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

esponsible for the formalisation of the EU’s themes of interest whilst the roots of the
conceptual framework of European Union criminal law go back far before the
introduction of justice and home affairs into the realm of the Treaties.
Many of the measures that were adopted were responses to shocking crimes happening
in Europe most of which had a transnational dimension. The focus on illegal
immigration issues was arguably a reaction to the removal of internal borders, whilst the
development of drug legislation was a response to increasing drug trafficking issues
ravaging Europe since the 70s. 316 Furthermore, other specific events were clearly linked
to the adoption of some measures, if not to their content as well. Chalmers pointed out
this connection between crimes or political strains and legal reaction at EU level noting
that
“Spanish concern over the refusal of the Belgian court to extradite a suspected ETA
terrorist led therefore to the La Gomera Declaration in 1995. Fights between the Dutch
football fans in the Netherlands which resulted in the death of a Dutch national resulted
in action on hooliganism. Belgian horror over the Marc Dutroux led to action on
paedophilia and the exploitation of human beings.” 317
Regardless of such almost-random or at least reactive sequences of events, there were
common concerns underlying most of these measures. Thus, at this stage, it was possible
to begin to grasp the defining features of EU criminal law. This is not to say there was a
common EU penal policy – far from it, actually. Rather, what is suggested is that there
were identifiable rationales embedded in the political and legal measures in European
Union criminal matters. This can clearly be derived from the text of most political
declarations such as resolutions, Council conclusions, and action plans; or from the text
of most legal measures, namely joint actions and conventions. The most obvious
evidence of these was the wording of these texts and their preambles, the most symbolic
and teleological part of any legal instrument. It is thus argued that during the Maastricht
decade, two central rationales were embedded in a large number of the measures
adopted: the fight against organised crime and the protection of EC interests and
policies.
These narratives do not come across in a clear-cut manner, as the EU did not give
guidance on what type of programmatic or ideological line, if any, should drive the EU’s
316 V. Mitsilegas et al. The European Union and Internal Security, supra note 91, 24.
317 D. Chalmers, “Bureaucratic Europe”, supra note 215, 9.
87