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

and, to some extent, in its legal one as well. 529 Regardless of its salience, it did not
permeate the legal texture of the EU as deeply and to the same extent as the other three
narratives. 530
Furthermore, it will be suggested that the main rationales of development of ECL thus
far were pertinent mostly in relation to harmonisation measures and operational bodies.
This was no longer the case in some domains of judicial cooperation where the use of
such themes was dropped by the legislator. Indeed, with the introduction of the principle
of mutual recognition as the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in criminal matters by
the Tampere European Council in 1999, the potential reach of ECL was expanded far
beyond the core of Euro-crime and the narratives developed up to that time. Hence,
mutual recognition brought about a major conceptual shift in criminal matters in the EU
by expanding its influence beyond Euro-crimes and criminality related to organised
crime or EU interests and policies to potentially any criminality. 531
The principle of mutual recognition helped in the realisation of the idea of an area of
freedom, security and justice in which domestic judicial decisions in criminal matters
are recognised and implemented across the whole territory of the European Union. The
principle thus engaged the State as a penal actor and was no longer engaged with Eurocrime
alone, but rather with a more varied type of criminality.
Mutual recognition was thus developed via several framework decisions, namely on the
European arrest warrant, 532 financial penalties, 533 decisions on supervision measures 534
or decisions rendered in absentia, 535 among others. Their core seeks to facilitate the
529 For more details see, for example, B. Saul, “International Terrorism as a European Crime: The
Policy Rationale for Criminalization” (2003) 11 European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and
Criminal Justice 323 and B. Gilmore, “The Twin Towers and the Third Pillar: Some Security
Agenda Developments”, EUI Working Paper 7 /2003, Florence.
530 Terrorism had particular relevance in the adoption of the Framework Decision on the EAW
(see supra note 316 and chapter 5) and on the creation or expansion some EU agencies such as
Europol (whose remit was augmented after 9/11) and Eurojust whose creation had already been
envisaged but which was only set in motion also after 9/11. See on this matter S. Douglas-Scott,
“The Rules of Law in the European Union”, see supra note 393, 234-238.
531
Chapter 5.
532 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, supra note 383.
533 Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA, supra 420.
534 Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application between
Member States of the European Union of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on
supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention, OJ L 294/20 [2009].
535 Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 amending Framework
Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing
the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual
recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial, OJ L 81/24
[2009].
140