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)
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Changes towards the extension <strong>of</strong> liability to legal persons were also made following<br />
the 2001 Framework Decision on combating fraud and counterfeiting <strong>of</strong> non-cash<br />
means <strong>of</strong> payment. By 2006, five Member States reported to the Commission that<br />
legislation expanding such liability was before their national parliaments awaiting<br />
approval. Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovenia had also<br />
taken the necessary measures<br />
“to ensure that a legal person can be held liable where the lack <strong>of</strong> supervision or<br />
control by people in leading positions made the commission <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fences possible”<br />
and provided for liability in the other cases required by the Framework Decision. 657<br />
Examples <strong>of</strong> the introduction or extension <strong>of</strong> liability <strong>of</strong> legal persons can also be seen<br />
in consequence <strong>of</strong> the implementation <strong>of</strong> the 2002 Framework Decision on terrorism<br />
(amended in 2008), which also required the extension <strong>of</strong> liability to legal persons<br />
(Article 7). <strong>The</strong> Commission reported in 2007:<br />
“<strong>The</strong> Czech Republic, Latvia and Slovakia have failed to foresee the liability <strong>of</strong> legal<br />
persons for terrorist <strong>of</strong>fences as requested in paragraph 1 and Luxembourg has not<br />
transmitted the relevant provisions. <strong>The</strong> other Member States evaluated have correctly<br />
implemented paragraph 1. <strong>The</strong>ir provisions <strong>of</strong>ten go beyond the minimum level<br />
required by the Framework Decision through either setting more than one criterion or<br />
retaining wider criteria.” 658<br />
Likewise, the Framework Decision on attacks against information systems also<br />
envisaged liability <strong>of</strong> legal persons. 659 <strong>The</strong> Commission reported in 2008 that 16<br />
Member States had taken the necessary measures to ensure such accountability. Estonia<br />
however had not accepted to expand <strong>criminal</strong> liability, considering that its rules on civil<br />
liability covered all the conducts described in the Framework Decision. 660<br />
657 <strong>European</strong> Commission, Report from the Commission, Second report based on Article 14 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Council Framework Decision <strong>of</strong> 28 May 2001 combating fraud and counterfeiting <strong>of</strong> non cash<br />
means <strong>of</strong> payment, COM(2006)65 final, Brussels, 20.02.2006, 6.<br />
658 <strong>European</strong> Commission, Report from the Commission based on Article 11 <strong>of</strong> the Council<br />
Framework Decision <strong>of</strong> 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism, COM(2007)681final, Brussels,<br />
6/11,2007, 6.<br />
659 Article 8 <strong>of</strong> the Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA, note 543.<br />
660 <strong>European</strong> Commission, Report from the Commission to the Council based on Article 12 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Council Framework Decision <strong>of</strong> 24 February 2005 on attacks against information systems,<br />
COM(2008)448 final, Brussels, 14.7.2008, 8.<br />
174