In 1861, Mill wondered how to hold to account Parliament, which checks the Ministers’ actions, but whose own behaviour is subject to little control. A similar logic is inherent to another branch of government: the judiciary. Legislation usually sets up a system of remedies against wrongful decisions; however, what if the court of last instance disregarded the law?
The proper mechanism of EU law answering to this question is judicial liability as per the Köbler case. Alongside the actions in Articles 258-259 TFEU and other non-EU remedies, this latter judgment enforces the duty laid down in Art.267(3) TFEU. Pursuant to the abovementioned legal framework, a Member State must compensate the injury caused by a manifest breach of the acquis on the part of a court of last instance (see also the Hochtief Solutions case, para. 41-43).
In May 2025 a second edition of Regulation in Australia was published.
This book provides a comprehensive analysis of the nature of regulation, its origins and development in Australia, why governments regulate, how they regulate, and who regulates whom at the federal, state and local government levels. Management of the regulatory process, the principles of good regulation and ‘red tape’ in regulation are examined. The role of soft law, prescriptive, performance-based and principle-based regulation, as well as the use of rewards and incentives in regulation is also explored.
Due to the high influx of migrants to the European Union (EU), migration is a European challenge that requires a European solution. The EU legislator’s aim is to realize a comprehensive approach that aims at strengthening and integrating key EU policies on migration, asylum, border management and integration. With firm but fair rules, these policies are designed to manage and normalize migration for the long term, providing EU countries with the flexibility to address the specific challenges they face, and with the necessary safeguards to protect people in need. The national courts and the Court of Justice have the task to review whether these new rules are in line with EU law and the fundamental rights of the migrant in order to protect the rule of law.
Europe’s capacity for innovation has come under intense scrutiny in recent years, recently fueled by reports from Draghi and Letta that highlight a widening innovation gap between Europe, China, and the U.S. With escalating geopolitical tensions and the increasing urgency for Europe to maintain independent competitiveness in especially digital markets, the mission letters to incoming Commissioners underscore the vital role of disruptive innovation. These letters establish Europe’s competitiveness as intrinsically linked to its ability to prioritize groundbreaking innovations.
This post examines Case C-134/23, where the CJEU ruled that asylum claims cannot be deemed inadmissible if readmission to a safe third country is unfeasible. The decision represents progress in ensuring access to asylum procedures, but it highlights persistent flaws in the EU system of remedies.
The road to what might be called regulatory maturity is often a long one. In EU cybersecurity regulation, a culture of vertical and horizontal collaboration is optimistic but seemingly ineffective. It likely leaves the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) feeling somewhat envious of the centralised enforcement powers recently vested in the Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA). How feasible would it be for ENISA to follow in AMLA’s footsteps? This blog post examines whether there is regulatory space, or even a solid legal basis for such an evolution. Due to the differing contexts of financial crime prevention and cybersecurity, the limits of an analogy between the trajectories of the two agencies will become clear.
The Cybersecurity Act granted ENISA a permanent mandate along with increased responsibilities, transforming it from a “Cinderella” agency into a key cybersecurity entity in the EU. ENISA aims to achieve a high common level of cybersecurity across the Union. Its main tasks include:
Supporting EU legislation implementation and the development of EU-wide cybersecurity standards
Enhancing operational cooperation and coordination among Member States, Union institutions and private sector actors
Managing cybersecurity certification schemes to increase trust in information and communication technology (ICT)
Photo credits: ENISA website
The Emergence of AMLA
The evolution of the EU’s anti-money laundering framework has seen notable advancements, starting from the initial anti-money laundering Directive (AMLD1) in 1990 to the latest updates with AMLD6, Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (AMLR), and Anti-Money Laundering Authority Regulation (AMLAR). This development signifies an expanding regulatory focus that originally targeted drug trafficking in the 1990s, evolving into a robust framework that addresses intricate financial crimes like cyber-enabled money laundering. A significant shift occurred with AMLD3, which embraced risk-based approaches for customer due diligence (CDD). The enactment of AMLD4 improved transparency by creating mandatory central registers for beneficial ownership information, a refinement further augmented by AMLD5 (2018), which required public accessibility. The recent introductions of AMLR, AMLAR, and AMLD6 establish centralised oversight while adapting to technological advancements by creating a unified supervisory body across the EU, effectively standardising anti-money laundering initiatives among member states and confronting new technological hurdles. This evolution exemplifies direct enforcement and is a new form of functional spillover that arises from internal pressure and functional necessity, rather than from external crises. This indicates that achieving the established policy goals necessitates the expansion and uniform application of EU law. Below, we delve into why and how direct enforcement is essential for ENISA to attain a high common level of cybersecurity throughout the EU.
Why should ENISA follow the same trajectory as AMLA?
However, this might be an impossible mission or one that lies in the fairly distant future… Direct enforcement for the wandering ENISA faces a steep climb, blocked by the EU’s limited competences in security matters, an area still fiercely guarded by the Member States.
How this trajectory can be beneficial
As referred to above, the sole competence of Member States in matters of public and national security (recognised under Article 4(2) TEU) currently limits ENISA’s ability to gain direct enforcement powers; there is, however, precedent for derogation from the national security exemption, as can be observed in the Privacy International case (paragraph 44) in relation to the e-privacy Directive.
For now though, we must not jump ahead but instead envisage some preliminary steps that may take ENISA some distance down AMLA’s beaten path. A prerequisite of any centralisation is an unequivocal delineation of the agency’s role in a crowded regulatory environment. The elaboration of the EU cybersecurity landscape in recent years has led to a blurring of the lines between the competences of the entities involved, particularly with the emergence of several networks and centres at the EU level aiming to prepare for, respond to, or analyse cybersecurity threats and incidents. Although the notion of collaboration seems to be favoured in EU cybersecurity policy, the lack of exclusive specialisation on ENISA’s part would undermine any future enforcement remit for the agency. Thus, policymakers should pinpoint the tasks and responsibilities the execution of which would allow ENISA to contribute most optimally to the improvement of EU cybersecurity. This prioritisation of tasks would enable ENISA to enhance its operational efficiency, and ultimately its reputation, potentially paving the way for a transition to a more substantively empowered role.
ENISA
AMLA
Legal basis
Cybersecurity Act (2019) & NIS2 Directive
AML/CFT Regulation (2024) & AMLD6
Enforcement powers
No direct enforcement (supports national authorities)
Still Relevant After 50 Years: A Reality Check for Cedefop
Cedefop turns 50!
Source: Pinterest
In a world where labour markets are evolving rapidly, driven by digital transitions, demographic shifts, and green ambitions, it is vital that EU education and skills development is set up for success. Marking its 50th anniversary in 2025, the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) has been a cornerstone of EU cooperation in education and skills development. Some critics might question the effectiveness of Cedefop, pointing to its lack of enforcement powers as a barrier to achieving its goals. But when one looks at these goals, the role of Cedefop remains relevant and important in achieving the mission to enhance cooperation and knowledge-sharing among Member States in the field of vocational education and training (VET).
Is ‘soft power’ enough to shape the future of work?
Cedefop’s mandate is broad, and it relies solely on soft powers to achieve this. The term ‘soft power’ usually describes an ability to influence others through shared values, consensus, and cooperation, rather than through legislation or formal authority.
Source: Cedefop website
In practice, Cedefop has focused on two main goals: enhancing transparency in qualifications and facilitating transferability of learning outcomes across Member States. These goals support freedom of movement for learners and workers, so that credentials in one country are understood and accepted in another. This naturally raises the question about whether Cedefop has effectively fulfilled these goals.
When outcomes are seen as beneficial, rather than being forced, there is generally less pushback from governments and other actors. For many EU countries, vocational education and training has a direct influence on efforts to reduce unemployment, especially for people who may lack skills relevant to changing labour markets.
The skills puzzle: solving labour gaps through EU cooperation
Zooming into cooperation, there is still room for improvement. Cedefop’s effectiveness in VET partly depends on how closely it works with Member States, social partners, the European Commission, and the European Parliament. By gathering data and sharing knowledge, Cedefop encourages different national and EU-level actors to align strategies in addressing skills mismatches.
During the European Year of Skills 2023, particular emphasis was placed on upskilling and reskilling, lifelong learning, and fostering both innovation and competitiveness. These aims also support people and businesses in meeting green and digital objectives. Recognising the importance of collective efforts, and in celebrating 50 years of activity, Cedefop joined the Eurofound, the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), the European Training Foundation (ETF) and the European Labour Authority (ELA), in hosting a major event. This gathering highlighted how the five agencies contribute to enhancing skills development.
In discussions with the Parliament and Commission, Cedefop presented its latest report: Skills in transition – the way to 2035. The report’s key message was that Europe is facing urgent labour shortages, especially in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) and IT fields. Green and digital transitions are rapidly reshaping Europe’s labour market. To remain competitive and resilient, Europe needs well-targeted policy decisions and a fresh approach to skill-building.
Navigating duplication risks and collaborative leadership
Questions arise about overlapping responsibilities between EU agencies. Cedefop, Eurofound, and EU-OSHA share certain priorities, including improving working conditions and aligning skills with the needs of evolving economies. Nevertheless, Cedefop’s soft-power strategies continue to offer added value. It promotes collaboration by disseminating research, guiding Member States on reskilling, and working closely with other agencies to produce policy recommendations that address real-world challenges. Together, they act as “political entrepreneurs,” pushing Europe’s skills agenda forward.
Still, as Cedefop cannot compel countries to adopt its insights, progress depends on politicians and policymakers embracing them. This reality often leads to uneven outcomes; some countries quickly integrate Cedefop’s recommendations, while others may hold back. Another common concern is “duplication risk,” where different agencies might be seen as doing the same work. Cedefop’s defenders point out that each EU agency has a specific focus: Cedefop zeroes in on vocational training, Eurofound studies broader social and work conditions, and EU-OSHA looks at safety and health. Where their work converges, they aim to coordinate rather than compete.
Inconsistent Adoption of Cedefop’s Recommendations Across EU Member States
Cedefop has made recommendations for improving access to skills development and adult learning, particularly for marginalised groups. One approach Cedefop endorses is the use of financial assistance for vulnerable learners. However, the adoption of these recommendations has been far from uniform across EU Member States, with progress varying widely.
For example, Germany offers support through the National Skills Strategy for low-qualified adults who may otherwise struggle, and France has a similar program, Compte Personnel de Formation, allowing individuals, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to access training. Both initiatives align with Cedefop’s goals at making upskilling more accessible.
In contrast, Bulgaria remains in the early stages of reforming their VET system. Although there are positive indications, reforming VET can take time as it often faces challenges like legislative changes and budgetary allocations which slow the pace of progress. Romania records one of the lowest levels of adult learning participation in the EU, raising concerns about whether people there can adapt to ongoing economic and technological changes.
These discrepancies highlight the need for a more consistent approach to improving skills development across Europe. However, they also indicate that responsibility does not rest with Cedefop. Given the number of EU citizens who agree that VET plays an important role in reducing unemployment, it should be clear there is incentive to work with Cedefop in improving VET.
Shaping the future
Cedefop’s impact is greatest when stakeholders recognise the tangible benefits and engage with Cedefop’s contributions to VET development. By continuing to promote advancements to VET systems, Cedefop reinforces its central role in building a competitive, forward-looking EU workforce. These efforts show that lacking enforcement powers does not necessarily limit an agency’s ability to make a difference.
Even if Cedefop’s goals remain aspirational, its contributions to policy debates and collaborative initiatives show that progress is possible despite the constraints of soft power. With half a century of experience rooted in research, collaboration, and policy, Cedefop remains committed to making VET and skills development accessible to everyone, always keeping a future-oriented perspective.
In the end, the lack of direct enforcement powers reflects the EU’s decision to preserve Member State sovereignty over education. As labour markets continue to evolve, vocational education will likewise transform, and a central EU-level body devoted to coordinating these changes seems likely to remain important. It is still an open question whether exclusive reliance on soft powers is the most effective long-term strategy for shaping vocational education, training, and skills policies, but the work of Cedefop over the past 50 years provides plenty of evidence that such an approach can achieve significant results.
“Eco-friendly”.“Sustainable”.“Natural” These words are everywhere— on packaging, websites, and ad-campaigns. But are they always representing the truth? Being an environmentally friendly business is increasingly popular, but not every company does what it claims to do. In fact, many companies use misleading green claims, just to appear sustainable when in reality they are not. This act of pretending is what we call greenwashing. It threatens real progress on climate goals. In this post, we break down what greenwashing is, its impact, how to recognize it, and an example of how the EU is ‘fighting back’.
It is a practice of making misleading and false claims, convincing the public to think that the company is contributing to the protection and preservation of the environment.
But it’s not just about outright lies — it can also involve greenhushing, or the omission of relevant environmental harms while promoting minor or unrelated “green” efforts.
“In 2021, 42% of the online claims from various businesses were exaggerated, false or deceptive” according to a screening conducted by the European Union and National Consumer Authorities.
Greenwashing can take many different forms, but it usually happens when a company seeks to promote its products or services. Businesses use misleading labels, or unclear language, such as calling their product “eco-friendly” without explaining what it actually means. Some produce false data to improve their image, or selectively highlight one “green” effort to look good, while hiding their other practices that are harmful to the environment. Others rely on misleading visuals and graphics, such as using pictures of nature or overusing the color green.
Our Role in the Green Fight: A practical Guide
Source: The Choice
So how can you, as a consumer, spot greenwashing? Here is a breakdown of some tips that may be useful:
1. Start by checking for reliable third-party certifications, such as the EU Ecolabel. Be cautious of fake or self-invented eco-labels, which companies may use to simulate credibility. For example, in the “Six Sins of Greenwashing” report TerraChoice, 2007 highlights common deceptive tactics, including “the sin of the imaginary friend”, using fake third-party endorsements.
3. Look beyond attractive slogans and carefully evaluate transparency
Real sustainability means companies provide thorough and detailed information about their overall environmental impact—not just selectively highlighting one minor positive action. Furthermore, truly sustainable businesses back up their environmental claims with solid evidence and detailed reports. Information about emissions or resource usage should be easily accessible and clearly documented. But this isn’t mandatory yet. Full supply chain disclosure is not required until the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) comes into force. Finally, remember that visuals can also be deceptive. Overusing green colors or nature-themed imagery might make products appear more sustainable than they actually are. Such tactics are common strategies used to distract consumers from examining the company’s true environmental impact.
Greenwashing isn’t just bad PR—it’s bad for markets. Investors may want their money to align with their environmental values. But when companies falsely market their goods or operations as “green”, trust disappears. This creates uncertainty, discourages sustainable investing, and destabilizes financial markets. As a result, capital may flow to undeserving companies, while those that are truly working towards sustainability struggle to compete. In the long run, this risks destabilising efforts to fund the green transition – an effort that relies not only on central banks, but also on public investment, private capital markets, and citizen engagement. According to European Commission estimates, achieving the EU’s 2030 climate and energy targets will require additional annual investments of approximately €620 billion, mobilised through a combination of national budgets, EU funding instruments (such as InvestEU and the Innovation Fund), and private financing.
From Claims to Consequences: The EU’s Legal Response to Greenwashing
Source: Didier Reynders, and Virginijus Sinkevicius, European Commissioners, on measures against misleading environmental claims and on the right to repair. [European Union, 2023 Copyright Source: EC – Audiovisual Service]
However, even more ambitious is the Green Claims Directive which goes a step further by introducing detailed requirements for the substantiation and verification of voluntary environmental claims. Under this proposal, companies will be required to carry out scientific assessments and undergo third-party verification before making environmental claims about their products or services.
…So, the next time you see a product labeled “green,” ask yourself: is it really? Together, through awareness and accountability, both policy and public pressure can turn the tide against greenwashing – for good.
Balancing Security Requirements and Fundamental Rights Protection
By Rebekah, Miruna, Mihai and Vesa
The EU Commission’s 2023 proposal to increase Europol’s authority, especially concerning the systematic processing of biometric data, aims to improve security regarding serious crimes. However, it also raises serious legal concerns for individuals. This blog post critically explores the tension that biometric data poses between increasing surveillance power and fundamental rights under the Charter, which questions: Can this expansion of enforcement powers be justified under the principles of necessity and proportionality, or does it risk going too far?
Source: Wired
The Commission proposed a complementary Regulation for Europol regarding migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings. The proposal aims to improve the coordination between Europol and the Member States regarding sharing information. This entails Member States providing Europol with citizens’ data to effectively address crimes.
But what kind of data does an agency such as Europol need to process? Europol processes biometric data. The EU has defined biometric data as personal information that can be attributed to unique human physical characteristics, such as facial features and fingerprints. Biometric data has been used by law enforcement authorities in the EU through technological advancements to surveil citizens in public spaces. Citizens have raised concerns that the EU provides law enforcement authorities with the right to interfere with citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms.
Source: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
How does Europol’s processing of biometric data place it at the center of fundamental rights concerns?
When Europol becomes involved with biometric data, it is concerned about being thrown into the deep end of some of the EU’s most sensitive fundamental rights. Article 7 of the Charter protects our private and family life, while Article 8 gives us a fundamental right to personal data protection. These two fundamental rights are shaped by how the EU needs to handle individuals’ privacy and data protection in practice. Europol is not subject to different rules and must also respect them.
Biometric data became significant with the establishment of the GDPR and the Law Enforcement Directive. This is because biometric data falls under a “special category” of data due to its sensitivity, which means it cannot be handled lightly. Europol can only process this type of data when it is necessary for law enforcement, like preventing or solving serious crimes, and even then, only with solid legal safeguards as outlined by the respective regulations.
Source: Shutterstock
Over the years, the Court has made it clear that interfering with fundamental rights is only allowed if it is in accordance with the principles of necessity and proportionality. That means that Europol needs to provide justification for why biometric data is truly essential for carrying out their work and ensure they are not over-collecting or casting too wide a net.
Because without tight rules and accountability, data processing can start to look a lot like surveillance. And that is especially concerning when the individuals being monitored are not even suspects, just non-suspect individuals who might get caught in the digital sweep.
Enhancing security but challenging privacy?
Proponents argue that allowing Europol to process biometric data is crucial in modernising law enforcement and bolstering our security. They claim that by tapping into advanced technologies, such as AI-powered facial recognition systems and machine learning algorithms, Europol can quickly identify and track criminal networks involved in migrant smuggling and human trafficking. This, they argue, helps prevent crimes before they escalate. For everyday citizens, this might mean faster responses during emergencies and more efficient coordination between national police forces across the EU; at the same time, it also raises legitimate concerns regarding individual privacy and data protection.
Source: Biometric Update
This approach is similar to the rationale behind the landmark ruling, where the Court underscored the need for a careful balance between state security and individual rights. While that case focused on mass data retention, it highlights the broader principle that privacy interference must be necessary and proportionate.
However, without mandatory measures like independent oversight by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), robust data retention rules, and enforceable accountability mechanisms, the 2023 proposal risks creating a surveillance apparatus that goes far beyond its intended scope.
How can Europol balance security requirements with fundamental rights, then?
In contrast to the previous framework, the proposal mandates that Member States consistently provide Europol with biometric data, with no clear limitations on volume, purpose or retention.
The EDPS has raised concerns, stressing that mass collecting of biometric data such as fingerprints or facial scans without proper safeguards and guidelines could interfere with fundamental rights under the Charter. Such concerns have also been raised by citizens as, according to a survey conducted by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, only 17% of Europeans are willing to provide their facial photographs to public authorities for identification purposes. The findings also reveal significant differences among the Member States in countries such as Germany and Austria, who show greater resistance to the sharing and processing their biometric data, while others, such as Portugal and Spain, show a more open approach. Additionally, the Biometrics Institute’s 2023 Industry Survey found that 54% of participants consider privacy and data protection significant challenges when developing biometric technologies.
As Europol’s powers expand, how do we protect our fundamental rights?
Source: AML Intelligence
A path forward should come with precise safeguards, not shortcuts. In balancing Europol’s powers on processing large sensitive data such as biometric data with fundamental rights, it is necessary to amend the Europol Regulation by adding more explicit criteria on how biometric data is collected, stored and used. Furthermore, provisions guaranteeing more transparency to avoid misuse of such data or profiling individuals with no criminal links. Lastly, carrying out an independent fundamental rights impact assessment before adopting new powers defines when biometric data can be used and how long it should be strictly limited to migrant smuggling and human trafficking.
Hence, with clearly defined safeguards in place, the EU and law enforcement agencies, such as Europol, could strike a balance between technological developments and the protection of fundamental rights.
Figure: AMLA’s new headquarter will be in Frankfurt (Image: AMLA Official Website)
Money laundering is a global crime that undermines economies and causes corruption, crime and terrorism. The European Union (EU) has long implemented international standards and legislative frameworks to combat money laundering and terrorist financing within its territory. However, the scandals highlight that the legislative frameworks without the right enforcement cannot overcome the problem. This blog post shows why the enforcement model should align in terms of the anti-money laundering (AML) industry and whether the creation of the new Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) can better enhance this mission.
Spotlighted dilemma and its extended approach
Money laundering is the process of hiding funds from illegal activities because criminals want their money to look clean. This is generally divided into three steps. First, criminals put the illicit gains into the financial system. Then, they move money around to hide its origin. Finally, they bring the money back as if it had been earned legitimately. Money laundering is very threatening, which helps to support crimes such as terrorism, fraud, and corruption, and reduces people’s trust in banks and financial systems.
Over the past decade, many money laundering scandals have occurred in the EU. In 2018, Denmark’s largest bank- Danske Bank, was involved in a huge money laundering case in which $236 billion was laundered through its Estonian branch. Lately, Rabobank is about to face prosecution because it failed to prevent money laundering. From the Danske Bank scandal to the recent Rabobank case, there are not isolated failures but symptoms of weaknesses in the EU’s decentralized AML enforcement structure.
Now, the EU has decided to fight back with a new EU agency- AMLA (the proposal was tabled in 2021, and the regulation was adopted in 2024). Through EU-level supervision, AMLA will support national supervisors and financial intelligence units (FIUs), and enhance cooperation and coordination among member states. But there is another question: Does this new EU agency fit the industry it supervises?
National enforcement wasn’t enough
The current AML mechanism is based on national authorities, with European Banking Authority (EBA) advice and policy-setting. Financial intelligence units (FIU) collect unusual transactions from entities with an obligation to report, analyse them and share them with law enforcement and security agencies as necessary, and exchange information with FIUs worldwide. The concern is that the ‘insufficient detection of suspicious transactions and activities by FIUs, particularly in cross-border cases, limits their capacity to suspend transactions and to disseminate relevant information to competent authorities’. Due to a lack of coordination and information sharing among FIUs, cross-border suspicious transactions are often not identified and responded to in a timely manner’.
For instance, in the Netherlands, Dutch banks are required to report unusual transactions to the FIU-Nederland. DNB supervises the effective fulfilment of the banks’ compliance obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Act (Wwft) and the enforcement of sanctions. In 2024, the recent Dutch AML cases, including Volksbank and Rabobank, indicate weaknesses in national enforcement, like a dysfunctional system that generates alerts about customers and their transactions and inadequate action following an alert.
Besides, ‘the application of AML/CFT rules across EU is both ineffective and insufficient’ is hard to ignore according to the impact assessment. There are differences in the formulation and enforcement of AML regulations among member states, leading to unclear rules and inconsistent standards, which affects the uniformity and effectiveness of the entire framework. Besides, the inconsistency of regulatory resources and methods across countries has left some industries and subjects in the regulatory blind spot for a long time, especially in the non-financial sector.
Europe’s new watchdog: AMLA
As one manifestation of the AML’s enforcement model transferring from prominently relying on member states’ authorities to the institution at the EU level, AMLA is further empowered to deal with challenges such as the lack of effectiveness and insufficiencies of the contemporary AML framework.
As an integrated system composed of itself and national authorities, AMLA is entrusted with more direct and indirect supervision powers compared to the more advisory or policy-making role assumed by EBA. For instance, in terms of governing selected obliged entities in the financial sector, national supervisors participate in selecting, listing, and reviewing the entities by the joint supervisory teams in charge of AMLA. Meanwhile, AMLA can exercise direct supervision, such as by adopting binding decisions and especially pecuniary administrative sanctions. In terms of governing non-selected obliged entities, while AMLA enforcement power relies on member states, in which national supervisors retain full responsibility and accountability for direct supervision, AMLA actively coordinates national authorities to help them increase their enforcement effectiveness. With these powers entrusted, AMLA is expected to enhance AML enforcement through the centralization of certain tasks, responsibilities and powers within such a central authority. Nevertheless, diversity and disparity in AML enforcement among member states still have chances to occur.
Figure: Evolving AML supervision in the EU (Image: AI-generated)
The Industry Matters: AMLA ensures the security of the industry and consumers
Money laundering is not just a local issue; it is international. The threat of money laundering and financial crime is cross-border and involves high risk. Because of these characteristics of money laundering, prevention needs to be a priority before non-compliance occurs. If it is detected, authorities need to move faster and take effective action.
However, there has to be the right enforcement mechanism to prevent it. Because good laws can only be better implemented with the right hands. If the regulated industry is highly concentrated and international, as previously pointed out with the recent scandals, national authorities may fail to implement such successful rules. Unmatching the enforcement model with the regulated industry can create problems not just for the market actors but also for the safety and trust of EU citizens.
To illustrate this challenge, consider the analogy of housing design. Imagine living in a detached house with a concrete exterior and buying quality paint perfect for your walls. It might be the ideal solution for your home alone, but what if it is part of a larger complex? Suddenly, it might not fit in with everything else. The best results will not come from acting alone but from a shared decision to harmonize the whole complex. It is the same with anti-money laundering enforcement; it cannot be expected to work effectively if each Member State paints its own house, because the regulated AML industry is not a house but an integrated complex.AMLA is a new EU agency that ensures that Member States are on the same page when it comes to supervising money laundering. Its centralized powers and EU-wide reach aim to sustain a better and risk-free industry in the future.
Figure: AMLA as an EU agency fits the regulated industry’s characteristics (Image: AI-generated)
The EU is moving AML enforcement to Brussels by establishing a centralized enforcement model: AMLA. With AMLA stepping into the role of Europe’s central watchdog, the EU is aligning its enforcement with the regulated industry characteristics. The next challenge will be ensuring AMLA’s effectiveness and adaptability in a fast-evolving risk landscape.
ENISA – 
During the 
www.wordsandquotes.com
