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

Rather limited in scope and depth, the TEU(M) maintained that Member States should
remain at the centre of these new arrangements but attributed the most prominent role to
the Council and a rather secondary role to all other main institutions. Hence, the Council
was the central institution and its work was to be supported by a Committee – the K4
Committee – which ought to give opinions and prepare the Council’s discussions. 247
Other institutions were given minor roles only. Article K.4 (2), for example, provided
that the European Commission did not have any right of initiative in criminal law related
matters even if it ought to be “fully associated” with the work developed in the domains
of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. 248 The European Parliament had
no role in the decision making process but again, similarly to the European Commission,
was also to be “informed” of the discussions in the area involving themes in Title VI and
consulted on the “principle aspects of activity”. Finally, the Court of Justice was also
given no jurisdiction in criminal matters except if a specific Convention would stipulate
its jurisdiction to interpret their provisions and to rule on disputes regarding their
application. 249
These institutional arrangements centred on the Council and the K4 Committee, leaving
the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Court of Justice in the
periphery of the decision-making process, in turn prolonging and accentuating old
concerns over the lack of transparency and accountability of the EU’s activity in
criminal law related matters. The European Commission, for example, which, according
to the TEU(M), was to be fully associated with the role of the K4 Committee, had very
little opportunity to do so and there is very little evidence that the Committee associated
the former with its work as stipulated. 250 As for the EP, it was consulted only once
before 1997. 251 In a similar fashion, the CJEU’s limited competencies were not used at
all during these years. As a matter of fact, only in 2008 and 2010 did two preliminary
references regarding conventions signed during the Maastricht period reach the Court –
both regarding Europol staff disputes. 252
247 Article K.4 ibid..
248 Article K.3 (2) gave the European Commission rights of initiative in other domains of Justice
and Home Affairs, ibid..
249 Article K.3, ibid..
250 Even in relation to the domains where the Commission had the right of initiative, such as
immigration and border control, for instance, in practice it did not make much use of such a right
until 1997. Even after this, Peers points out how only two of the Commission’s Proposals were
agreed on before the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, S. Peers, EU Justice and Home
Affairs Law (Oxford: OUP, 2006, Second Edition) 12.
251 S. Peers, ibid., 13.
252 Case C-133/08 ICF v BV ECR I-9687 [2009] and C-29/10 Heiko Koelzsch v Luxembourg ECR
I-01595 [2010].
71