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

eplaced by newer instruments during the Maastricht era. Consequently, demands
continued to be made at the national level in relation to EC policies, particularly
regarding agriculture and structural funds. 361
Furthermore, the principle of assimilation, established by the Court in Greek Maize, was
now incorporated in Article 209a of the ECT(M). This provision, similar to the Court’s
decision in the case, did not make particular reference to measures of a criminal nature
but established a duty of similar diligence in the treatment of national or community
offences. In particular it stated that
“Member States shall take the same measures to counter fraud affecting the financial
interests of the Community as they take to counter fraud affecting their own financial
interest.”
More significant to the idea that EC interests and policies were increasingly being
pursued via national criminal law, the creation of the third pillar opened new
possibilities for EU action in criminal matters. Measures were thus not only adopted to
fight organised crime, as seen in the previous section, but also to foster the protection of
EC interests and policies. In particular, steps were taken to improve the protection of the
EC budget, as fraud continued to increase. 362 Hence, under the third pillar, a Convention
on fraud against the financial interests of the Community sought to harmonise national
definitions of fraud against the EC budget, including both fraud against the revenue and
the expenditure. The Convention also established penalties, the liability of business
heads, as well as rules of jurisdiction, cooperation and extradition. 363 The Convention
was complemented by three protocols. The first regarding corruption by national or EC
officials resulting in damage to the EC budget, 364 the second in relation to the laundering
of proceeds resulting from fraud or corruption against the community, 365 and a third
protocol regarding the preliminary rulings by the CJ in relation to the Convention as
361 See, for example, Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the
protection of the European Communities financial interests, OJ L 312/1 [1995] and Council
Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and
inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities'
financial interests against fraud and other irregularities, OJ L 392/2 [1996] which provided a
framework for control, reporting and on the spot inspections in the agricultural sector and
structural funds. See also chapter 1.
362 For several specific examples and cases of fraud against the EC financial interests during this
period see P. Van Duyne, “Implications of cross border crime risks in an open Europe” (1993) 20
Crime, Law & Social Change 99; and B. Quirke, “Fraud against European Public Funds” (1999)
31 Crime, Law & Social Change 173-192.
363 Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, supra note
298.
364 First Protocol to the Convention, supra note 299.
365 Second Protocol to the Convention supra note 300.
98