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

Germany sought his expulsion to Italy. 1035 The CJEU held that in order to determine
whether the offences committed by Mr I were covered by the concept of ‘imperative
grounds of public security’, a number of factors needed to be taken in consideration:
namely, that Article 83(1)TFEU provides that sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of
children constitute one of the areas of particularly serious crime with a cross-border
dimension in which the EU legislature must intervene. The Court further notes that the
recently adopted Directive on combating sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of
children 1036 states that such crimes constitute serious violations of fundamental rights.
Thus, the CJEU held that Member States may regard criminal offences such as those
referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 83(1) TFEU as constituting a
particularly serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society, which in turn,
may pose a direct threat to the calm and security of a population and can thus be covered
by the concept of ‘imperative grounds of public security’ capable of justifying an
expulsion order. 1037 In doing so, however, the Member State ought to also take into
consideration conditions such as how long the individual has resided in its territory, age,
health, family and economic situation, social and cultural integration and whether the
manner in which such offences were committed discloses particularly serious
characteristics as well as whether the personal conduct of the individual concerned
represents a genuine, present threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society
or of the host Member State, such as the propensity of the concerned offender to act in
the same way in the future. 1038
Strikingly, in P.I., the CJEU furthers the possibility of Member States to expand the
concept of ‘public security’, as embedded in the Directive on citizenship, with the list of
Euro-crimes of Article 83(1)TFEU. This link makes these crimes immediately eligible
for consideration of expulsion, should all the other requirements be verified as well.
Hence, it appears that, contrary to the cases on the EAW where the Court seemed to be
reconciling values of reintegration and punishment, in these citizenship cases, the Court
accommodates the goal of reintegration in society of the individuals at stake to a
significantly lesser degree.
1035 Case C-348/09 P.I. v Oberburgermeisterin der Stadt Remscheid, not yet published; 9-11.
1036 Directive 2011/92/EU, see supra note 928.
1037 Case C-348/09 P.I., supra note 1035, 25-28.
1038 Ibid., 29-32.
268