09.02.2015 Views

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)

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Spain with a imprisonment penalty from eight to twelve and with fine <strong>of</strong> up to ten times<br />

the value counterfeited; France with imprisonment up to thirty years and fine up to 450<br />

000 Euros; Italy applies custodial sentences which can range from three to twelve years<br />

and a fine from 516 to 3098 Euros; whilst in Germany the same conduct is punishable<br />

with custodial sentences ranging from one to fiftheen years (with some qualification<br />

depending on mitigating or aggravating circumstances). 678 All these five Member States<br />

comply with the Framework Decision provisions on penalties, yet the different domestic<br />

provisions are hardly harmonised. Indeed, if one considers maximum penalties, whilst in<br />

France counterfeiting is punishable with custodial sentences <strong>of</strong> up to thirty years, Spain<br />

applies a maximum <strong>of</strong> ten years. Likewise, minimum penalties also vary greatly – see<br />

for instance the difference between one year in Germany to eight years in Spain. Clearly,<br />

the framework decision hardly led towards significant harmonisation.<br />

In fact, the Commission had voiced concerns about the difficulty in harmonising<br />

penalties and noted in its Green Paper on the Approximation, Mutual Recognition and<br />

Enforcement <strong>of</strong> Criminal Sanctions that<br />

“<strong>The</strong> differences between Member States’ legislation on penalties are still quite sharp.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are historical, cultural and legal reasons for this, deeply rooted in their legal<br />

systems, which have evolved over time and the expression <strong>of</strong> the way in which Member<br />

States have faced and answered fundamental questions about <strong>criminal</strong> <strong>law</strong>. <strong>The</strong>se<br />

systems have their own internal coherence, and amending individual rules without<br />

regard to the overall picture would risk generating distortions.” 679<br />

<strong>The</strong> risk <strong>of</strong> generating distortions is not negligible if one considers the existing<br />

differences. Maximum custodial sentences for example range from life imprisonment<br />

in countries such as Belgium, Greece, the United Kingdom, France and Italy, to 30<br />

years in Spain or even 25 years in Portugal and Greece. Among countries with life<br />

imprisonment the possibility <strong>of</strong> early release also varies immensely. Minimum periods<br />

can go up to 30 years in France, 20 years in Ireland, 15 in Germany or 10 in<br />

Belgium. 680 A lack <strong>of</strong> coherence in the choice <strong>of</strong> the minimum maximum threshold for<br />

punishment was further pointed out by Weyembergh who notes in this regard, for<br />

example, how the Framework Decision against the counterfeiting <strong>of</strong> the Euro and the<br />

678 I. Horta Pinto, “Os Efeitos do ‘Direito Penal Europeau’ nos Sistemas Sancionatórios dos<br />

Estados Membros da Uniao Europeia”, in Estudos de Homenagem ao Pr<strong>of</strong>. Doutor Jorge<br />

Figueiredo Dias, Vol I (Coimbra: Coimbra Editora, 2009) 821, 831-32. Our translation.<br />

679 <strong>European</strong> Commission, Green Paper COM(2004)334final, see supra note 573, 8.<br />

680 Ibid., 29; I. Horta Pinto, “Os Efeitos do ‘Direito Penal Europeau’ nos Sistemas Sancionatórios<br />

dos Estados Membros da Uniao Europeia”, note 678 supra, 825.<br />

180

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!