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

The large majority of framework decisions in these topics were harmonisation measures
– aimed at approximating minimum elements constituent of crimes and penalties. Other
measures aimed mostly at facilitating judicial cooperation, also kept Euro-offences as
their focal point, such as framework decisions on EAW, 418 illegal entry and residence, 419
financial penalties, 420 probation decisions, 421 among other related matters. 422
The types of offences at the centre of these measures were clearly those of Eurocriminality
- crimes primarily related to late modernity, to globalisation and to the
volatility of today’s societies. People today move more between regions, countries and
continents; capital is also increasingly more mobile between different financial systems
as the world is financially and economically ever more interdependent; similarly,
information flows without geographical restrictions as the Internet accelerates
globalisation. 423
Newer offences harmonised after the TEU(A) continued to fit the
sphere of Euro-crime. The criminalisation of cyber crime, for example, clearly relates to
the late modern age, to the widespread use of the Internet and the privacy and security
issues it raises. Likewise, concerns with the environment and the criminalisation of
environmentally damaging actions have been increasing in the last decades as has
related legislation around pollution and global warming-related issues. 424 Criminality
such as cyber crime simply did not exist until the later years of the twentieth century.
Furthermore, the connection with crimes of late modernity is further seen in new
measures that were more rights-oriented such as the Framework Decision on the
standing of victims in criminal proceedings. 425 In fact, the promotion of the victim has
been one of the most important currents of change in the crime control sphere in the last
418 Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant, supra note 383.
419 Council Framework Decision 2002/946/JHA of 28 November 2002 on the strengthening of
the penal framework to prevent the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence, OJ L
328/1 [2002], a French initiative, OJ C 2000 C 253/6.
420 Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application of the
principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, OJ L 76/16 [2005], a joint initiative by
Sweden, UK and France, OJ C 278/4 (2001).
421 Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the
principle of mutual recognition to judgements and probation decisions with a view to the
supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions, OJ L 337/102 [2008], a Joint French
and German initiative, OJ C 147/1 (2007).
422 Mitsilegas refers to many of these instruments as a ‘third wave’ of third pillar law which
extends to most criminal law integration and reinforces the idea that ECL is a flourishing field, V.
Mitsilegas, “The Third wave of third pillar law: which direction for EU criminal justice”, Queen
Mary University of London, School of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper No 33/2009, 523-560.
423 See Chapter 2. See, for example, A. Giddens, Runaway World: How Globalisation is Reshaping
our Lives (London: Profile, 2002).
424 Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer speak in this regard of the ‘globalisation of
environmental policy’ with the emergence of numerous international pacts and agreements since
the 1970s, See AG Opinion delivered on 26 May 2005, Case C-176/03, Commission v Council,
ECR I-7881 [2005] para 61-65.
425 Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, supra note 412.
116