The evolution of European Union criminal law (1957-2012)

crime. Furthermore, it was seen that measures on money laundering, fraud, trafficking in
human beings or organised crime, inter alia, were also adopted. These offences are in
clear contrast with others such as rape, robbery, murder or defamation in relation to
which the EU did not directly intervene. 378 It seemed that the first group of offences fell
more within the realm of EU interests whilst the second one in that of the Member
States. Hence, Euro-crime presents two general distinctive features: the first one being
its focus on the protection of public goods or goods related to collective institutions or
interests; the second being that the offences at stake appear to present a ‘complex’
structure in that they usually involve collective action and the use of infrastructure.
Hence, Euro-crime is distinctive regarding the nature of the goods protected. 379 Many of
these tend to be public goods or goods related to collective institutions and interests,
such as the political and financial system or the security of the State and the efficiency
of its policies. 380 Crimes such as money laundering or fraud, for example, clearly are
attempts against the financial system. Likewise, the criminalisation of corruption
(private or public) aims primarily at the protection of political systems and institutions
and of the principles which embed them; the fight against terrorism aims at the
protection of those same democratic values but also at the security of the State itself and
the infrastructures that sustain it; whilst the fight against human trafficking, for example,
is well known to be, in the EU context at least, also suitable to protect immigration
policies by keeping people out as it is at protecting the victims. 381
Finally, the specifics of Euro-crime can also be found in the structure of the offences
endorsed. A significant number of offences that the EU legislated on on were
characterised by a certain “complexity” in that they required a degree of collective
action and infrastructure. Indeed, the use of infrastructure in the sense of technology,
378 It will be seen later in this thesis that this criminality, even if not the direct target of EU
norms, was not completely out of its reach. This is so because EU’s criminal law is a constantly
expanding body of law and, moreover, has the potential to, indirectly reach deep and far within
national legal systems.
379 A wide approach to the concept of “goods” is taken similarly to Geuss who notes “’Goods’
can mean several things. First, it can designate concrete objects that have some use-value […].
Second, it can be taken abstractly as meaning ‘that which is, or is considered to be, good.” So the
fact that the streets are secure and safe may be a public good; that I have spent an enjoyable
evening in conversation with a friend might be an instance of a private good. In neither of these
cases in the ‘good’ in question an object. Third, ‘goods’ can mean ‘conceptions of the good’
[…].” In R. Geuss, Public Goods – Private Goods (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001)
9.
380 Assuming that the personal sphere relates to personal and private matters of the individuals
whilst the public sphere relates to the political and institutional domain of society shared spaces
or institutions.
381 See, for example, H. Askola, Legal responses to trafficking in women for sexual exploitation
in the European Union (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2007).
102