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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4.1. Disharmony in national law__________________________________________179 4.2. The distinction between formal and substantive criminalisation______________181 Conclusion___________________________________________________________182 Chapter 5 Mutual recognition in criminal matters: building a European investigation, prosecution and punishment legal order Introduction__________________________________________________________184 1. The expansionist and punitive bias of the principle of mutual recognition in criminal matters______________________________________________________________186 1.1. Expanding State power _____________________________________________188 1.2. Expanding State power to any criminality_______________________________189 2. European Arrest Warrant______________________________________________190 2.1. Nuancing the punitive impetus of the EAW: EU and national judicial reactions_203 2.1.1. Further resistance: national implementation____________________________214 3. Mutual recognition after the EAW: a continuously expanding and punitive dynamic with a more moderate approach__________________________________________215 3.1. Financial penalties_________________________________________________216 3.2. Evidence_________________________________________________________218 3.3. Imprisonment and alternative sanctions_________________________________222 3.3.1. Pre-trial measures________________________________________________222 3.3.2. Post trial detention_______________________________________________224 3.3.3. Probation and alternative sanctions___________________________________229 4. Mutual recognition and fundamental rights: managing positive conflicts of jurisdiction whilst protecting the individual_________________________________230 4.1. Ne bis in idem as reassertion of ius puniendi_____________________________235 Conclusion___________________________________________________________237 Chapter 6 Conclusion: Towards a European Union Criminal Policy 1. A changing penal world______________________________________________239 2. The dynamics of European Union criminal law after Lisbon: a continuously expanding field_______________________________________________________241 2.1. Recent developments in harmonisation of national criminal law_____________242 2.1.1. Fighting serious cross border crime__________________________________243 2.1.2. Protecting EU interests and policies via the criminal law__________________245 2.1.3. The emergence of criteria for EU’s criminalisation______________________247 2.2. Recent developments in mutual recognition in criminal matters______________250 2.3. A more effective implementation______________________________________251 3. ECL’s punitiveness in context: national responses and specificities____________252 8
4. The emergence and development of more moderate nuances in ECL___________256 4.1. A more central role for fundamental rights______________________________256 4.2. The development of criminal procedure________________________________258 5. The CJEU post Lisbon: an exercise of balance between punitiveness and the protection of the individual______________________________________________262 6. A renewed challenge for coherence_____________________________________269 Bibliography Books and articles_____________________________________________________271 Legislation and other sources____________________________________________281 9
Page 1 and 2: The London School of Economics and
Page 3 and 4: Abstract This thesis addresses the
Page 5 and 6: However, the journey of writing thi
Page 7: 3. The scope of intervention: the e
Page 11 and 12: Introduction: The nature of Europea
Page 13 and 14: This dissertation seeks to advance
Page 15 and 16: account as a reference. Indeed, sev
Page 17 and 18: Whilst the distinctive criteria of
Page 19 and 20: it makes sense to consider the doma
Page 21 and 22: creation of summary offences tried
Page 23 and 24: want to be talking about a simple a
Page 25 and 26: contemporary societies that primari
Page 27 and 28: influence on Member States to intro
Page 29 and 30: But what defines these Euro-crimes
Page 31 and 32: significantly broader range of crim
Page 33 and 34: legal orders that punish more sever
Page 35 and 36: enforcement agencies were keen to e
Page 37 and 38: framed. 98 The principle of direct
Page 39 and 40: obligations were further confirmed
Page 41 and 42: Moreover, other realms of interacti
Page 43 and 44: Hence, the Court, whilst recognisin
Page 45 and 46: for some understanding of the first
Page 47 and 48: “The Commission’s efforts and i
Page 49 and 50: trafficking), and especially about
Page 51 and 52: The central actors in the Trevi fra
Page 53 and 54: justice and home affairs matters un
Page 55 and 56: Likewise, the Programme of Action t
Page 57 and 58: means to repatriate third country n
Page 59 and 60:
“Each Member State shall take app
Page 61 and 62:
“For that purpose, whilst the cho
Page 63 and 64:
limiting national criminal law, it
Page 65 and 66:
“…synthesis of the arrangements
Page 67 and 68:
of Action relating to the reinforce
Page 69 and 70:
the single market and the consequen
Page 71 and 72:
Rather limited in scope and depth,
Page 73 and 74:
The need for more openness in the w
Page 75 and 76:
not subject to control or enforceme
Page 77 and 78:
the individual. The building of a m
Page 79 and 80:
Initiatives ranged from the creatio
Page 81 and 82:
etween police forces in matters of
Page 83 and 84:
evenue. 298 Along the same lines, t
Page 85 and 86:
identified in the TEU(M) It was see
Page 87 and 88:
esponsible for the formalisation of
Page 89 and 90:
Indeed, already in 1996, organised
Page 91 and 92:
Finally, besides the political and
Page 93 and 94:
particularly those initiatives that
Page 95 and 96:
and drug trafficking, hence giving
Page 97 and 98:
trade. 356 The Court continued by n
Page 99 and 100:
well as the first protocol. 366 The
Page 101 and 102:
crime is a fluid concept, with loos
Page 103 and 104:
means of transport, telecommunicati
Page 105 and 106:
Chapter 3 The evolution of European
Page 107 and 108:
1. Treaty of Amsterdam: expansion a
Page 109 and 110:
positions would be suited to define
Page 111 and 112:
The author noted how it was adopted
Page 113 and 114:
2. The new scope of European Union
Page 115 and 116:
these political declarations, which
Page 117 and 118:
thirty years and epitomises and imp
Page 119 and 120:
phenomenon and of the multifaceted
Page 121 and 122:
within the scope of instruments alr
Page 123 and 124:
Furthermore, the criminalisation of
Page 125 and 126:
interests (in this case the single
Page 127 and 128:
More notably, the most significant
Page 129 and 130:
The Court decided with the Commissi
Page 131 and 132:
Regardless of the Court having plac
Page 133 and 134:
in particular fields, thus solidify
Page 135 and 136:
However, competence to enact legisl
Page 137 and 138:
months) to third-country national v
Page 139 and 140:
derogations); 525 others proposed f
Page 141 and 142:
ecognition of national sentences, p
Page 143 and 144:
2. The features of the new supranat
Page 145 and 146:
criminal matters and, if necessary,
Page 147 and 148:
with a cross border dimension. Ther
Page 149 and 150:
question of ‘why criminal law’,
Page 151 and 152:
e affected by ECL law. 562 This dec
Page 153 and 154:
Chapter 4 Harmonisation of national
Page 155 and 156:
Harmonisation was felt to be necess
Page 157 and 158:
matters. Indeed, the European Union
Page 159 and 160:
This provision portrays a criminal
Page 161 and 162:
“a structured group of three or m
Page 163 and 164:
development is in line with the rea
Page 165 and 166:
economic loss; (e) seizure of aircr
Page 167 and 168:
Framework Decision, which obliged t
Page 169 and 170:
possession, among others. 630 A stu
Page 171 and 172:
Again, the EU’s provision was bro
Page 173 and 174:
liability is a sensitive issue whic
Page 175 and 176:
3.2. A focus on minimum maximum pen
Page 177 and 178:
the threshold demanded by EU law. T
Page 179 and 180:
of ensuring a degree of homogeneity
Page 181 and 182:
Framework Decision on trafficking i
Page 183 and 184:
inging about a harsher criminal law
Page 185 and 186:
extraterritoriality to nothing less
Page 187 and 188:
development of the single market -
Page 189 and 190:
“(… )involves the recognition o
Page 191 and 192:
These changes in extradition across
Page 193 and 194:
arguments against extradition of na
Page 195 and 196:
To be sure, concerns with fundament
Page 197 and 198:
text of the preamble does not amoun
Page 199 and 200:
States should not have to use their
Page 201 and 202:
e partly explained by the fact that
Page 203 and 204:
“Confidence in the application of
Page 205 and 206:
2007, Polish authorities requested
Page 207 and 208:
With these judgements, the Court st
Page 209 and 210:
does not deem the acts in question
Page 211 and 212:
discretion in Title VI TEU(A), one
Page 213 and 214:
Such reasoning led the Court to con
Page 215 and 216:
was committed by a national abroad
Page 217 and 218:
Furthermore, the list of types of o
Page 219 and 220:
“without any further formality be
Page 221 and 222:
An EEW can only be issued with the
Page 223 and 224:
“The competent authorities in the
Page 225 and 226:
prisoners with the view of ‘facil
Page 227 and 228:
The preamble explains this choice b
Page 229 and 230:
3.3.3 Probation and alternative san
Page 231 and 232:
prosecuted elsewhere in the EU. Rat
Page 233 and 234:
of drugs between two Schengen count
Page 235 and 236:
definitely bar further prosecution
Page 237 and 238:
Conclusion The introduction and dev
Page 239 and 240:
Chapter 6 Conclusion: Towards a Eur
Page 241 and 242:
Measures adopted along these narrat
Page 243 and 244:
implementation of Union policies. 9
Page 245 and 246:
persons acting together; in the fra
Page 247 and 248:
policies appeared as the main crite
Page 249 and 250:
preceding any legislative proposal,
Page 251 and 252:
suggests that mutual recognition wi
Page 253 and 254:
clear in relation to the EAW. In fa
Page 255 and 256:
It is beyond the scope of this thes
Page 257 and 258:
Furthermore, Article 6 TEU(L) confe
Page 259 and 260:
that may endanger his or her life,
Page 261 and 262:
communication upon arrest 1012 is u
Page 263 and 264:
penal values in the future. Similar
Page 265 and 266:
Member State of execution, irrespec
Page 267 and 268:
as how long the individual concerne
Page 269 and 270:
6. A renewed challenge for coherenc
Page 271 and 272:
Bibliography Books and articles Aba
Page 273 and 274:
Deen-Racsmany, D., “The European
Page 275 and 276:
Hinarejos, A., Spencer, J.R., and P
Page 277 and 278:
Xanthaki (eds) Towards a European C
Page 279 and 280:
Szymanski, J., “Discretionary Pow
Page 281 and 282:
Legislation and other sources by ty
Page 283 and 284:
Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18
Page 285 and 286:
Joint Action 96/602/ JHA of 14 Dece
Page 287 and 288:
Proposals Portuguese Republic, Init
Page 289 and 290:
supervision order in pre-trial proc
Page 291 and 292:
Council Doc. 9067/06 on the Proposa
Page 293 and 294:
Case C-186/98 Criminal proceedings
Page 295 and 296:
Agreement on the Application betwee
Page 297:
Websites and links http://www.eurow
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?