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

measures in relation to defendants’ rights. Overall, these three narratives (fight against
organised crime, protection of EC interests and policies and fundamental rights) found
among political declarations, Actions Plans, Council Presidency Conclusions and
preambles of framework decisions, aimed primarily at criminalisation and facilitation of
prosecution of Euro-crime, which the Council and the Commission saw as endangering
the EU’s values and goals.
Moreover, the chapter will further suggest that as the EU’s competencies developed, its
main focus and narratives began to fade in order to facilitate national and transnational
prosecution beyond merely Euro-crime. The introduction of the principle of mutual
recognition in judicial cooperation in criminal matters continued to expand the EU’s
influence on national legal orders far beyond the forms of criminality and rationales
encompassed in the concept of Euro-crime. This mutual recognition was not only about
the EU’s assertion of its own interests and the fight against criminality that it saw as
endangering its legal order, but also about the facilitation of national prosecution and
punishment across the EU. Indeed, the principle of mutual recognition ensured the
recognition of Member States’ judicial decisions in criminal matters by making national
decisions effective de facto across the territory of the European Union. Whilst mutual
recognition was facilitated ad extremum in relation to serious offences 383 (specifically a
list of 32 serious offence types including all Euro-crimes among other serious criminal
offences), other non-serious criminality was also included in its scope. Consequently,
the reach of ECL spread to the entire realm of national decisions and sentences in
criminal matters, clearly expanding national enforcement capacity beyond the States’
borders. This was tantamount to bringing a new dynamic to ECL, with different
rationales, different modus operandi and different goals.
Finally, the chapter will argue that the structure of ECL as divided into two dynamics as
well as its incremental remit were solidified with the Treaty of Lisbon (TEU(L) and
TFEU). The TFEU explores Euro-crime as the centre of ECL, addressing it through a
more integrated framework, further empowering EU actors and granting stronger legal
instruments in the third pillar context. Furthermore, the Lisbon reforms bring mutual
recognition to the core of ECL’s development. Moreover, in general, these reforms
reassert the expansionist trend vis-à-vis the two dynamics of ECL as it clearly
legitimises, at least theoretically, the possibility of further growth of the field.
383 In rigour the list includes ‘criminal behaviours’ rather than criminal offences as definitions are
not offered and some entries are set out in very generic terms such as for example ‘computer
related crime’. For the purposes of this dissertation however we will refer to the list of behaviours
as ‘types of offences’ or ‘offence types’. See, for instance, Council Framework Decision
2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States,
OJ L 190/1 [2002].
106