The evolution of European Union criminal law (1957-2012)
The evolution of European Union criminal law (1957-2012)
The evolution of European Union criminal law (1957-2012)
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
and drug trafficking, hence giving clear competence to the EU to intervene in this area.<br />
Likewise, this was the case with terrorism related cooperation as well. Although<br />
terrorism is not necessarily a phenomenon related to organised crime, the links between<br />
the two are <strong>of</strong>ten relevant and recent literature has become more aware <strong>of</strong> the increasing<br />
connections in today’s world. 349 Furthermore, during the pre-Maastricht period,<br />
organised crime, drug trafficking and terrorism were domains associated with each other<br />
in <strong>of</strong>ficial documents. 350<br />
<strong>The</strong> fact that their link to organised crime was not mentioned or explored in preambles,<br />
especially when the approach to the former has been so broad, comes to emphasise the<br />
ancillary use <strong>of</strong> organised crime as a motto or justification for the adoption <strong>of</strong> measures<br />
outside the limited reach <strong>of</strong> the TEU(M). Hence, when the TEU(M) specifically gave<br />
competence to the EC and the EU to intervene in a specific domain – as it did to drug<br />
trafficking and terrorism – the preamble <strong>of</strong> these measures no longer makes a particular<br />
reference to organised crime. Hence, the non-use <strong>of</strong> the discourse <strong>of</strong> organised crime in<br />
drugs and terrorism related matters draws attention to the instrumental use <strong>of</strong> the<br />
discourse <strong>of</strong> the fight against organised crime made by the EU in other domains during<br />
the Maastricht period.<br />
3.2. Protection <strong>of</strong> EC interests and policies<br />
<strong>The</strong> use <strong>of</strong> <strong>criminal</strong> <strong>law</strong> to protect Community interests and policies was also further<br />
developed during the nineties although the ECT(M) continued to be silent in relation to<br />
<strong>criminal</strong> <strong>law</strong>, which had now been placed under the institutional framework <strong>of</strong> the third<br />
pillar (TEU(M)). Nonetheless, the EC did not remain completely alienated from <strong>criminal</strong><br />
matters, seeking the protection <strong>of</strong> its policies and interests via <strong>criminal</strong> <strong>law</strong> through both<br />
judicial and legislative means.<br />
<strong>The</strong> CJEU continued to be an important actor in this regard, either placing limits on<br />
national <strong>criminal</strong> <strong>law</strong> or obligations upon Member States. For instance, the Court<br />
continued to place limitations on the definition <strong>of</strong> <strong>criminal</strong> <strong>of</strong>fences or on the level <strong>of</strong><br />
penalties applicable at the national level when these would compromise an EC goal. In<br />
Bordessa, for example, the Court limited the scope <strong>of</strong> a national <strong>criminal</strong> <strong>of</strong>fence,<br />
holding that a Spanish <strong>law</strong> prohibiting the export <strong>of</strong> coins, banknotes or bearer cheques<br />
in excess <strong>of</strong> PTA 5 million per person and per journey, unless subject to prior<br />
349 See, for example, H. Abadinsky, Organized Crime (Belmont: Wadsworth, 2010, 9th Edition)<br />
5-9.<br />
350 See chapter 1.<br />
95