent Commission’s proposition on transfer of proceedings. She brieflly reminded us the principle of non bis in idem in Europe and the little opportunities it offers to protect client’s rights. Often, there is no mechanism to challenge the jurisdiction of the court on this basis. This is an issue from the perspective of foreseeability of the applicable law in terms of sentencing for example. She referred to the proposition and compared it to the US system where the principle is not applicable in case of fundamental defect in the 1^st case. If we transpose this approach to the current situation in the EU then there is an arguable case that a judgment made by a Polish court would not be recognised.

Q&A

Q: if the UK bill of rights expressly exclude interim measure, how do you reconcile that with constitutional obligation to respect international engagement?

A (Ed Grange): the UK is on a collision course with the ECtHR. He referred to an article published by Philip Leach and Alice Donald (“The UK vs the ECtHR”, Verfassungsblog, 5 May 2023) on that topic.

The final session of the day was chaired by our president, Vincent Asselineau, and concerned war crimes and crimes against humanity in the context of the war in Ukraine. 

Our member and friend Valentyn Gvozdiy, Vice President of the Ukrainian National Bar Association (collective receiver of the ECBA Human Rights Award 2022), addressed a hushed audience with his vivid descriptions, and harrowing images, of the international crimes being committed on the territory of Ukraine.

One of the challenges he described is characterising the clearly horrific and unlawful acts appropriately as crimes under international law.  As well as crimes of direct and unlawful violence the acts include the deportation of children to Russia, measures aimed at changing children’s national identities in occupied territories, and the removal of Ukrainian books and historical artefacts – all with the apparent aim of erasing Ukrainian history and culture. 

Valentyn also described the wilful killing of civilians, their detention, interrogation, torture and ill treatment: bodies discovered with hands and feet tied, shot in the head at short range, execution of prisoners of war. 

At the same time, bringing the perpetrators to justice is extremely challenging.   There are currently more than 80,000 proceedings concerning violations of the rule of warfare, with hundreds more being added every day.  A national IT platform has been set up to receive and record information and evidence.  But the number of perpetrators identified was depressingly small. 

One question which remains is how perpetrators will be held accountable.  Ukraine has not ratified the ICC statute but is considering models for a special tribunal.  The US has indicated that it wants to assist. 

As a country which honours the Rule of Law, the Ukrainian bar quickly recognised the need for advocates to represent individuals accused of such crimes and uphold their rights.  Immediately the bar became an object of hate, with advocates threatened by NGOs, citizens and even lawyers serving in the military. 

Valentyn called for the international legal community to confirm their support for the Ukrainian bar to defend those who need to be defended. 

The floor was then given to Natacha Ivanovic, a French criminal defence lawyer with an array of ICC experience, who expressed her view that the international community does not have a good response to war crimes.  In her view, the Nuremberg trials represented the high point of respect for defence rights.  One of her concerns is that victim participation breaks the balance in the proceedings. 

The crimes themselves are difficult to prove.  In the various legal systems, genocide is always defined in the same way, but is difficult to evidence.  There are inconsistent definitions of crimes against humanity, and the same act could be both a war crime or a crime against humanity.  War crimes are very complicated, as are crimes of aggression, but the latter only applies to state parties. 

However, the nature of the crimes is such that the ICC is by its nature a political court.  Her lack of faith in it stemmed from several factors.  In an early acquittal judgement, the court made clear that the acquittal did not mean the accused was innocent: notwithstanding the presumption of innocence.  She believes that the ICC delivers apparent and selective justice, which becomes injustice. 

The final speaker of the day was Marie-Helene Proulx, the President of the ICC Bar Association, but speaking in her individual, rather than her representative, capacity. 

Clearly the Ukraine conflict and the crimes arising from it are likely to be a challenge for many years to come.  Several jurisdictions may have a role to play: domestic, the ICC, a new tribunal, or the exercise of universal jurisdiction over war crimes. 

The ICC has publicly announced that it has issued two arrest warrants in respect of individuals at the very highest levels of command.  There may be others, currently confidential.  This sends a powerful message, but the prospects of success are unknown. 

Like Valentyn, she outlined some of the challenges to hybrid tribunals, which were themselves the subject of hugely political discussions.  Whilst evidence was being gathered at super speed by citizens and NGOs alike, that comes with risks: how does a prosecutor evidence the chain of custody, and what about the risk of inconsistency from the multiplicity of evidential accounts.  There were concrete challenges for both defence and victims.  Victims had no standing until the defendant was before the court.  How can they effectively participate without legal aid for counsel? 

The defence were often years late on the scene, by which time the prosecution may have gathered mountains of evidence, but in investigations which (understandably) were not necessarily focused on seeking out exculpatory evidence.  State cooperation with the defence is very difficult to secure.

She concluded that hybrid tribunals were able to handle so few cases that they would never be a replacement for the domestic Ukrainian jurisdiction. 

There was the risk of inconsistency in proceedings.  The approach of judges from different jurisdictions will be influenced by their experience in their home jurisdiction.   The tribunal itself is likely to be highly political.  Although staffed by judges, the process management will be by a political body.  There will be an inevitable disparity of resources between prosecution and defence, giving rise to fair trial concerns.  Defence counsels for Russian defendants are already experiencing hostile public opinion and threats to their personal security. 

Ending on a slightly hopeful note, Marie-Helene pointed out that we have the benefit of hindsight to rectify the flaws of the past in facing the biggest challenge of our generation, but lawyers need to speak loudly and unwaveringly. 

Following a proposal from the floor (from James MacGuill) our president wholeheartedly expressed the ECBA’s support for the Ukrainian bar association in providing representation for everyone in need of it, regardless of nationality.  He confirmed that the ECBA would adopt a resolution to that effect after the conference. 

Introduction

Immediately following warm words of welcome from our president Vincent Asselineau, Valentyn Gvodziy, vice president of the Ukrainian National Bar Association, explained how lawyers and a legal system survive in a country affected by war and the imposition of martial law.   He described a situation where the courts cannot operate in 10 of 27 regions, and where many courts have themselves been destroyed. In a short space of time, many new laws and procedures have been amended or introduced.  Laws of evidence and criminal procedure (in particular those concerning pre-trial detention) have been relaxed, to the detriment of suspects.  Criminal trial by video can be imposed by a judge, rather than requiring the defendant to agree.  Conflict-specific offences have been introduced, including the crime of collaboration, with legal persons susceptible to liquidation if found guilty.  To take into account the practicalities of the ongoing armed conflict, laws concerning the use of weapons have been changed. 

In thanking Valentyn for his contribution, Vincent made it clear that the ECBA stands ready to support the Ukrainian people and its lawyers in any way it can. 

Keynote speakers

Miroslav Krutina then welcomed our keynote speakers.

Aigars Strupiss, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Latvia, addressed the crucial role of defence lawyers in cassational proceedings, as well as the duties on advocates to ensure the smooth and effective running of court proceedings.  He saw that one of his main duties was to improve public confidence in the operation of the courts, to be achieved in part through the process of selecting and training judges.

Juris Jansons, ombudsman of Latvia, explained that his role was to promote the recognition of and reliance on fundamental human rights, although not as a direct participant in proceedings.  He spoke in particular about the right to property enshrined in article 1 protocol 1 of the ECHR in the context of allegedly criminally acquired property and confiscation.   

Aldis Lavins, the chairman of the constitutional court, addressed the role of defence lawyers in protecting fundamental rights – to prevent injustice and misuse of state power.  He pinpointed the existence of an independent impartial judiciary, protecting fundamental rights and ensuring public safety, as fundamental to a properly functioning democracy. 

Janis Rozenbergs, the president of the Latvian Council of Sworn Advocates, focused on the role of the advocate in criminal proceedings.  Although playing a vital role in defending the client and the fair trial, the obligations to the client are balanced by the lawyers’ ethical and professional obligations.

First Panel

The first panel discussion concerned confiscation and seizure of assets in criminal proceedings and was chaired by Arturas Gustauskas. 

Kristina Grunte, a prosecutor of the anti-money laundering coordination unit of the general prosecutor’s office in Latvia, explained the Latvian confiscation framework, both conviction and non-conviction based.  She described a significant increase in the use of non-conviction based confiscation -  something that is becoming increasingly familiar to defence practitioners across Europe. 

Latvian lawyer Krista Niklase presented instead of Violetta Zeppa Priedite, who unfortunately could not be present herself, she gave the defence perspective on the issue, describing the client undertaking a series of battles – against the client’s bank, with the Financial Intelligence Unit (which has the power to temporarily freeze an account), in proceedings before the court to seize the property, before finally receiving the investigator’s arguments and evidence and facing confiscation proceedings. 

Carla Reyes outlined the Swiss regime for seizing and confiscating criminal assets. Given Switzerland’s key position as custodian of a large part of the world’s wealth, freezing and confiscation is a much used tool for Swiss prosecutors.  To improve the efficacy of the freezing regime, Switzerland usually freezes assets suspected to arise from criminal conduct overseas before receipt of a formal mutual legal assistance request. 

Sergey Golubok

Sergey Golubok expressed his sympathies, shared by many Russians, with the people of Ukraine.  He described the significant changes made to Russian law since the special military operation.  Certain countries had been designated as unfriendly, prohibiting and making it a criminal law to conduct transactions with those countries.  It had also been made a crime to follow sanctions made overseas, putting many in an impossible situation.

Strange new offences were being introduced on an almost daily basis. Russian criminal lawyers contest everything on behalf of their clients.  Colleagues still in Russia continue to do the same, finding innovative and creative solutions for clients.  But pressure is being imposed on senior members of the profession.  He fears that disbarment of those who speak out is imminent. 

Second Panel

After the lunchtime adjournment, Neil Swift chaired the panel on the activities of the ECBA, consisting of the following: 

• Alexis Anagnostakis, Human Rights Committee
• Amedeo Barletta, Anti Corruption in Europe
• Rosa van Zijl, EPPO working group
• Elise Martin-Vignerte – the European Arrest Warrant
• Hans van de Wal – Extradition forum
• Miroslav Krutina – Roadmap 2020 / Procedural Safeguards

A guest speaker, Ben Brandon, spoke about the Ukraine Justice Alliance

All members were encouraged to ask not what the ECBA could do for them, but to ask what they could do for the ECBA – the effectiveness of the working groups depends on members volunteering to help.

Third Panel

Vincent Asselineau chaired the third panel, on the European Public Prosecutors Office. 

Frederic Baab, the European Prosecutor for France spoke first.  In France, the EPPO carries out the function of the investigative judge.  The EPPO is also totally independent from the member states and from the European institutions.  These features make it revolutionary.  Because of its independence, EPPO is able to develop a criminal policy at EU level so as to ensure consistency of approach across all member states. Cases are allocated randomly amongst the 15 permanent chambers of EPPO.  Since last June, 500 cases have been opened, representing losses of €5b.  In the future, the EPPO will seek to extend its competence, although its focus will remain on serious crime with a transnational dimension.  For this, it will need a unanimous decision of the European Council (including those member states who are not part of the EPPO).  As this represents a transfer of sovereignty, it is unlikely to receive unanimous support.  The most likely area will in environmental crime. 

Cecile Soriano is one of 4 European Delegated Prosecutors in France, seconded to the EPPO.  EPPO has revolutionary tools – including convergence of interpretation of procedural rights.  Information comes to the EPPO through a variety of sources.  As is well known, there is no harmonised European criminal procedure.  Instead, the investigative tools are those available under national criminal procedural law.  But crucially the tools can be used in cross border investigations by EDPs in other jurisdictions.  EPPO is treated as one office.  The handling EDP can delegate investigative measures to an assisting colleague in another member state.  So MLA is not required. 

Giulia Guagliardi is an Italian criminal lawyer and president of the European Young Lawyers Association.  She identified a number of critical aspects from the defence perspective.  Namely, the inequality of arms between EDPs and defence lawyers; the admissibility of evidence gathered in another member state; the vagueness of some criteria and definitions – and the existence of national divergences; the investigations into legal persons; the lack of coordination of legal aid measures; and divergence between jurisdictions of the rights of the victims. 

Rosa van Zijl addressed the legality principle of EPPO vs prosecutorial discretion of domestic proceedings.  Under the legality principle, in a case where there was sufficient evidence, a case can only be terminated if one of the listed grounds exists.  Under the Dutch domestic system, the prosecutor has a discretion not to prosecute a case.  The Dutch grounds for discretionary dismissal are wider than under the legality principle. In EPPO’s annual report for 2021, there is reference only to the exceptions under the legality principle.  But it’s arguable that a defendant should not be in a worse position under the legality principle of EPPO than they would be under a domestic investigation for the same conduct.   

Fourth panel

The final panel of the afternoon was chaired by James MacGuill and dealt with attorney client privilege.  Panellists were Dian Brouwer, Jaime Campaner, Rebecca Niblock, and Jaanus Tehver. 

Rebecca outlined the history and development of legal professional privilege in English law, starting in the 16^th century.  At the time the justification was confidentiality, and privilege belonged to the lawyer.  In the 19^th century the justification evolved into something familiar to what we have today – a protection for the client aligned to the interests of the proper administration of justice.

Dian Brouwer outlined a brief Dutch horror story.  The historically developed concept of privilege relates only to hard copy materials.  Only one article of the criminal code refers to digital material.  It provides that if an investigator covertly seizes data and comes across potentially privileged information, and the prosecutor agrees it is privileged, it is to be destroyed.  A procedure for destruction – apparently ringed with guarantees – exists but has not been published and, it appears, is not observed.  It has been observed that there is a high likelihood that investigators and prosecutors have routinely accessed, and analysed material covered by privilege.  The court recently determined that the procedure supposedly ‘ringed with guarantees’ was not appropriate.  It is anticipated that the prosecution will appeal. 

Jaime Campaner discussed 3 ideas – emails between inmates and their lawyers can only be intercepted with the permission and the judge and in terrorism cases; subject to the crime fraud exception, communications between lawyer and client are confidential; and intercepted communications have to be reviewed by an investigating judge in real time, but the judge should not review that material.  The unintended interception of legal calls is not a basis for stopping telephone tapping. 

Jaanus Tehver spoke about attorney client privilege in the digital age.  Recent Strasbourg jurisprudence highlights that although the court has found violations of Article 8, there might be a shift of practice that is not favourable to defence rights.  The doctrine that the provision of a privileged dataset to the police would be protected may be coming to an end. 

A lively debate ensued. 

General Assembly

The agenda for the General Assembly was brief.  Vania Costa Ramos informed the assembled members that the ECBA would need to incorporate an entity and relocate to another EU jurisdiction. 

CONFERENCE REPORT

Introduction

The ECBA Autumn 2022 conference in Malta started when Vincent Asselineau, Chair of the ECBA, addressed the guests at the Friday reception, together with Stephen Tonna Lowell, Vice Chair of Chamber of Advocates of Malta, Amedeo Barletta, Vice Chair of the ECBA, and Jaime Campaner, ECBA Advisory Board member. Amongst warm welcoming words, guests were surprised to know that the membership in the Maltese bar is not mandatory for all advocates practicing in Malta, and Vincent promised to pray for all the delegates of the conference, since his flight back from Malta was to Lourdes.  

The conference on Saturday began by opening speech of Vincent Asselineau, Chair of the ECBA, who greeted the prominent guests and existing members of the ECBA, and warmly welcomed the numerous new members of our association. 

HR Award 2022

Afterwards Alexis Anagnostakis, ECBA Human Rights Committee Officer, presented the ECBA Human Rights Award, which is named after our late friend and passionate human rights activist Scott Crosby, and which is awarded once a year to distinguished lawyers who have demonstrated outstanding commitment and sacrifice to uphold fundamental values. This year the Human Rights Award went to the Ukrainian National Bar Association (UNBA), represented at the Autumn Conference by Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy, Vice President of the UNBA, honouring the efforts of Ukrainian lawyers, heroes of the legal profession, for their determination and sacrifice in times of war, to uphold fundamental values and the rule of law in their country during the current impermissible military aggression against Ukraine. The thank you speech of Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy received standing ovations of the delegates. 

First panel

The first panel of the ECBA Autumn Conference focused on the Maltese Criminal Jurisdiction and money laundering crimes. Hans Van de Wal, ECBA Secretary, chaired the panel which, as it happens in fair trial, had representatives of all actors: judge, prosecutor and defence lawyer. 

Consuelo Scerri Herrera, Judge of the Superior Courts of Malta, Criminal Jurisdiction, introduced legal framework, main actors and the procedure of Maltese anti-money laundering system. 

Francesco Refalo, prosecutor of the Attorney General office of Malta, focused on three different investigative tools on prosecutorial side: monitoring order, investigation order and attachment order. Delegates were assured that attorney-client privilege is protected by the Maltese laws. 

Michael Sciriha, defence lawyer practicing in Malta, expressed his regret that criminal justice is still on the learning curve, and instead of discussing laws it would be better to discuss cases of human beings. In his view, equality of arms is not assured, as person has to save and present documents from the past and prove everything in order to defend the orders of confiscation, but individual hasn’t got apparatus, funds, etc. His comparison that papers are like bikinis (they hide the most important things), cheered the delegates well.

Dr. Jonathan Attard, Maltese Minister of Justice of Malta, closed the panel with his address. In his words, legislator tries to keep the laws up to date and equip prosecutors with the necessary means, which also requires to have competent defence lawyers to protect the rights of the defendants. 

Second panel

The second panel was moderated by Vincent Asselineau, Chair of the ECBA, who introduced the topic of the new binding instrument on the protection of lawyers devised by the Council of Europe, explained the work that has already been done and what will is planned for the near future. It is expected that the text will be finalised and adopted in the 1st half of 2024, then a  long process of ratification of Member States should follow.

Jeroen Soeteman, defence lawyer from the Netherlands presented the interesting findings of a survey performed by the Netherlands Bar - it revealed that more than half of lawyers suffered aggression, more than 40 % suffered threats to stop doing their job (50 % of those coming from clients, 33 % from the other party). The Netherlands Bar offers resilience training, emergency button and 24 hour emergency phone number for those in need. There is a general consensus that the legal privilege is not there anymore when client threatens his lawyer. 

Panelist Nicola Canestrini, defence lawyer from Italy, asked the audience “Who defends the defenders?” and continued the interesting discussion about the increasing threats against defence lawyers, particularly human rights lawyers, who face disbarment, physical attack and, in the worst cases, death. He suggested that 24th of January should be remembered as the international day of endangered lawyers. 

Third panel

Rebecca Niblock, Vice Chair of the ECBA, chaired the next panel discussing the European Criminal Bar Association Statement on Mutual Recognition of Extradition Decisions, together with expert panellists William Julié, defence lawyer from France, Vânia Costa Ramos, Vice Chair of the ECBA, and Jago Russell, defence lawyer from United Kingdom.

William Julié explained how the idea of mutual recognition of extradition decisions came to him, with clients having extradition problems in international cross border cases: the court decision of one EU Member State not to extradite is not sufficient for a person to travel to another EU Member State and be safe (i.e. to enjoy the power of decision), and there are no instruments to force a country to withdraw the red notice.

Vania Costa Ramos summarised that the goal of ECBA statement on mutual recognition of extradition decisions is that those decisions to refuse extradition for breach of fundamental rights would be equally applicable in all EU.

Jago Russell spoke about impact of an extradition refusal to Interpol notices - you will not get the red notice removed if the extradition was refused.

He explained that introducing information in the Interpol system is pretty easy, and getting information out is practically impossible. Also, negative decision (on removal of red notice) gets into the hands of issuing state, and might be then used against the client for extradition proceedings, thus engaging with Interpol is a dangerous encounter.  

Fourth panel

Fourth panel on the protection of EU Financial Interests of the EU and the role of EPPO was chaired by Amedeo Barletta, Vice Chair of the ECBA. The distinguished discussants in the panel were Maltese European Prosecutor Yvonne Farrugia, Olivia Ewenike, defence lawyer from Germany, and Mihai Morar, defence lawyer from Romania.

Amedeo Barletta raised important topics about the functioning of the European Public Prosecutors Office, getting the access to the files, determining applicable law, language of the proceedings.

Prosecutor Yvonne Farrugia spoke about the legal framework and operation of EPPO: this year EPPO received more than 4000 reports on criminal activity and started over 100 investigations. In her view, EPPO operates in a much faster manner than national prosecutors between Member States. EPPO uses case management system, cases are assigned randomly, assuring that the case would not be assigned to the prosecutor from the Member State, from which the request came. She expressed an opinion that prosecutors must respect the highest procedural standards, including those of the defence.

Olivia Ewenike presented the case she is currently working with. Although 70 mln Eur fiscal damage was supposedly done to the budget of another EU Member State, Germany took over the case despite the fact that its interest fell into only 0,22 % of total fiscal damage. She indicated the main procedural problems - absence of direct access to the Permanent Chamber of EPPO, no transparency regarding the composition of it, no direct response from Permanent Chamber (as only the European Delegated Prosecutor responds), no hearing on the decision of the Permanent Chamber, complete lack of transparency regarding decisions to initiate pre-trial investigation and allocation of competence.

Mihai Morar further elaborated on the procedural problems, he suggested that in order to allow Permanent Chamber to monitor and give instruction - they need to allow lawyers to communicate directly. The lawyers, being involved, could address the matter and present a different point of view, assisting the Permanent Chamber while making the decisions on the crossroads of the case. In his opinion, all this would not fix the structural problems of EPPO, but lawyers could provide feedback and information on various questions. 

Fifth panel

Miroslav Krutina, Vice Chair of the ECBA, moderated the fifth panel discussion on “Judicial Cooperation and Procedural Safeguards: The way ahead”, and as he put it - the list of problems never ends.

He was joined by Peter McNamee, Head of Public Affairs and Senior Legal Advisor from the CCBE, Prof Dr Holger Matt, former Chair of the ECBA and defence lawyer from Germany, Drs Ondrej Laciak, Chair of the Criminal Law Committee of the CCBE and defence lawyer from Slovakia, and Amedeo Barletta, Vice Chair of the ECBA, and defence lawyer from Italy.

Amedeo Barletta presented the current status of the initiative regarding conditions of detention (starting from the non-paper, the initiative is now close to status of recommendation, and from there it is even expected to achieve the status of directive).

Ondrej Laciak and Peter Mc Namee paid attention to the political activity, as media support is very important to politicians, spoke about aim and activities of CCBE: procedural safeguards (evaluation of current, looking at future), minimum rules for the mutual admissibility of evidence, pre-trial detention, transfer of proceedings, surveillance, artificial intelligence (as requiring extensive safeguards, electronic equality of arms), anti-money laundering, sanctions - and all this in the context of ongoing war in Europe.

Holger Matt focused his intervention on three messages: idea of roadmap agenda (as a step-by-step approach), legal privileges (professional and private, broad contempt throughout Europe, the necessity to create minimum standards) and state pressure on the lawyers (surveillance, seizure of confidential documents, contempt of our professional privileges). He finished his speech optimistically and assured that our efforts - even if they will give results in 5 or 15 years - will be successful.

Sixth panel

The last panel was focused on “What is the state of play of the EU-UK judicial cooperation?” 

Stefan Hyman, defence lawyer from United Kingdom, and Anna Oehmichen, defence lawyer from Germany, analysed the situation, and the panel was moderated by Jaime Campaner, ECBA Advisory Board member, defence attorney from Spain. Experts agreed that a new scenario opened new field of work to European lawyers, and complexity of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement significantly hindered prosecution work.

Anna Oemichen shared her point of view from the outside of UK perspective. In her words, pre-Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) situation saw how Charter of Fundamental Rights seized to be applicable, conditionality of the TCA aggravated its application and there was uncertainty on judicial bodies with jurisdiction over TCA. Post-TCA resulted in dropping in number of UK extradition requests and European extradition requests to UK, UK wants to give Government the power to override ECHR decisions, and Specialised Committee for Law Enforcement and Judicial Cooperation meets only once a year and seems to clog the proceedings significantly.

Stefan Hyman focused on the situation in the United Kingdom - UK was never the most enthusiastic Member State to implement European instruments, and after Brexit UK lost access to EU databases. While surrender from the UK largely goes as normal, surrender to the UK poses a big difference (due to nationality bar, lack of data on surrender refusals, difficulty of transfer of evidence from UK), after Brexit European Arrest Warrants are being treated just as any other Arrest Warrants. 

General Assembly

The Conference closed with the General Assembly of the ECBA UK, followed by the General Assembly of ECBA The Netherlands. After unanimous decisions, Vincent Asselineau, Chair of the ECBA, along with all the Members of the ECBA Executive Committee (Amedeo Barletta, Vânia Costa Ramos, Miroslav Krutina, Rebecca Niblock, Neil Swift and Hans van de Wal, and Dian Brouwer as new member Executive Committee of ECBA The Netherlands, in quality of Vice Treasurer) announced the relocation of ECBA from UK jurisdiction to the Netherlands.

It was also announced that our next Spring conference will take place in Warsaw on 5 and 6 May, with the support of the Warsaw Bar, whose Dean, Mikolaj Pietrzak, is a very appreciated ECBA member.

There was a look of joy on our President’s face as he welcomed a record number of delegates to the ECBA conference, which took place in Berlin over 1st and 2nd October 2021.

—-

The conference began with the first edition of the Scott Crosby Human Rights Award, named after a much loved and respected colleague and friend. Alexis Anagnostakis introduced the recipients of the award: Mikołaj Pietrzak, one of our Polish colleagues, and Judge Igor Tuleya, a Polish judge.

Judge Tuleya found himself an ‘enemy of the state’ for having allowed journalists into court during the trial of members of the ruling party, and for his investigations into the ruling party, becoming an icon of judicial resistance and defender of the Polish constitution. Regrettably, due to health reasons, Judge Tuleya was unable to attend to receive his award in person, and so his acceptance speech was read out by Polish lawyer Anna Demenko. The ECBA’s own Mikołaj Pietrzak was recognised for his steadfast defence of our democratic order and the rule of law, under the most challenging of circumstances.

As Alexis said, we did not honour them with the award, but they honoured us by receiving it. The inaugural award was presented to a standing ovation in the presence of Scott Crosby’s widow, daughter and son.

—-

Nicola Canestrini highlighted the plight of those practising and defending the rule of law in Afghanistan, under threat of torture, imprisonment, and death: not just for them but for their families as well. He called upon others to join the efforts of the Italian lawyers’ representative bodies to support the evacuation and relocation of lawyers facing the most terrible punishment for doing what the ECBA’s members do every day. In a recorded video interview, two Afghan lawyers, a criminal defence lawyer and his wife, a divorce lawyer, explained how the Taliban’s interpretation of Sharia law meant judges, prosecutors and defence lawyers were considered unnecessary. It was truly chilling.

—-

Dr Oliver Kipper welcomed our keynote speakers in his own inimitable style. He expressed the sentiments that many of us felt at catching up with old friends and meeting new friends at this ‘blockbuster’ conference.

Andres Ritter, the Deputy Chief European Prosecutor, introduced the role and function of the EPPO. Although only just over 100 days old, already some member states are advocating for increasing its competence beyond crimes against the EU financial interests and substantial VAT fraud. He emphasised that the EPPO strived for the highest possible procedural standards, including the rights of the defence.

He sought to dispel concerns expressed by many defence lawyers. He reassured us that forum shopping should not be a concern. There were stated criteria (albeit subject to interpretation) which EPPO prosecutors would follow. A later panel would deal with the challenge to EPPO procedural acts, but Mr Ritter outlined the relevant provisions of the EPPO Regulation.

In cross border investigations, cooperation between different European delegated prosecutors, coordinated by EPPO, was designed to be quick and streamlined: far quicker than mutual legal assistance. Mikołaj Pietrzak expressed his concern about the working arrangements that the EPPO would have with the competent authorities in non-participating states, such as Poland and Hungary.

On admissibility of cross border evidence, he confirmed that there is no question of harmonisation. The law of the member state of the handling European Designated Prosecutor applies. The question of how to deal with foreign evidence remains a matter for domestic courts. Laws vary significantly between member states. Transfers of jurisdiction to a European designated prosecutor in another state is possible, but not easy.

Margarete von Galen provided the defence perspective from the CCBE. She welcomed the transparency shown by the EPPO so far, in identifying the designated prosecutors and publishing working documents. However, the published working documents were disappointing. She lamented a wasted opportunity to establish minimum defence rights on a European level, or to provide for legal remedies to the defence on a European level.

She identified shortcomings on access to the case file (specifically the case file held by the EPPO, rather than held nationally); the right to be heard before decisions of the Permanent Chamber (allocation, reallocation, merging and splitting of cases); and the right to a speedy procedure i.e. a trial within a reasonable time. The only specific focus on the taking of timely steps is in the right to speedy translation.

Vânia Costa Ramos encouraged the EPPO to elaborate guidelines on access to the case file by defence lawyers. The ability to transfer cases between participating jurisdictions meant that defendants should have the same procedural rights, regardless of where the investigation was. In her view, a purposive interpretation of Article 9(2) of the Regulation permitted EPPO to provide common standards and best practice guidance. Respecting the rights of suspects will improve the operation of EPPO. She encouraged defence lawyers to bring challenges in the Court of Justice to provide clarity through judicial interpretation.

—-

Amedeo Barletta chaired a lively panel on Challenging EPPO Procedural Acts, with expert assistance from Dr Hans-Holger Herrnfeld a former federal prosecutor from Germany, Adrian Șandru from Romania and Elise Martin-Vignerte from Ireland.

Dr Herrnfeld outlined the provisions of the Regulation that provided for review of procedural acts by the domestic courts and CJEU. I would recommend you read his presentation for a comprehensive overview of the relevant provisions.

Adrian Șandru and Elise Martin-Vignerte identified instances where the hybrid nature of the EPPO, and its operation under the national laws of the participating states, created real and serious risks for defence rights. Amedeo and the panel encouraged members to take all available opportunities to bring cases before the CJEU to interpret the Regulation and obtain much needed judicial clarification.

—-

After lunch, Ondrej Laciak introduced the important work of the ECBA’s working groups, followed by a short presentation by a representative of each of the working groups.

Human Rights - Alex Tinsley

EAW - Rebecca Niblock

EPPO Working Group - Mihai Morar

EPPO Project - Elise Martin-Vignerte

Extradition Forum - Heiko Ahlbrecht and Hans van de Wal

ECBA Website - Gwen Jansen

EUropean LAWyers Training on EPPO - Panayiotis Constantinides

All committees encouraged the participation of new members as there is a lot of work to do! To do so, please contact the ECBA Secretariat.

—-

Stefanie Schott then chaired the first of two panels on the EPPO in Operation, entitled Exercise of Jurisdiction by the EPPO. In short, what falls within the competency of the EPPO and what falls within the competency of national authorities.

The panel consisted of Noémie Coutrot-Cieslinski, Josien Pauwelussen, José Eduardo Guerra and Gabriel Seixas.

EPPO is in a unique position receiving information from the EU’s institutions, national authorities and private parties. On receipt of information, it then considers the relevant criteria, including where the crime was committed. The European supervising prosecutor will allocate the case to a European designated prosecutor in the most relevant jurisdiction.

EPPO’s competencies are set out in the PIF Directive - fraud affecting the financial interests of the EU. It includes VAT fraud, but only if the participants are found in two or more member states and with a value of more than 10 million euros. For non-VAT offences, EPPO can only prosecute where the damage exceeds 10,000 euros or was otherwise very important for the EU.

EPPO is also competent to deal with money laundering based on predicate offences set out in the PIF Directive, as well as inextricably linked offences (such as forgery), to provide a full assessment of all the relevant circumstances.

It can prosecute conduct that took place outside member states, provided a member state would have jurisdiction over its citizens for that offence.

Josien Pauwelussen likened OLAFs cooperation with the EPPO to reinventing the wheel whilst driving. In some ways, the introduction of the EPPO has not changed their work. Perhaps 10% of its cases are dealt with under the criminal jurisdiction of EPPO, with the vast majority continuing as administrative / regulatory investigations, as before. The most obvious change is the fact that there are now 2 agencies investigating fraud against the financial interests of the EU. It is possible for EPPO and OLAF to run parallel investigations, albeit with different goals. There is a published working arrangement setting out how it works, with OLAF concentrating on financial recovery.

—-

Heiko Ahlbrecht chaired the final panel of the day, on the question of access to case files in EPPO cases, with Sebastian Trautmann and Emma Rizzato, respectively the European Delegated Prosecutors for Germany and Italy. Representing the defence view were our dear colleagues Holger Matt and Juan Palomino.

With 22 different national regimes, there are 22 different mechanisms for accessing the case file. Defence rights are governed by national law. This was a missed opportunity. The differences in national law can lead to difficulties. Holger Matt advocated for the guidelines to provide for early and comprehensive access to the case file to meet the highest european standards, including the provision of an effective remedy. There needs to be a common standard of what is included, for translations, for access, but most importantly there needs to be fruitful interaction.

In response, the EPPO representatives were clear that they cannot go against national law. They offered an overview of the provisions of the EPPO regulations that set up the main rules on the access to the case files, mentioning the use and the functionality of the Case Management System (CMS). Emma Rizzato also analysed the basket of the procedural rights protected by the regulation and the need for the States to implement the EU Directives on the matter.

—-

The final session of the day was the General Assembly. Roland Kier stepped down from the Executive board, and Dominika Stepinska-Duch and Jaanus Tehver stepped down from the Advisory Board.

Following a fully democratic process, the following appointments were made to the Executive Committee and Advisory Board:

Executive Committee:

Vincent Asselineau - Chair
Amedeo Barletta – Vice Chair
Vânia Costa Ramos – Vice Chair
Miroslav Krutina – Vice Chair
Rebecca Niblock – Vice Chair
Neil Swift – Treasurer
Hans van de Wal – Secretary

Advisory Board:

Heiko Ahlbrecht
Alexis Anagnostakis
Constance Ascione-Le Dréau
Jaime Campaner Muñoz
Artūras Gutauskas
Vladimir Hrle
Gwen Jansen
Oliver Kipper
Ondrej Laciak
Magdalena Makieła
Elise Martin-Vignerte
Carla Reyes
Rosa van Zijl

The final act of the conference was a celebration of the involvement of Marie-Anne Sarlet over the last 17 years.

Report by Neil Swift

CONFERENCE REPORT – Rome 2020

The effects of the Covid 19 crisis can be felt in all areas of life. In the sector of legally oriented conferences, these have thinned out considerably in view of the pandemic. Despite this fact and in order to set an example, the ECBA decided to have the autumn conference in Rome after the spring conference was cancelled.

And so the conference began on the evening of September 11th, 2020 in the historic ambience of Chiostro del Bramante with a reception, where Vincent Asselineau (Chair of the ECBA), Giandomenico Caiazza (Italian Defense Attorneys Association) and Antonino Galletti (President of the Roman Bar Association) made welcoming speeches.

After several opening addresses, Saturday, September 12th, 2020 was dedicated to honouring the recently deceased long time board member of the ECBA Scott Crosby for his tireless fight for the observance of human rights in Europe, not least of all he acted as the Human Rights Officer of the ECBA as a trial observer in numerous countries.

This was followed in the morning by a panel on the European Public Prosecutor's Office, which must be called the topic of the hour in European criminal law. Fabio Giuffrida (European Commission) introduced the topic and explained the structure of this newly created law enforcement agency as well as the existing legal protection instruments (Art 42 of the EPPO regulation). Ondrej Laciak (ECBA / CCBE) then went into detail on the rights of the accused (Art 42 of the EPPO Regulation) and the problems in defending such cases (such as access to the file). Lorenzo Salazar (Deputy Attorney General at the Naples Court of Appeal) was the next speaker to be involved in the development of the European Public Prosecutor for years and presented the political background and legislative development of the EPPO regulation and what practical problems it may pose in the future. Ultimately, this panel ended with the presentation by Andrea Venegoni (Court of Cassation, Rome), who was involved in the legislative process as a member of the EU Commission and OLAF at the time and who gave an overview of the offenses that are subject to prosecution by the European Public Prosecutor's Office.

This panel was followed by one on the use of video links in criminal proceedings, moderated by Amedeo Barletta (ECBA), who also introduced the topic. Vânia Costa Ramos (Vice-Chair of the ECBA) then explained the ECBA's position paper. This was followed by a lecture by Juan Palomino Segura, who addressed practical problems, but also some advantages of such methods. The innovatively designed lecture by Nicola Canestrini moved in the same direction. Ultimately, Constance Ascione le Dréau criticized the use of such technologies in the preliminary proceedings.

Alex Tinsley then gave a very interesting overview of the legal consequences of Brexit and explained the historical development of the UK's exit negotiations. Of course, the questions of extradition to and from the UK remained unanswered at the current time.

Ultimately, separate working groups were formed in the afternoon on the topics of ne bis in idem and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, criminal justice and the Covid-19 pandemic and the role of the ECBA in a network of defence lawyer organisations in Europe.

The event ended in a cosy atmosphere with a festive dinner.

The next ECBA Spring Conference 2021 will then take place in Riga.

Report by Roland Kier