The evolution of European Union criminal law (1957-2012)
The evolution of European Union criminal law (1957-2012)
The evolution of European Union criminal law (1957-2012)
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
development, 450 thus requiring Member States to <strong>criminal</strong>ise both intentional active and<br />
passive corruption. 451 Furthermore, other measures aiming primarily at strengthening the<br />
penal framework <strong>of</strong> first pillar policies were also put forward. This was the case <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Framework Decision, adopted in 2000, which required Member States to <strong>criminal</strong>ise the<br />
counterfeiting <strong>of</strong> the Euro. <strong>The</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> this measure was noted in the Preamble:<br />
“<strong>The</strong> worldwide importance <strong>of</strong> the euro means it will be particularly open to the risk <strong>of</strong><br />
counterfeiting. Account should be taken <strong>of</strong> the fact that there is already evidence <strong>of</strong><br />
fraudulent activity with regard to the euro.” 452<br />
A Framework Decision on the strengthening <strong>of</strong> the penal framework to prevent the<br />
facilitation <strong>of</strong> unauthorised entry, transit and residence was also adopted in 2002. Its<br />
preamble held that the Framework Decision<br />
“supplements other instruments adopted in order to combat illegal immigration, illegal<br />
employment, trafficking in human beings and the sexual exploitation <strong>of</strong> children.” 453<br />
But the adoption <strong>of</strong> these measures—even under the legal framework <strong>of</strong> the third<br />
pillar—was not necessarily clear-cut as the TEU(A) provisions did not directly attribute<br />
competence to the EU to adopt measures protecting EC policies via <strong>criminal</strong> <strong>law</strong> (as<br />
seen in the first section <strong>of</strong> this chapter). Article 29 TEU(A) made no reference to the<br />
smuggling <strong>of</strong> human beings, corruption or the counterfeiting <strong>of</strong> the Euro, whilst Article<br />
31 (e) TEU(A), the legal basis under which these measures were adopted, only made<br />
reference to the approximation <strong>of</strong> minimum elements <strong>of</strong> crimes and penalties in relation<br />
to organised crime, terrorism and drug trafficking. Clearly, the article was being read in<br />
a broad way and the list <strong>of</strong> <strong>criminal</strong> domains mentioned was taken as non-exhaustive.<br />
<strong>The</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> controversy in relation to the adoption <strong>of</strong> measures under the third pillar was<br />
a clear sign <strong>of</strong> the EU’s political will to strengthen the protection <strong>of</strong> EC policies and<br />
450<br />
See page 2 <strong>of</strong> the Report based on Article 9 <strong>of</strong> the Council Framework Decision on combating<br />
corruption in the private sector, COM (2007)328 final, Brussels, 18.6.2007.<br />
451<br />
Article 1 (a) and (b) <strong>of</strong> the Framework Decision, supra note 417. <strong>The</strong> Framework Decision<br />
also establishes that inchoate <strong>of</strong>fences shall be punishable (Article 3) and that legal persons can<br />
be held liable (Article 5). <strong>The</strong> <strong>of</strong>fences shall be punishable by a penalty <strong>of</strong> a maximum <strong>of</strong> at least<br />
one to three years <strong>of</strong> imprisonment (Article 4). This Framework Decision is one <strong>of</strong> the rare cases<br />
to add other penalties, beyond imprisonment, to be applicable to natural persons. <strong>The</strong>re is also the<br />
possibility <strong>of</strong> prohibiting a person convicted, at least in the cases whre he or she occupied a<br />
leading position in the company, from carrying with that particular or a comparable business<br />
activity (Article 4(3)), ibid..<br />
452 Intent (7) and (8) <strong>of</strong> the Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA <strong>of</strong> 29 May 2000 on<br />
increasing protection by <strong>criminal</strong> penalties and other sanctions against counterfeiting the euro, OJ<br />
L 140/1 [2000], as amended by Council Framework Decision 2001/888/JHA <strong>of</strong> 6 December<br />
2001, OJ L329/3 [2001].<br />
453<br />
Council Framework Decision 2002/946/JHA, see supra note 419.<br />
124