Advertisement

Crime, Law and Social Change

, Volume 54, Issue 5, pp 339–357 | Cite as

The European legal framework on cybercrime: striving for an effective implementation

  • Francesco CalderoniEmail author
Article

Abstract

This article analyzes the European legal framework on cybercrime. Initially, it argues the challenges of cybercrime to traditional criminal justice systems. Subsequently, it focuses on the criminal law framework on cybercrime with a mainly European perspective. The European legal framework provides a three-path solution: the reduction of frictions among national legislations, the introduction of new investigative powers and the facilitation of international cooperation. The article presents and discusses each solution. Further, it argues that the effective implementation of the main legal instruments does not seem to depend on the legal enforceability of these international measures. Contrarily, other, non legal, factors such as national security, politics, the economy and the public opinion appear to stimulate the spontaneous implementation of the European legal framework. In this context, the added value of the EU action is rather low, although the Treaty of Lisbon and the Stockholm Programme may improve this situation in the long term.

Keywords

European Union Criminal Matter Mutual Assistance Judicial Cooperation European Arrest Warrant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Archick, K. (2006). Cybercrime: The Council of Europe Convention. http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RS21208.pdf. Updated September 28, 2006.
  2. 2.
    Bernardi, A. (2007). Le rôle du troisième pilier dans l’européanisation du droit pénal: Un bilan synthétique à la veille de la réforme des traitées. Revue de Science Criminelle et de Droit Pénal Comparé, 4, 713–737.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brenner, S. W. (2006). Cybercrime jurisdiction. Crime, Law and Social Change, 46(4–5), 189–206.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brenner, S. W., & Clarke, L. L. (2005). Distributed security: preventing cybercrime. John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law, 13(4), 659–709.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calderoni, F. (2008). A definition that could not work: the EU framework decision on the fight against organised crime. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 16, 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calderoni, F. (2010). Organized crime legislation in the European Union. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chaikin, D. (2006). Network investigations of cyber attacks: the limits of digital evidence. Crime, Law and Social Change, 46(4–5), 239–256.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Council of Europe. (2001). Convention on Cybercrime: Explanatory Report. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Reports/Html/185.htm.
  9. 9.
    Council of Europe. (2003). Additional Protocol to the Convention on cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems : Explanatory Report. Council of Europe. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Reports/Html/185.htm.
  10. 10.
    Council of Europe. (2005). Organised Crime in Europe: The Threat of Cybercrime., Situation Report 2004. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Council of the European Union. (2007). Doc. 9913/07 of 25 May 2007.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Council of the European Union. (2010). The Stockholm Programme - An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens. Doc. 5731/10 of 3 March 2010.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Csonka, P. (2004). The Council of Europe Convention on cyber-crime: A response to the challenge of the new age? In G. Ilarda & G. Marullo (Eds.), Cybercrime: Conferenza internazionale. La Convenzione del Consiglio d’Europa sulla Criminalità Informatico (pp. 3–29). Milano: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Downing, R. W. (2005). Shoring up the weakest link: what lawmakers around the world need to consider in developing comprehensive laws to combat cybercrime. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 43(3), 705–762.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    European Commission. (2008). Report from the Commission to the Council based on Article 12 of the council Framework Decision of 24 February 2005 on attacks against information systems. COM(2008) 448 final, Brussels, 14.07.2008.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    European Union. (2001). Council Recommendation of 25 June 2001 on contact points maintaining a 24-hour service for combating high-tech crime, OJ C 187 of 3.7.2001.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    European Union. (2005). Council Framework Decision 2005/22/JHA of 24 February 2005 on attacks against information systems, OJ L 69 of 16.3.2005.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    European Union. (2008). Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA of 18 December 2008 on the European evidence warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters, OJ L 350, 30.12.2008.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Flanagan, A. (2005). The law and computer crime: reading the script of reform. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 13(1), 98–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gercke, M. (2009). Europe’s legal approaches to cybercrime. ERA-Forum 10, 10(3), 409–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gordon, S., & Ford, R. (2006). On the definition and classification of cybercrime. Journal in Computer Virology, 2(1), 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    International Telecommunication Union. (2008). ITU Global Cybersecurity Agenda (GCA) - High- Level Experts Group (HLEG): Global Strategic Report. http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/cybersecurity/gca/global_strategic_report/global_strategic_report.pdf. 23 february 2009.
  23. 23.
    International Telecommunication Union. (2009). Understanding Cybercrime: A Guide for Developing Countries. http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/docs/itu-understanding-cybercrime-guide.pdf.
  24. 24.
    Kerr, O. S. (2003). Cybercrime’s scope: interpreting ‘access’ and ‘authorization’ in computer misuse statutes. New York University Law Review, 78(5), 1596–1668.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Keyser, M. (2003). The council of Europe convention on cybercrime. Journal of Transnational Law & Policy, 12(2), 287–326.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kierkegaard, S. (2007). Cybercrime convention: narrowing the cultural and privacy gap? International Journal of Intercultural Information Management, 1(1), 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lemos, R. (2001, June 22). International cybercrime treaty finalized. CNET News http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-268894.html.
  28. 28.
    Lewis, J. A. (2006). The Council of Europe Convention Entered into force January 2004. Http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/060804_coecybercrime.pdf.
  29. 29.
    Li, X. (2007). International Actions against Cybercrime: Netwroking Legal Systems in the Networked Crime Scene. Webology, 46(3).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Manacorda, S. (2005). Le mandat d’arrêt européen et l’harmonisation substantielle: Le rapprochement des incriminations. In G. Giudicelli-Delage & S. Manacorda (Eds.), L’intégration pénale indirecte: Interactions entre droit pénal et coopération judiciaire au seins de l’Union européenne. Paris: Société de législation comparée.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marler, S. (2002). The convention on cyber-crime: should the United States Ratify? New England Law Review, 37(1), 183–219.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    McQuade, S. C., III. (2006). Understanding and managing cybercrime. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mercado Kierkegaard, S. (2006). Here comes the ‘cybernators!’. Computer Law & Security Report, 22(5), 381–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Miquelon-Weismann, M. F. (2005). The convention on cybercrime: a harmonized implementation of International Penal Law: what prospects for procedural due process? John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law, 23(2), 329–361.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Peers, S. (2004). Mutual recognition and criminal law in the European Union: has the council got it wrong? Common Market Law Review, 41, 5–36.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Picotti, L., & Salvadori, I. (2008). National legislation implementing the convention on cybercrime - comparative analysis and good practices. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. August 28.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Polakiewicz, J. (2010). Update on Council of Europe standard-setting activities. Paper presented at the Conference Cooperation against Cybercrime, March 23–25, in Strasbourg. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/economiccrime/cybercrime/cy-activity-Interface-2010/Presentations/Update/Jorg%20Polakiewicz.pdf.
  38. 38.
    Schjolberg, S. (2008). The History of Global Harmonization on Cybercrime Legislation – The Road to Geneva. Http://www.cybercrimelaw.net/documents/cybercrime_history.pdf.
  39. 39.
    Seger, A. (2010). The Budapest Convention on Cybercrime as a global framework: Introduction to panel discussions. Paper presented at the Conference Cooperation against Cybercrime, March 23–25, in Strasbourg. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/economiccrime/cybercrime/cy-activity-Interface-2010/Presentations/Ws%203/cyber_octopus_WS_3_alexander_CCC_global_frame.pdf.
  40. 40.
    Smith, R. G., Grabosky, P., & Urbas, G. (2004). Cyber criminals on trial. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    U.S. Department of Justice. (2004). Meeting of G8 Justice and Home Affairs Ministers http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/g82004/g8_background.html.
  42. 42.
    U.S. Department of Justice. Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime Frequently Asked Questions and Answers. http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/COEFAQs.htm#QE1.
  43. 43.
    Valeri, L., Somers, G., Robinson, N., Graux, H., & Dumortier, J. (2006). Handbook of legal procedures of computer and network misuse in EU Countries. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    van der Wilt, H. (2002). Some critical reflections on the process of harmonisation. In A. H. Klip & H. G. van der Wilt (Eds.), Harmonisation and harmonising measures in criminal law (pp. 77–86). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vermeulen, G. (2002). Where do we currently stand with harmonisation in Europe? In A. H. Klip & H. G. van der Wilt (Eds.), Harmonisation and harmonising measures in criminal law (pp. 65–76). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Weber, A. M. (2003). The council of Europe’s convention on cybercrime. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 18(1), 425–446.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Weyembergh, A. (2005). Approximation of criminal laws, the constitutional treaty and The Hague Programme. Common Market Law Review, 42, 1567–1597.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore and Transcrime - Joint Research Centre on Transnational CrimeMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations