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

This began to be seen immediately after the TEU(M) entered into force, in the number
of working programmes or resolutions that addressed more topics than the ones referred
to in the TEU(M). The “Work Programme for 1994 and structures to be set up in the
field of Justice and Home Affairs”, where the Presidency of the Council laid down the
main priorities for intervention, included domains of interest ranging from asylum and
immigration, police co-operation, customs cooperation to cooperation on the fight
against drugs and judicial cooperation. Regarding the latter two, the Presidency outlined
the main priorities to include the establishment of EDU and Europol, the fight against
organised crime (which was to include the fight against human trafficking,
environmental crime, radioactive products, vehicles, works of art, forgery, illegal
immigration and the laundering of the proceeds of crime), terrorism, xenophobic and
racist violence, hooliganism and other questions related to cooperation between police
forces (crime analysis, contacts with third countries or training of police officers), drugs,
extradition, mutual legal assistance (mainly in relation to international organised crime),
disqualifications from driving and the enforcement of confiscation orders from other
Member States. 312 In 1996, a Council Resolution laid down the ‘priorities for
cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs for the period from 1 July 1996 to 30
June 1998’. 313 The areas of intervention did not differ much from the areas referred to by
the 1994 working programme and focused mainly on terrorism, organised crime and
drugs, improving judicial cooperation, immigration and asylum, corruption and fraud at
the EC level and officials and magistrates training on crime prevention and trafficking in
human beings. Finally, another Council Resolution laid down the priorities for the
period from 1 January 1998 to the date of that the TEU(A) entered into force and
reasserted intervention in the same broad range of areas. 314
Indeed, during those years, a large variety of subject matters was discussed, such as
visas, immigration, drug trafficking, terrorism, trafficking in human beings, organised
crime, laundering of profits, judicial cooperation in criminal matters, arms, explosives
and other dangerous products, works of art, forged currency or theft of vehicles, for
example. 315 The list coincides with many of the areas of initiative during the pre-
Maastricht years yet it relates to a broad range of criminality varying from trafficking in
human beings to theft of vehicles or works of art. In this sense, Maastricht was
312 Council of the European Union, Note from the Presidency to the K.4 Committee, Doc.
10684/93, JAI 12, Brussels, 2 December 1993.
313 Council Resolution of 14 October 1996 laying down the priorities for cooperation in the field
of justice and home affairs for the period from 1 July 1996 to 30 June 1998, OJ C 319/1 [1996].
314 Council Resolution of 18 December 1997 laying down the priorities for cooperation in the
field of justice and home affairs for the period from 1 January 1998 to the date of the entry into
force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, OJ C 11/1 [1998].
315 See chapter 1.
86