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

further enhanced some of the punitive features of the EAW. In others, however,
measures became more moderate because either their remit was narrower or their goals
tentatively more balanced. Furthermore, implementation of measures post-EAW has
been poor, which has contributed to the slowing down of mutual recognition in general.
3.1 Financial penalties
Measures focusing mostly on financial enforcement were adopted in the following years
aiming at securing the enforcement of financial sentences and to a lesser extent of
securing evidence: freezing, confiscation orders and financial penalties. These largely
maintained the footprint of the EAW: almost automatic recognition, speedy execution,
very limited grounds for refusal, largely absent individual considerations.
Although maintaining the same footprint, they extended the application of mutual
recognition to other domains: first to the enforcement of financial penalties – financial
penalties broadly understood represent the large majority of criminal penalties imposed
at national level; 799 second as they expand mutual recognition to any type of crime for
which a financial penalty is applicable, regardless of its seriousness. This contrasts with
the EAW that could only be issued (even when dual criminality could be tested) in
relation to acts punishable with at least one year custodial sentence. 800 Hence, these new
measures drop the threshold of gravity of the crime. Consequently, they are applicable to
any crime regardless of its gravity, cross border or transnational connection.
The first of these measures was the 2005 Framework Decision on the mutual recognition
of financial penalties. 801 It aimed at ensuring the swift recognition and enforcement of
financial penalties (sums of money on conviction of an offence, compensation imposed
to benefit victims or public funds for victims’ support, sums in respect to costs of courts
or administrative proceedings leading to the decision). 802 The authorities of the
executing State are required to recognise a decision “without any further formality being
required and shall forthwith take all the necessary measures for its execution”. 803
799 Financial penalties are the most used criminal sentence in England & Wales, K. Bullock,
“Enforcing Financial Penalties: The Case of Confiscation Orders” (2010) 49 The Howard
Journal of Criminal Justice 328.
800 See former section.
801 Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA, supra note 420.
802 Article 1 (b), ibid..
803 Article 6, ibid..
216