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

positions would be suited to define the EU’s approach in a particular matter, framework
decisions were to be used to approximate laws and regulations of Member States, whilst
the purpose or use of conventions was left open without any guidance of when they
should be preferred over another instrument.
In practice, framework decisions were the measures more frequently adopted by the EU
and were at times used for other purposes besides the approximation of domestic laws.
Article 34 (b) also clarified legal value of framework decisions, thus avoiding
uncertainties like the ones surrounding joint actions during the Maastricht period:
“Framework decisions shall be binding upon the Member States as to the result to be
achieved but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of forms and methods.
They shall not entail direct effect”.
Their legal nature was further clarified by the CJEU in 2005 when the Court extended
the application of the principle of indirect effect to framework decisions, by holding that
national courts must interpret national law in so far as possible in the light of the
wording and purpose of the text of framework decisions. 390
Finally, the TEU(A) provided for more efficient mechanisms of cooperation or for the
reinvigoration of pre-existent ones. This was done in the axes of police cooperation,
judicial cooperation and approximation of laws. In relation to police cooperation, for
example, Article 30 stipulated that common action in this domain should include
operational cooperation between law enforcement agencies; the collection, processing,
analysis and exchange of information by law enforcement services, in particular through
Europol; the continuation in the cooperation and joint initiatives in training, research and
investigative techniques, in particular in relation to serious forms of organised crime;
and a strengthening of the role of Europol.
In turn, regarding judicial cooperation, Article 31 TEU(A) held that collaboration should
include further cooperation between national authorities in relation to proceedings and
enforcement of decisions, a facilitation in the rules of extradition, the compatibility
between national rules as well as the prevention of conflicts of jurisdiction and the
390 Case C-105/03 Criminal Proceedings against Maria Pupino [2005] ECR I-5285; The Court
also noted that the Framework Decision must be interpreted in such a way that fundamental
rights, including the right to a fair trial as set out in Article 6 of the ECHR are respected, para 59
of the Framewok Decision. For more details on the judgement see, for example, S. Peers,
“Salvation outside the Church: Judicial Protection in the Third Pillar after the Pupino and Segi
judgements” (2007) 44 Common Market Law Review 5.
109