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

means of transport, telecommunications or a network which allows for the completion of
the offence could be found in many of the offences at stake. Trafficking in human
beings, for example, often requires the use of transport to move people, or the setting up
of physical structures to keep them. Terrorist acts traditionally involve the use of
materials, the construction of chemical or other type of weaponry able to cause severe
bodily harm to others, and often the use sites for assembly and preparation. Likewise,
the laundering of crime related profits involves infrastructures such as particular
businesses or the use of financial systems in general through which money can be
moved and laundered. Furthermore, the large majority of examples given also require a
certain degree of organisation or at least of a certain collective action, if they are to be
effective. Organised crime, terrorism, trafficking in human being, drugs or theft of
works of art or money laundering, for example, are all offences that require usually more
than one perpetrator and a certain degree of coordination (although not necessarily
organisation). These two elements of the offences themselves bring us back to the first
characteristic of Euro-crime - the link with modernity and its tools that allow for the
easy flow of persons, money and goods.
Conclusion
This chapter focused on the evolution of European Union criminal law during the
Maastricht period and sought to understand the nature of criminal matters in the EU that
emerged during these years. It showed how the formal arrangements laid out by the
TEU(M) envisaged a minimal scope and depth for European Union criminal law. It was
then argued that legal and political discourses provided an ambitious reading of the letra
legis of the TEU(M), both regarding the mechanisms of development of European
Union criminal law and the range of applicable legal measures. Hence, from a structural
perspective, not only were judicial and police cooperation extensively developed but
also the harmonisation of national criminal laws – not mentioned in the TEU(M) - was
initiated; whilst from a substantive perspective, measures covered a substantially wider
number of areas than those officially contemplated by the Treaty. These political and
legal texts were driven by two main concerns and rationales, namely the fight against
organised crime and the protection of EC interests. The former well suited the EU’s
desire for legislative expansion and justified the adoption of measures in areas ranging
from corruption to human trafficking. It was also used at times to allow for the adoption
of measures aimed at protecting EC interests, primarily financial in nature. Protecting
the EC’s interests also began to feature as a main rationale for the adoption of numerous
conventions and several joint actions. These two rationales were often intertwined and,
as was argued, led to the EU’s focus on a particular sphere of criminality – Euro-crimes.
This criminality was distinct from that which national or international systems had
103