Fair Trial Rights and the European Community's Fight Against Fraud

The article surveys action taken by the European Community to combat fraud affecting its financial interests, focusing on the development of investigative authority granted to OLAF, the European‘Office Pour La Lutte Anti Fraude’ and its impact on the procedural rights of the alleged defrauder. It shows that the involvement of OLAF can be crucial for a national fraud investigation and subsequent criminal prosecution and that it meets the criteria set out by the Strasbourg organs for the applicability of Article 6 ECH. The article explores whether the legal sources governing the activities of OLAF or national—or rather, Community—law guarantee sufficient protection for the alleged defrauder and thus pay respect to principles arising from the rule of law in law enforcement. It is shown that general principles of Community law, which were mostly established in antitrust law, may provide a certain protection for the suspect, but may not protect him in all regards. It is thus argued that, in the long run, it will be necessary to provide special fair‐trial rights which offer protection to alleged defrauders from those infringements arising out of the specific features of a Community investigation.     

'Good Faith' in the WTO Jurisprudence - Necessary Balancing Element or an Open Door to Judicial Activism?

The purpose of the article is two-fold: first, it seeks to clarifyand structure those contexts in which the principle of goodfaith has entered the WTO jurisprudence; and second, it presentsan analysis of the potential effects and risks accompanyingthis entrance, such as the allegation of judicial activism onthe part of the panels or the Appellate Body and the viabilityof a distinction between violation and non-violation cases.It attempts to define the framework within which a suitableconcept for the application of good faith must be found andexplores the conclusion that thus far the Appellate Body hasapplied good faith with the necessary caution. However, it cautionsthe necessity of avoiding an overbroad use of the concept andmandates the requirement for the judicial bodies to articulatemore clearly the content attributed to the concept in a particularcase and the legal consequences thereof than it has done thusfar. Finally this article urges the judicial bodies to avoidthe idea of an abstract obligation of good faith that adds somethingto the obligation under the WTO Agreements. This would accordwith the traditional international law understanding of whatthe application of the good faith principle implies.