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

e affected by ECL law. 562 This decision speaks to the core of the imbalances of ECL,
which were voiced at the end of the previous section.
Conclusion
This chapter explored the evolution of ECL since the entry into force of the TEU(A) in
1999 until today. It showed how its evolution shifted from being minimal during the
1990s, to having the potential to influence a large part of national criminal law in the
post-Amsterdam era. This influence was brought about by institutional and substantive
changes. Institutionally, there was a process of supranationalisation which developed
EU’s institutional structures, empowered its actors, and strengthened the nature of the
legal instruments and mechanisms available, among other elements. It was noted how
this process was not without limitations and shortcomings but also how, regardless of
those, the outcome was a significant one. In that regard, it was shown how the scope of
ECL increased significantly, bypassing its initial focus on Euro-criminality (and its
inherent rationales) to now also be concerned with many other forms of criminality
previously considered to be in the domestic or international domains alone.
The chapter has also shown how the entry into force of the TEU(L) and TFEU altered
the Amsterdam acquis. Much remains unknown at this level. Lisbon was only recently
adopted and it will take at least five years to be fully in force. Yet, the wording of the
TFEU makes it very likely that the existing dynamics and framework will be reinforced.
This is so as, on the one hand, it formalises and legitimises many of the ‘loose ends’ of
ECL in particular those domains which were not clearly covered by the scope of the
TEU(A) but in relation to which action was taking (such as the measures on
environment or victims righst for example). On the other hand, the new TFEU leaves the
door open for a continuous dynamic of growth in ECL.
Yet, as ECL appears as a field of continuous expansion, its features – mainly as
solidified by Amsterdam – were somehow biased. This is so as ECL remained clearly
focused on criminalisation and furtherance of the States capacity to prosecute and punish
in an increasing number of areas of criminality. 563
To be sure, the emergence of a
narrative of protection of the victim brought in an element of individual rights in
criminal procedure. Yet it was seen how the protection afforded to the victim was often
dependant on the prosecutorial benefits of such protection. To a great extent, this shape
562 Judgment of the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany on the Treaty
of Lisbon, 30 June 2009, Zitierung: BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08 vom 30.6.2009, Absatz-Nr. (1 - 421),
para 253 and 355.
563 A great deal of of measures were also adopted in relation to police cooperation although those
developments were largely left outside this chapter.
151