Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:57:12.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Principles Drive (or Should Drive) European Criminal Law?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Ester Herlin-Karnell

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty has changed the framework and possibilities of the development of European Union (EU) criminal law. Gone is the long-lived and awkward cross-pillar character of EU criminal law, as mainly a third pillar EU ‘intergovernmental’ issue but also partly a first (EC) pillar question. The Lisbon Treaty marks a new era for the criminal law as it brings it within the core of the EU law project. Nevertheless, Article 10 of the transitional protocol as attached to the Lisbon Treaty stipulates a five-year transition period before former third pillar instruments will be treated in the same way as EU acts. This paper will focus on two issues in particular. The first question that will be addressed concerns what EU law principles drive or decide the EU's involvement in criminal law. After having identified these principles the second question is whether they should drive it and if so what implications will it have for the criminal law in the future.

Type
Articles
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 11 , Issue 10 , October 2010 , pp. 1115 - 1130
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Treaty of Lisbon, Dec. 13, 2007, 2007 O.J. (C 306) (amending the Treaty on European Union and establishing the European Community) [hereinafter Lisbon Treaty]. Google Scholar

2 E.g. Naguel Neagu, Entrapment between Two Pillars: The European Court of Justice Rulings in Criminal Law, 15 Eur. L. J. 536 (2009).Google Scholar

3 Protocol on Transitional Provisions Attached to the Lisbon Treaty, art. 9–10.Google Scholar

4 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvE 02/08, June 30, 2009, http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208en.html. See 10 Germ. L.J. 1169, 1169–1354 (2009), at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=2&vol=10&no=8.Google Scholar

5 However, it also further ‘intergovernmentalized’ the criminal law when it moved the former third pillar area of immigration and asylum and civil law to the first pillar sphere.Google Scholar

6 See European Council Tampere 1999; The Hague Programme: Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the EU, 2005 OJ (C 53/1).Google Scholar

7 See Mitsilegas, Valsamis, EU Criminal Law (2009); Steve Peers, EU Justice and Home Affairs (2006). See also Case C-120/78, Cassis de Dijon, 1979 E.C.R. 649.Google Scholar

8 See Note, Council, The Stockholm Programme (2009) at http://www.se2009.eu/polopoly_fs/1.26419!menu/standard/file/Klar_Stockholmsprogram.pdf.Google Scholar

9 The Court of Justice was largely excluded from this prior to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Article 35 TEU (which is now abolished) was based on a voluntary declaration by the Member States to confer such jurisdiction in the former third pillar.Google Scholar

10 If such an emergency brake scenario occurs, a Member State may request that the measure be referred to the European Council. In that case, the ordinary legislative procedure is suspended, and after discussion and “… in case of a consensus, the European Council shall, within four months of this suspension, refer the draft back to the Council, which shall terminate the suspension of the ordinary legislative procedure. …”Google Scholar

11 Ester Herlin-Karnell, The Lisbon Treaty and the Criminal Law: Anything New Under the Sun, 10 Eur. J. L. Reform 321 (2008).Google Scholar

12 See Case C-123/08, Wolzenburg (2009) (not yet reported).Google Scholar

13 See 2002 O.J. (L 190/1) (on the EAW).Google Scholar

14 E.g. Andrew Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law (2006).Google Scholar

15 E.g. Armin von Bogdandy, Founding Principles, in Principles of European Constitutional Law 11 (Armin Von Bogdandy & Jorgen Bast eds., 2010).Google Scholar

16 See Opinion 2/94, Accession to the ECHR, 1996 E.C.R. 1-1759; Case C-376/98, Germany v. Parliament and Council, 2000 E.C.R. 1-8419 (the classic cases on limits to broad use of EU powers). On competences in general see, e.g., Stephen Weatherill, Competence and Legitimacy, in The Outer Limits of EU Law 1 (Catherine Barnard & Okede Odudo eds., 2009); Derek Wyatt, Community Competence to Regulate the Internal Market, Oxford Legal Working Paper, No 9/2007 (2007) at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=997863; Paul Craig, The Lisbon Treaty, Process, Architecture and Substance, 33 Eur. L. Rev. 137 (2008); Theodore Konstandinides, Division of Powers in EU Law (2009).Google Scholar

17 Stephen Weatherill, Conference Presentation at Utrecht, Legality and Concealed Mechanisms Behind the Extension of EU Powers (2009) (on file with the author).Google Scholar

18 Takis Tridimas, The General Principles of EU Law 242 (2006).Google Scholar

19 Case C-63/83, Kent Kirk, 1984 E.C.R. 2689.Google Scholar

20 See, e.g., Kokkinakis v. Greece, No. 260-A Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A), (1993); Cantoni v. France, Eur. Ct. H.R., Reports 1996-V; compare Case C-74/95 & Case C-129/95, Criminal Proceedings Against X 1996 E.C.R. I-6609; Case C-354/95, National Farmer's Union, 1997 E.C.R. I-4559.Google Scholar

21 See Frande, Dan, Den straffrattsliga legalitetsprincipen (1989) (explaining legality).Google Scholar

22 See also International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), art. 15 (Dec. 16, 1966). E.g. Ester Herlin-Karnell, Recent Developments in the Area of European Criminal Law, 14 Maastricht J. Eur. & Comp. L. 15 (2007).Google Scholar

23 Case C-176/03 Commission v. Council, [2005] ECR I-7879.Google Scholar

24 M. Accetto & S. Zleptnig, The Principle of Effectiveness: Rethinking its Role in Community Law, 11 Eur. Pub. L. 375 (2005).Google Scholar

25 John Temple Lang, The Developments of the Court of Justice on the Duties of Cooperation of National Authorities and Community Institutions Under Article 10 EC, 31 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1483 (2008); Eleftheria Neframi, The Duty of Loyalty: Rethinking its Scope Through its Application in the Field of EU External Relations, 47 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 323 (2010).Google Scholar

26 E.g. C-106/89, Marleasing, 1990 E.C.R. I-4135.Google Scholar

27 E.g. Malcom Ross, Effectiveness in the European legal Order(s): Beyond Supremacy to Constitutional Proportionality, 31 Eur. L. Rev. 476 (2006).Google Scholar

28 Case C-176/03, Comm'n v. Council, 2005 E.C.R. I-7879. See also Case C-440/05, Comm'n v Council, 2007 E.C.R. I-9097.Google Scholar

29 See Ester Herlin-Karnell, Commission v. Council: Some Reflection on Criminal Law in the First Pillar, 13 Eur. Pub. L. 69 (2007) (provides a more detailed account with more references).Google Scholar

30 See, e.g., Jonathan Schonsheck, On Criminalisation (1994).Google Scholar

31 See id. Google Scholar

32 See Chalmers, James & Leverick, Fiona, Fair Labelling in Criminal Law, 71 Modern Law Review 217(2008).Google Scholar

33 See Husak, Douglas, Applying Ultima Ratio: A Skeptical Assessment, 2 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 535 (2005).Google Scholar

34 See Case C-440/05, Commission v. Council, Opinion of AG Mazak (2007) (a more nuanced approach).Google Scholar

35 See Davies, Gareth, Subsidiarity: The Wrong Idea, in the Wrong Place, at the Wrong Time, 43 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 63 (2006).Google Scholar

36 See Weatherill, Stephen, Competence and Legitimacy, in The Outer Limits of European Law 1 (C. Barnard & O. Odudo eds., 2009).Google Scholar

37 See Opinion of AG Mazak in C-440/05, (June 28, 2007) (explaining that the classic liberal tradition the subsidiarity principle indicates that a minimal sanction is at the same time optimal). Ester Herlin-Karnell, Subsidiarity in the Area of EU Justice and Home Affairs – A Lost Cause? 15 Eur. L. J. 351 (2009) (explaining subsidiarity in EU criminal law). See Linda Gröning, EU staten och rätten att straffa (2008) (providing an interesting study on criminal law theory and tensions with EU integration).Google Scholar

38 See Jareborg, Nils, Criminalization as Last Resort (Ultima Ratio), 2 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 531 (2005).Google Scholar

39 See generally, Andrew Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law (2006).Google Scholar

40 See id. Google Scholar

41 See Treaty, Lisbon, Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality and the Protocol on the Role of the National Parliaments, Annex (2009).Google Scholar

42 Lisbon Treaty, Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality, Annex, art. 2 (2009).Google Scholar

43 Jareborg, supra note 38.Google Scholar

44 See Commission Communication: Delivering an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice for Europe's Citizens, at 5 COM (2010) 171.Google Scholar

45 See, e.g., Paul Craig, EU Administrative Law (2006); Takis Tridimas, The General Principles of EU Law 139 (2006) (providing a more detailed account).Google Scholar

46 Gareth Davies, Subsidiarity: The Wrong Idea, in the Wrong Place, at the Wrong Time, 43 Common Mkt L. Rev. 63 (2006).Google Scholar

47 Matthias Kumm, Constitutionalising Subsidiarity in Integrated Markets: The Case of Tobacco Regulation, 12 Eur. L. J. 503 (2006).Google Scholar

48 See Timermanns, Christian, Subsidiarity and Transparency, 22 Fordham Int'l L.J. 106 (1999).Google Scholar

49 See, e.g., Craig, supra note 45.Google Scholar

50 See Ashworth, Andrew, Criminal Law, Human Rights and Preventive Justice, in Regulating Deviance (Alan Norrie, et. al., 2009)Google Scholar

51 See Dougan, M., The Treaty of Lisbon 2007: Winning Minds, Not Hearts, 45 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 617 (2008).Google Scholar

52 See 2002 OJ (L 190/1) (on the EAW).Google Scholar

53 See, e.g., Case C-303/05, Advocaten voor de Wereld, 2007 E.C.R. I-3633.Google Scholar

54 See, e.g., C-186/87, Cowan v. Le Trésor Public, 1986 E.C.R. 195.Google Scholar

55 Alexander Somek, Individualism 215 (2008).Google Scholar

56 See, e.g., Markus Möstl, Preconditions and Limits of Mutual Recognition, Common Mkt. L. Rev. 47, 405 (2010) (on mutual recognition).Google Scholar

57 Case C-123/08, Wolzenburg, (Oct. 6, 2009).Google Scholar

58 See Case C-123/08, Wolzenburg, Opinion of AG Bot (March 24, 2009).Google Scholar

59 See 2004 O.J. (L 158/77).Google Scholar

60 See Spaventa, Eleanor, Seeing the Wood Despite the Trees? On the Scope of Union Citizenship and its Constitutional Effects, 45 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 13, 45 (2008).Google Scholar