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

France, for instance, criminalised as terrorism an act that could seriously alter public
order through threat or terror. Portugal included acts that were able to prejudice
national interests, to alter or disturb the State’s institutions, force public authorities to
do or not to do something or threaten individuals or groups. Spain treated subverting
constitutional order and seriously altering public peace as terrorist acts. Italy had a law
similar to Spain’s, criminalising terrorist actions as those that are able to subvert the
democratic order. 615 Finally, the UK defined terrorist offences as acts capable of
influencing the government or intimidating the public order or a section of the public
with the purpose of supporting a political, religious, or ideological cause. 616
2.1. Increasing criminalisation at national level: the impact of broad definitions of
crime
In fact the large majority of Framework Decisions criminalising Euro-crimes adopted
broad definitions of the criminal offences at stake. This expanded definitions of criminal
offences or introduced new criminal offences altogether at national level, thus increasing
the amount and scope of national criminal law, leading to more formal criminalisation
across the European Union. This takes place as framework decisions require Member
States to introduce, on occasion, new types of criminal offences that did not exist in their
legal orders; and, second, as they require Member States to enlarge pre-existent national
definitions of punishable conducts. 617 These two effects translate directly in the
enactment of more crimes as more conducts become subject to criminal liability.
Among many examples, in order to comply with the Framework Decision on terrorism
the six countries which already criminalised terrorist acts had to enlarge the number
and type of behaviours to be included in their definitions. 618 Furthermore, the definition
of terrorist offences led to the adoption of new criminal offences in the majority of
other Member States. Indeed, before the implementation of the Framework Decision,
the majority of States treated terrorist actions under the framework of other offences
(such as murder, offences against physical integrity, etc.). This changed with the
615 Ibid., pages 3, 6 and 7.
616 Ibid., pages 3, 6 and 7.
617 A. Weyembergh speaks of a ‘repressive orientation’ of EU law in this regard when it makes
use of broad and vague definitions of crime, namely in relation to the definition of terrorism,
organised crime and facilitation of unauthorised entry, “Approximation of criminal law, the
Constitutional Treaty and The Hague Programme”(2005) 42 Common Market Law Review 1567,
1588.
618 European Commission, Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on combating terrorism,
supra note 614, 6 - 7.
166