Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mutual Recognition Offences

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Mutual Recognition of Judicial Decisions in European Criminal Law

  • 847 Accesses

Abstract

The chapter deals with mutual recognition offences. It is divided into three sections and includes concluding observations at the end. Section 13.1 introduces the list of 32 mutual recognition offences. Section 13.2 analyses offences harmonised at the European Union level. In addition, Sect. 13.3 focuses on special issues, namely the support by the Court of Justice of the European Union by the case C-303/05—Advocaten voor de Wereld and criminal liability of legal persons in case of mutual recognition offences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See: De Bondt et al. (2010), pp. 63 and 64 .

  2. 2.

    Vermeulen and De Bondt (2015), p. 101 .

  3. 3.

    Klip (2012), p. 345 .

  4. 4.

    In case of mutual recognition of financial penalties 39 offences.

  5. 5.

    De Bondt et al. (2010), p. 63 .

  6. 6.

    Sievers (2008), pp. 109–128 ; Mitsilegas (2009), p. 121 ; Dumitrescu (2011), pp. 141–156 ; Vermeulen et al. (2011), p. 71 ; Paterson and Vermeulen (2011), p. 47 ; Rugerri (2013), p. 295; Belfiore (2014), p. 100; Vermeulen and De Bondt (2014), p. 101 ; Vermeulen and De Bondt (2015), p. 101.

  7. 7.

    Fletcher et al. (2008), p. 115; De Hert et al. (2009), pp. 55–78.

  8. 8.

    Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant; Article 3(2) of the Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence; Article 6(1) of the Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders ; Article 7(1) of the Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA on the mutual recognition of custodial sentences and deprivation of liberty; Article 10(1) of the Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA on mutual recognition of probation measures and alternative sanctions ; Article 14(1) of the Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA on the European evidence warrant; Article 14(1) of the Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA on the European supervision order; Annex D to the Directive 2014/41/EU on the European investigation order.

  9. 9.

    Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 316/49 of 27.11.1995.

  10. 10.

    Pursuant to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. It has jurisdiction with respect to: the crime of genocide , crimes against humanity, war crimes , and the crime of aggression (Article 5(1) of the Rome Statute); details see: Askin (1999), pp. 33–59 ; or Doria et al. (2009).

  11. 11.

    It should be noted that the list is not final. The Council of the European Union may decide at any time to add other categories of offence to the list.

  12. 12.

    Directive 2011/99/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13th December 2011 on the European protection order. Official Journal of the European Union, L 338/2 of 21st December 2011.

  13. 13.

    Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24th February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties as amended by the Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 76/16 of 22nd March 2005.

  14. 14.

    De Bondt et al. (2010), p. 18 .

  15. 15.

    Mackarel (2007), p. 44 .

  16. 16.

    The analysis of the categories of the offences on the list of 32 mutual recognition offences has been previously elaborated in author’s former works, namely: Klimek (2009), p. 20 et seq.; Klimek (2010), p. 29 et seq.; Klimek (2013a), p. 123 et seq.; Klimek (2015a), p. 100 et seq.

  17. 17.

    Commission of the European Communities (2004): ‘Green paper on the approximation , mutual recognition and enforcement of criminal sanctions in the European Union’, COM(2004) 334 final, p. 9.

  18. 18.

    See: Medelská Tkáčová (2012), pp. 59–68 .

  19. 19.

    However, some legislative proposals explicitly called for their precise definitions in connection to mutual recognition instruments, see for example: Commission of the European Communities (2002): ‘Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on attacks against information systems ’, COM(2002) 173 final, p. 7; European Commission (2010): ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating the sexual abuse , sexual exploitation of children and child pornography , repealing Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA’, COM(2010)94 final, p. 3.

  20. 20.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 3rd May 2007—Case C-303/05 —Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v Leden van de Ministerraad, para. 52.

  21. 21.

    Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA of 18th December 2008 on the European evidence warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters. Official Journal of the European Union, C 115/13 of 9th May 2008.

  22. 22.

    De Hert et al. (2009), p. 66 .

  23. 23.

    It should be noted that the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union does not use the wording ‘Euro crimes’ . It is used by the European Commission—see European Commission (2011): ‘Towards an EU Criminal Policy: Ensuring the effective implementation of EU policies through criminal law’, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2011) 573 final, p. 5.

  24. 24.

    See: Cools et al. (2009), p. 100; Miettinen (2013), p. 145; Body-Gendrot et al. (2014), p. 65; Chalmers et al. (2014), p. 657 .

  25. 25.

    See: Klip (2012), p. 211 .

  26. 26.

    Article 67(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon . Official Journal of the European Union, C 83/47 of 30th March 2010.

  27. 27.

    Paoli (2008), pp. 37 and 39 .

  28. 28.

    Action plan to combat organized crime (Adopted by the Council on 28th April 1997). Official Journal of the European Communities, C 251/1 of 15th August 1997. See also: Resolution on the action plan to combat organized crime (7421/97—C4-0199/97). Official Journal of the European Communities, C 371/183 of 8th December 1997.

  29. 29.

    Article 83(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon .

  30. 30.

    Paoli (2008), p. 51 .

  31. 31.

    Objective 1: disrupt international crime networks ; objective 2: prevent terrorism and address radicalisation and recruitment ; objective 3: raise levels of security for citizens and businesses in cyberspace; objective 4: strengthen security through border management; objective 5: increase Europe’s resilience to crises and disasters.

  32. 32.

    European Commission (2010): ‘The EU Internal Security Strategy in Action: Five steps towards a more secure Europe’, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, COM(2010) 673 final, p. 4.

  33. 33.

    European Commission (2010): ‘The EU Internal Security Strategy in Action: Five steps towards a more secure Europe’, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, COM(2010) 673 final, p. 4.

  34. 34.

    Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24th October 2008 on the fight against organised crime . Official Journal of the European Union, L 300/42 of 11th November 2008. The Framework Decision supplemented, replaced and repealed the it forerunner—the Joint action 98/733/JHA of 21st December 1998 adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on making it a criminal offence to participate in a criminal organisation in the Member States of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 351/1 of 29th December 1998. In addition, it builds on the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime (‘Palermo Convention’) of 2000 and its protocols.

  35. 35.

    Article 2 of the Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA on the fight against organised crime.

  36. 36.

    Article 3(2) of the Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA on the fight against organised crime .

  37. 37.

    Article 2 of the Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA on the fight against organised crime; the definition of the structured association has been adopted as well as in the Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13th June 2002 on combating terrorism as amended by the Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 164/3 of 22nd June 2002. In this case, the term structured group shall mean a group that is not randomly formed for the immediate commission of an offence and that does not need to have formally defined roles for its members, continuity of its membership or a developed structure (Article 2(1) of the Framework Decision).

  38. 38.

    Commission of the European Communities (2004): ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on measures to be taken to combat terrorism and other forms of serious crime, in particular to improve exchanges of information’, COM(2004)221 final, p. 7.

  39. 39.

    Calderoni (2008), p. 265 .

  40. 40.

    Calderoni (2012), p. 1390 .

  41. 41.

    Cullen-DuPont (2009), p. 6 .

  42. 42.

    Hart (2009), p. 4; Gřivna (2015), p. 295 ; Klimek (2013b), pp. 259–268; Klimek (2015b), pp. 151–172.

  43. 43.

    International Labour Office (2012): ‘ILO Global Estimate of Forced Labour’, p. 13.

  44. 44.

    Aronowitz (2009), p. 9 .

  45. 45.

    Human Trafficking: Joint UN Commentary on the EU Directive—A Human Rights-Based Approach. OHCHR—UNHCR—UNICEF—UNODC—UN Women—ILO, 2011, p. 30.

  46. 46.

    Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, C 83/389 of 30th March 2010. In-depth analysis see: Peers et al. (2014).

  47. 47.

    The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states that trafficking in human beings is prohibited (Article 5(3) of the Charter); see: EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights: ‘Commentary of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’, 2006, p. 55 et seq.

  48. 48.

    European Commission (2010): ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings, and protecting victims, repealing Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA’, COM(2010)95 final, p. 2.

  49. 49.

    Article 83(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon .

  50. 50.

    Human Trafficking: Joint UN Commentary on the EU Directive—A Human Rights-Based Approach. OHCHR—UNHCR—UNICEF—UNODC—UN Women—ILO, 2011, p. 18.

  51. 51.

    Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5th April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 101/1 of 15th April 2011. The replaced Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA on combating trafficking in human beings was the first response of the EU to a generally perceived need to address the serious criminal offence of trafficking in human beings at EU level. As a result, the Member States of the EU generally dispose of specific criminal law provisions incriminating trafficking in human beings for the purpose of sexual and labour exploitation, and providing for effective proportionate and dissuasive penalties—see: Commission of the European Communities: ‘Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament based on Article 10 of the Council Framework Decision of 19th July 2002 on combating trafficking in human beings’, COM(2006) 187 final. In spite this fact the EU decided to adopt a new legislation with added value.

  52. 52.

    Article 1 of the Directive 2011/36/EU on trafficking in human beings.

  53. 53.

    Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. New York, 15th November 2000. United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 2237, p. 319.

  54. 54.

    Council of Europe , European Treaty Series No. 197 [2005]. Warsaw, 16th May 2005.

  55. 55.

    Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA of 19th July 2002 on combating trafficking in human beings. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 203/1 of 1st August 2002.

  56. 56.

    Commission of the European Communities (2009): ‘Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings, and protecting victims, repealing Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA’, Commission staff working document, Summary of the impact assessment, SEC(2009) 359, p. 4.

  57. 57.

    Commission of the European Communities (2006): ‘Annex to the Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament based on Article 10 of the Council Framework Decision of 19th July 2002 on combating trafficking in human beings’, Commission staff working document, SEC(2006) 525, p. 3.

  58. 58.

    Article 2(1)(2) of the Directive 2011/36/EU on trafficking in human beings.

  59. 59.

    Article 2(3)(4)(5)(6) of the Directive 2011/36/EU on trafficking in human beings.

  60. 60.

    OHCHR—UNHCR—UNICEF—UNODC—UN Women—ILO (2011) Human Trafficking: Joint UN Commentary on the EU Directive—A Human Rights-Based Approach, p. 35.

  61. 61.

    Article 8 of the Directive 2011/36/EU on trafficking in human beings.

  62. 62.

    Recital 14 of the Directive 2011/36/EU on trafficking in human beings.

  63. 63.

    Ferraro and Casey (2004), p. 7.

  64. 64.

    Jenkins (2001), pp. 25–26 .

  65. 65.

    Ost (2009), pp. 28–29.

  66. 66.

    European Commission (2010): ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings, and protecting victims, repealing Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA’, COM(2010)95 final, p. 8.

  67. 67.

    Article 83(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon .

  68. 68.

    European Commission (2010): ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating the sexual abuse , sexual exploitation of children and child pornography , repealing Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA’, COM(2010)94 final, p. 8.

  69. 69.

    The original numbering of the Directive ‘2011/92/EU’ was amended to ‘2011/93/EU’. See Corrigendum to Directive—Official Journal of the European Union, L 18/7 of 21st January 2012.

  70. 70.

    Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13th December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 335/1 of 17th December 2011. The Directive aims expand the provisions of its forerunner—the Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA of 22nd December 2003 on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. Official Journal of the European Union, L 13/44 of 20th January 2004. It introduced a minimum of approximation of the EU Member States’ legislation, among others, to criminalise the most serious forms of child sexual abuse and exploitation . Although the requirements have generally been put into implementation, the Framework Decision has a number of shortcomings. It approximated legislation only on a limited number of offences, does not address new forms of abuse and exploitation using information technology etc. Since the amendments to be made were of substantial number and nature, it was decided that the Framework Decision should be replaced in its entirety. See: European Commission (2007): ‘Report from the Commission based on Article 12 of the Council Framework Decision of 22nd December 2003 on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography’, COM(2007) 716 final.

  71. 71.

    Article 1 of the Directive 2011/93/EU on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.

  72. 72.

    Recital 1 of the Directive 2011/93/EU on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.

  73. 73.

    Articles 3–6 of the Directive 2011/93/EU on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography .

  74. 74.

    See: Klimek (2012b), pp. 135–144.

  75. 75.

    Ost (2009), p. 29.

  76. 76.

    Article 2(c) of the Directive 2011/93/EU on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.

  77. 77.

    It should be noted that the Directive does not harmonise the age of sexual consent in the Member States of the EU. It means the age below which, in line with national law, it is prohibited to engage in sexual activities with a child .

  78. 78.

    Article 2(d) of the Directive 2011/93/EU on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.

  79. 79.

    Article 2(e) of the Directive 2011/93/EU on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.

  80. 80.

    McClean (2012), p. 238 .

  81. 81.

    Weil and Rosen (2003), p. 1 .

  82. 82.

    Article 83(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon .

  83. 83.

    European Commission (2011): ‘Towards a stronger European response to drugs’, communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, COM(2011) 689 final, p. 2.

  84. 84.

    For example: Commission of the European Communities (1994): ‘Action plan to combat drugs (1995–1999)’, communication to the Council and the European Parliament on a European Union, COM(94) 234 final; Commission of the European Communities (1999): ‘Action Plan to Combat Drugs (2000–2004)’; communication of 26th May 1999 from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(1999) 239 final; EU Drugs Action Plan (2005–2008). Official Journal of the European Union, C 168/1 of 8th June 2005; EU Drugs Action Plan for 2009–2012. Official Journal of the European Union, C 326/7 of 20th December 2008; EU Action Plan on Drugs 2013–2016. Official Journal of the European Union, C 351/1 of 30th November 2013.

  85. 85.

    Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25th October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking . Official Journal of the European Union, L 335/8 of 11th November 2004. The Framework Decision builds on the United Nations legal framework, namely the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 as amended by its Protocol of 1972, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 and the Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988.

  86. 86.

    Article 2(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA on illicit drug trafficking .

  87. 87.

    Council Decision 2005/387/JHA of 10th May 2005 on the information exchange , risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances. Official Journal of the European Union, L 127/32 of 20th May 2005. The Decision establishes a mechanism for a rapid exchange of information on new psychoactive substances (Article 1 of the Decision).

  88. 88.

    Article 2(d) of the Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA on illicit drug trafficking .

  89. 89.

    Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11th February 2004 on drug precursors as amended by Regulation (EC) No 219/2009. Official Journal of the European Union, L 47/1 of 18th February 2004. The Regulation lays down rules for the monitoring of trade between the EU and third countries in certain substances frequently used for the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances for the purpose of preventing the diversion of such substances. It applies to imports, exports and intermediary activities (Article 1 of the Regulation).

  90. 90.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22nd December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors. Official Journal of the European Union, L 22/1 of 26th January 2005. The Regulation establishes harmonised measures for the intra-EU control and monitoring of certain substances frequently used for the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances with a view to preventing the diversion of such substances (Article 1 of the Regulation).

  91. 91.

    Article 3(1) of the Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA on illicit drug trafficking .

  92. 92.

    Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA on illicit drug trafficking .

  93. 93.

    Commission of the European Communities (2009): ‘Report from the Commission on the implementation of Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking ’, COM(2009) 669 final, p. 10.

  94. 94.

    Commission of the European Communities (2009): ‘Report from the Commission on the implementation of Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking ’, COM(2009) 669 final, p. 3.

  95. 95.

    Commission of the European Communities (2009): ‘Report from the Commission on the implementation of Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking ’, COM(2009) 669 final, pp. 3–4.

  96. 96.

    European Commission (2011): ‘Towards a stronger European response to drugs’, communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, COM(2011) 689 final, pp. 4 and 11.

  97. 97.

    Parliament of the Kingdom of Great Britain (2012): ‘The EU Drugs Strategy: 26th Report of Session 2010–12’, House of Lords papers, Paper 270, p. 28.

  98. 98.

    European Commission (2011): ‘Towards a stronger European response to drugs’, communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, COM(2011) 689 final, p. 5.

  99. 99.

    EU Drugs Strategy (2013–20). Official Journal of the European Union, C 402/1 of 29th December 2012. See also: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2015): ‘Perspectives on Drugs – The EU drugs strategy (2013–20) and its action plan (2013–16)’.

  100. 100.

    Council Decision 2001/419/JHA of 28th May 2001 on the transmission of samples of controlled substances. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 150/1 of 6th June 2001.

  101. 101.

    See: List of national contact points as referred to in Article 3(1) of the Council Decision on the transmission of samples of controlled substances (2001/419/JHA). Official Journal of the European Union, C 30/1 of 1st February 2013.

  102. 102.

    Article 4(1) of the Decision 2001/419/JHA on the transmission of samples of controlled substances.

  103. 103.

    Article 6(1) of the Decision 2001/419/JHA on the transmission of samples of controlled substances.

  104. 104.

    Council Decision 2005/387/JHA of 10th May 2005 on the information exchange , risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances. Official Journal of the European Union, L 127/32 of 20th May 2005.

  105. 105.

    European Commission (2011): ‘Report from the Commission on the assessment of the functioning of Council Decision 2005/387/JHA on the information exchange , risk assessment and control of new psychoactive substances’, COM(2011) 430 final, p. 5; see also: European Commission (2011): ‘Report from the Commission on the assessment of the functioning of Council Decision 2005/387/JHA on the information exchange, risk assessment and control of new psychoactive substances – commission staff working paper accompanying the report’, SEC(2011) 912 final, p. 22 et seq.

  106. 106.

    Council Decision 2008/206/JHA of 3rd March 2008 on defining 1-benzylpiperazine (BZP) as a new psychoactive substance which is to be made subject to control measures and criminal provisions. Official Journal of the European Union, L 63/45 of 7th March 2008.

  107. 107.

    Council Decision 2010/759/EU of 2nd December 2010 on submitting 4-methylmethcathinone (mephedrone) to control measures. Official Journal of the European Union, L 322/44 of 8th December 2010.

  108. 108.

    European Commission (2011): ‘Report from the Commission on the assessment of the functioning of Council Decision 2005/387/JHA on the information exchange , risk assessment and control of new psychoactive substances’, COM(2011) 430 final, p. 8.

  109. 109.

    Regulation (EC) No 1920/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12th December 2006 on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (recast). Official Journal of the European Union, L 376/1 of 27th December 2006. The first legal basis of the Centre was the Council Regulation (EEC) No 302/93 of 8th February 1993 on the establishment of a European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction . Official Journal of the European Communities, L 36/1 of 12th February 1993. However, it was repealed by Regulation (EC) No 1920/2006 . Details see: Commission of the European Communities (2003): ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction’, COM(2003) 808 final/2.

  110. 110.

    Jason-Lloyd (1997), p. 1; Ivor (2015b), p. 152 .

  111. 111.

    Stessens (2000), pp. 82 and 83 .

  112. 112.

    Article 83(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon ; Ivor (2015a), p. 173 ; Burda (2008), p. 53 .

  113. 113.

    Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20th May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, L 141/73 of 5th June 2015.

  114. 114.

    Council Directive 91/308/EEC of 10th June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering . Official Journal of the European Communities, L 166/77 of 28th June 1991.

  115. 115.

    Directive 2001/97/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4th December 2001 amending Council Directive 91/308/EEC on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering. Official Journal of the European Union, L 344/76 of 28th December 2001.

  116. 116.

    Financial Action Task Force (2013) : ‘FATF 40 Recommendations ’.

  117. 117.

    Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26th October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing . Official Journal of the European Union, L 309/15 of 25th November 2005.

  118. 118.

    Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1st August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of politically exposed person and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis. Official Journal of the European Union, L 214/29 of 4th August 2006.

  119. 119.

    Article 3(a)(b)(c)(d) of the Directive (EU) 2015/849 on money laundering .

  120. 120.

    Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13th June 2002 on combating terrorism as amended by the Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 164/3 of 22nd June 2002.

  121. 121.

    Articles 4 and 5 of the Directive (EU) 2015/849 on money laundering .

  122. 122.

    Articles 2(1) of the Directive (EU) 2015/849 on money laundering .

  123. 123.

    European Commission (2013): ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention of the use of the financial System for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing ’, COM(2013) 45 final.

  124. 124.

    The European Banking Authority (EBA), the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).

  125. 125.

    Opinion of the European Central Bank of 17th May 2013 on a Proposal for a Directive on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing and on a proposal for a regulation on information accompanying transfers of funds (CON/2013/32). Official Journal of the European Union, C 166/2 of 12th June 2013.

  126. 126.

    Marsh (2009), p. 1 .

  127. 127.

    European Central Bank (2012): ‘Biannual information on euro banknote counterfeiting’, Press Release of 16th January 2012.

  128. 128.

    See: Klimek (2012a), pp. 12–24.

  129. 129.

    See: Klimek (2012a), pp. 12–24.

  130. 130.

    Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA of 29th May 2000 on increasing protection by criminal penalties and other sanctions against counterfeiting in connection with the introduction of the euro. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 140/1 of 14th June 2000. The Framework Decision supplemented the provisions and facilitates the application of the International Convention for the Suppression of Counterfeiting Currency of 1929, at international level, the basic instrument of protection the currency. Following its ratification a degree of standardisation of the Member States of the EU legislation had already taken place. The Framework Decision, however, was designated to introduce the legislation solely as regards the euro. The Framework Decision was supplemented by the Council Decision 2001/887/JHA of 6th December 2001 on the protection of the euro against counterfeiting. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 329/1 of 14th December 2001. It supplemented existing provisions on the protection of the euro against counterfeiting, in particular the Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA. It required the Member States of the EU to ensure that in the context of investigations into counterfeiting and offences related to counterfeiting of the euro, firstly, are carried out the necessary expert analyses of suspected counterfeit notes by a National Analysis Centre , and secondly, are carried out the necessary expert analyses of suspected counterfeit coins by a Coin National Analysis Centre, both designated or established pursuant to the Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 of 28th June 2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 181/6 of 4th July 2001.

  131. 131.

    Directive 2014/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15th May 2014 on the protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 151/1 of 21st May 2014.

  132. 132.

    Article 1 of the Directive 2014/62/EU on the protection of the euro.

  133. 133.

    Article 3(1)(a)(b)(c)(d) of the Directive 2014/62/EU on the protection of the euro.

  134. 134.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 of 28th June 2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting as amended by the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2009. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 181/6 of 4th July 2001. See also: Council Regulation (EC) No 1339/2001 of 28th June 2001 extending the effects of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting to those Member States which have not adopted the euro as their single currency as amended by the Council Regulation (EC) No 45/2009. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 181/11 of 4th July 2001. While the Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 provides for exchanges of information, co-operation and mutual assistance , thereby establishing a harmonised framework for the protection of the euro, the effects of that Regulation were extended by the Regulation (EC) No 1339/2001 to those Member States which have not adopted the euro as their single currency, so as to provide an equivalent level of protection for the euro throughout the Union.

  135. 135.

    Article 10 of the Directive 2014/62/EU on the protection of the euro.

  136. 136.

    Initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with a view to adopting a Council Decision on protecting the euro against counterfeiting, by designating Europol as the Central Office for combating euro counterfeiting. Official Journal of the European Union, C 317/10 of 22nd December 2004.

  137. 137.

    Council Decision 2005/511/JHA of 12th July 2005 on protecting the euro against counterfeiting, by designating Europol as the Central Office for combating euro counterfeiting. Official Journal of the European Union. L 185/35 of 16th July 2005.

  138. 138.

    Council Decision 2009/371/JHA of 6th April 2009 establishing the European Police Office (Europol). Official Journal of the European Union, L 121/37 of 15th May 2009.

  139. 139.

    The list of other forms of serious crime which Europol is competent to deal with partially mirrors the list of 32 crimes as provided by the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant as well as by other mutual recognition legislative instruments.

  140. 140.

    Article 4(1) of the Decision 2009/371/JHA establishing Europol. Details see: Mitsilegas (2009), p. 187 et seq.; Ivor et al. (2013), p. 757 et seq .; Kaczorowska (2013), p. 948; Klimek (2014), p. 213; Spencer (2014), p. 762; Medelský (2014) .

  141. 141.

    See: Commission Decision 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 28th April 1999 establishing the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF ) as amended by the Decision 2013/478/EU. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 136/20 of 31st May 1999. See also: Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11th September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999. Official Journal of the European Union, L 248/1 of 18th September 2013; Interinstitutional Agreement of 25th May 1999 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities concerning internal investigations by the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF). Official Journal of the European Communities, L 136/15 of 31st May 1999.

  142. 142.

    Commission Decision 2005/37/EC of 29th October 2004 establishing the European Technical and Scientific Centre (ETSC) and providing for co-ordination of technical actions to protect euro coins against counterfeiting. Official Journal of the European Union, L 19/73 of 21st January 2005.

  143. 143.

    Article 2 of the Decision 2005/37/EC establishing the European Technical and Scientific Centre (ETSC) and providing for co-ordination of technical actions to protect euro coins against counterfeiting.

  144. 144.

    Article 3 of the Decision 2005/37/EC establishing the European Technical and Scientific Centre (ETSC) and providing for co-ordination of technical actions to protect euro coins against counterfeiting.

  145. 145.

    See: Commission of the European Communities (2001) ‘Proposal for a Council decision establishing a training, exchange and assistance programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (‘Pericles’ programme)’, COM(2001) 248 final.

  146. 146.

    Council Decision 2001/923/EC of 17th December 2001 establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the ‘Pericles’ programme). Official Journal of the European Communities, L 339/50 of 21st December 2001.

  147. 147.

    Council Decision 2001/924/EC of 17th December 2001 extending the effects of the Decision establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (‘Pericles’ programme) to the Member States which have not adopted the euro as the single currency. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 339/55 of 21st December 2001.

  148. 148.

    Council Decision 2006/850/EC of 20th November 2006 extending to the non-participating Member States the application of Decision 2006/849/EC amending and extending Decision 2001/923/EC establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the ‘Pericles’ programme). Official Journal of the European Union, L 330/30 of 28th November 2006.

  149. 149.

    Commission of the European Communities (2005): ‘Implementation and continuation of the Pericles programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting’, communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council, COM(2005) 127 final/2.

  150. 150.

    European Anti-fraud Office (2004): ‘Report of the Evaluation of the “PERICLES” programme under Council Decision (2001/923/EC) 17th December 2001’—see Council of the European Union document ‘OLAF : Report of the Evaluation of the “PERICLES” Programme under Council Decision (2001/923/EC) 17th December 2001’, communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council concerning the implementation and continuation of the Pericles programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting, 8074/05, ADD 1.

  151. 151.

    European Commission (2011): ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the ‘Pericles 2020’ programme)’, COM(2011) 913 final.

  152. 152.

    Regulation (EU) No 331/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11th March 2014 establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the ‘Pericles 2020’ programme) and repealing Council Decisions 2001/923/EC, 2001/924/EC, 2006/75/EC, 2006/76/EC, 2006/849/EC and 2006/850/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, L 103/1 of 5th April 2014.

  153. 153.

    Article 2 of the Regulation (EU) No 331/2014 establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting.

  154. 154.

    Article 3 of the Regulation (EU) No 331/2014 establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting.

  155. 155.

    Article 4 of the Regulation (EU) No 331/2014 establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting.

  156. 156.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 21st September 1989—Case 68/88 —Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

  157. 157.

    Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 316/49 of 27th November 1995; the Convention entered into force on 17th October 2002; see: also the Council Act of 26th July 1995 drawing up the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 316/48 of 27th November 1995.

  158. 158.

    Protocol drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the interpretation, by way of preliminary rulings, by the Court of Justice of the European Communities of the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 151/5 of 20th May 1997; Second Protocol drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the treaty on European Union, to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 221/12 of 19th July 1997.

  159. 159.

    Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention on the protection of the financial interests.

  160. 160.

    Article 1(1)(b) of the Convention on the protection of the financial interests; Klátik (2008), pp. 409–416 .

  161. 161.

    Article 1(2)(3) of the Convention on the protection of the financial interests.

  162. 162.

    Commission of the European Communities (2004): ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee, the European Central Bank and Europol : A new EU Action Plan 2004–2007 to prevent fraud on non-cash means of payment’, COM(2004) 679 final, pp. 2 and 3.

  163. 163.

    Article 83(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon .

  164. 164.

    Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JHA of 28th May 2001 on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 149/1 of 2nd July 2001.

  165. 165.

    Council Decision 2008/976/JHA of 16th December 2008 on the European Judicial Network . Official Journal of the European Union, L 348/130 of 24th December 2008.

  166. 166.

    Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24th October 2008 on the fight against organised crime. Official Journal of the European Union, L 300/42 of 11th November 2008.

  167. 167.

    Commission of the European Communities (1999): ‘Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment’, COM(1999) 438 final, p. 2.

  168. 168.

    Article 2(a)(b)(c)(d) of the Framework Decision 2001/413/JHA on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment.

  169. 169.

    Article 1(a) of the Framework Decision 2001/413/JHA on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment.

  170. 170.

    See: Clough (2010), p. 3 .

  171. 171.

    Symantec (2011): ‘Norton Cybercrime Report 2011’, 7th September 2011; European Commission (2012): ‘Tackling Crime in our Digital Age: Establishing a European Cybercrime Centre’, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, COM(2012) 140 final, p. 2.

  172. 172.

    See: Clough (2010), p. 10 ; Brenner (2010), p. 39 ; Smith et al. (2004), p. 7 ; Záhora (2005), p. 207 .

  173. 173.

    European Commission (2012): ‘Tackling Crime in our Digital Age: Establishing a European Cybercrime Centre’, communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, COM(2012) 140 final, p. 2; Holcr et al (2008), p. 349 et seq .

  174. 174.

    Article 83(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon .

  175. 175.

    Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JHA of 28th May 2001 on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 149/1 of 2nd June 2001.

  176. 176.

    Article 3 of the Framework Decision 2001/413/JHA on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment.

  177. 177.

    Article 4 of the Framework Decision 2001/413/JHA on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment.

  178. 178.

    European Commission (2010): ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on attacks against information systems and repealing Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA’, COM(2010) 517 final, p. 8.

  179. 179.

    Directive 2013/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12th August 2013 on attacks against information systems and replacing Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 218/8, 14th August 2013. The Directive is intended to be consistent with the approach adopted in the Convention on cybercrime of 2001, adopted by the Council of Europe. Council of Europe , European Treaty Series No. 185 [2001], Budapest, 23rd November 2001.

  180. 180.

    Article 3 of the Directive 2013/40/EU on attacks against information systems .

  181. 181.

    Article 4 of the Directive 2013/40/EU on attacks against information systems .

  182. 182.

    Article 5 of the Directive 2013/40/EU on attacks against information systems.

  183. 183.

    Article 6 of the Directive 2013/40/EU on attacks against information systems.

  184. 184.

    Article 2(a) of the Directive 2013/40/EU on attacks against information systems.

  185. 185.

    Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28th November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law. Official Journal of the European Union, L 328/55 of 6th December 2008. The Framework decision was adopted as a follow-up to its forerunner—the Joint Action 96/443/JHA of 15th July 1996 adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, concerning action to combat racism and xenophobia. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 185/5 of 24th July 1996. Joint Action was followed by further legislative action addressing the need for further approximation of law and regulations of the Member States of the EU and for overcoming obstacles for efficient judicial co-operation which are mainly based on the divergence of legal approaches in the Member States.

  186. 186.

    Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 23rd September 1994—Jersild v. Denmark —application No. 15890/89). See also Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 9th July 2013—Vona v. Hungary —application No. 35943/10, specifically on freedom of assembly and association.

  187. 187.

    Article 1(1)(a)(b)(c)(d) of the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on combating racism and xenophobia .

  188. 188.

    Article 4 of the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on combating racism and xenophobia.

  189. 189.

    European Commission (2014): ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law’, COM(2014) 27 final, pp. 4, 9 and 10.

  190. 190.

    Sands (2003), p. 3 .

  191. 191.

    Article 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon . Official Journal of the European Union, C 83/13 of 30th March 2010.

  192. 192.

    Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19th November 2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law. Official Journal of the European Union, L 328/28, 6th December 2008. The Directive is a ‘surrogate’ of the Council Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA of 27th January 2003 on the protection of the environment through criminal law. Official Journal of the European Union, L 29/55 of 5th February 2003. The Framework Decision required the Member States to provide for criminal sanctions in the case of the offences against environmental law. However, the European Commission had asked the Court of Justice to annul the Framework Decision. In its view, the legal basis chosen—a framework decision—was erroneous, because the legislative enterprise in question was a matter for a Community instrument and not, as had been done, on the basis of the Third Pillar of the EU, i.e. the area of the ‘Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters’ (see: Action brought on 15th April 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Council of the European Union (Case C-176/03 )). As a consequence of the trial, the Court of Justice annulled the Framework Decision. See: Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 13th September 2005—Case C-176/03 —Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union; Commission of the European Communities (2005): ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implications of the Court’s judgment of 13th September 2005 (Case C-176/03 Commission v Council)’, COM(2005) 583 final/2; Spinellis (2006), pp. 293–302 .

  193. 193.

    Article 1 of the Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment through criminal law.

  194. 194.

    Article 3(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i) of the Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment through criminal law.

  195. 195.

    Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14th June 2006 on shipments of waste. Official Journal of the European Union, L 190/1, 12th July 2006. The Regulation establishes procedures and control regimes for the shipment of waste, depending on the origin, destination and route of the shipment, the type of waste shipped and the type of treatment to be applied to the waste at its destination (Article 1(1) of the Regulation).

  196. 196.

    Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7th September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements as amended by the Directive 2009/123/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, L 255/11 of 30th September 2005.

  197. 197.

    Article 1(1)(2) of the Directive 2005/35/EC on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements.

  198. 198.

    Article 3(1)(a)(b)(c)(d)(e) of the Directive 2005/35/EC on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements.

  199. 199.

    Article 4(1) of the Directive 2005/35/EC on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements.

  200. 200.

    Enders and Sandler (2006), p. 3.

  201. 201.

    Article 83(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon .

  202. 202.

    Enders and Sandler (2006), p. 1.

  203. 203.

    Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13th June 2002 on combating terrorism as amended by the Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 164/3 of 22nd June 2002.

  204. 204.

    Article 1(1) of the Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism; Záhora (2015), pp. 130 and 131 .

  205. 205.

    Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism.

  206. 206.

    Article 2(1) of the Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism.

  207. 207.

    Article 3(1)(2) of the Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism .

  208. 208.

    Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism .

  209. 209.

    Szarek-Mason (2010), p. 5 .

  210. 210.

    Explanatory Report to the Protocol to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 11/5 of 15th January 1998.

  211. 211.

    Protocol drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 313/2 of 23rd October 1996. The Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests of 1995 constitutes the first agreement dealing with fraud affecting the European Communities’ budget.

  212. 212.

    Council Act of 27th September 1996 drawing up a Protocol to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 313/1 of 23rd October 1996.

  213. 213.

    Article 2(1)(2) of the Protocol to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests.

  214. 214.

    Article 3(1)(2) of the Protocol to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests.

  215. 215.

    Article 1(a)(b)(c) of the Protocol to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests.

  216. 216.

    Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3(2)(c) of the Treaty on European Union on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 195/2 of 25th June 1997.

  217. 217.

    Council Act of 26th May 1997 drawing up, on the basis of Article K.3(2)(c) of the Treaty on European Union, the Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 195/1 of 25th June 1997.

  218. 218.

    Article 2(1)(2) of the Convention on the fight against corruption.

  219. 219.

    Article 3(1)(2) of the Convention on the fight against corruption.

  220. 220.

    Commission of the European Communities (2007): ‘Report from the commission to the Council based on Article 9 of the Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22nd July 2003 on combating corruption in the private sector’, COM(2007) 328 final, p. 2.

  221. 221.

    Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22nd July 2003 on combating corruption in the private sector . Official Journal of the European Union, L 192/54 of 31st July 2003. The Framework Decision repealed the Joint Action 98/742/JHA of 22nd December 1998 adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on corruption in the private sector. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 358/2 of 31st December 1998. The Joint Action sought to address the impact of corruption on the internal market and in international trade. It called on the Member States of the EU to establish both passive and active corruption as criminal offences. Comparison of the Framework Decision and the Joint Action see: Commission of the European Communities (2007): ‘Annex to the Report from the Commission based on Article 9 of the Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22nd July 2003 on combating corruption in the private sector’, Commission staff working document, SEC(2007) 808, p. 8 et seq.

  222. 222.

    Article 2(1)(a)(b) of the Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA on combating corruption in the private sector.

  223. 223.

    Recital 10 of the Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA on combating corruption in the private sector; Navrátilová (2015), p. 255 .

  224. 224.

    Commission of the European Communities: ‘Report from the Commission to the Council based on Article 9 of the Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 on combating corruption in the private sector’, COM(2007) 328 final, pp. 5 and 12.

  225. 225.

    Commission of the European Communities: ‘Report from the Commission to the Council based on Article 9 of the Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 on combating corruption in the private sector’, COM(2007) 328 final, p. 6; Commission of the European Communities: ‘Annex to the Report from the Commission to the Council based on Article 9 of the Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 on combating corruption in the private sector ’, Commission staff working document, COM(2007) SEC(2007) 808, p. 25.

  226. 226.

    Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13th June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States as amended by the Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 190/1 of 18th July 2002.

  227. 227.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 3rd May 2007—case C-303/05 —Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v Leden van de Ministerraad, para. 13.

  228. 228.

    Reference for a preliminary ruling of 13th July 2005 from the Arbitragehof (Belgium) in the proceedings between Advocaten voor de wereld and the Council of Ministers.

  229. 229.

    Geyer (2008), p. 152 .

  230. 230.

    Judgment Advocaten voor de Wereld, paras 45, 46 and 50.

  231. 231.

    Judgment Advocaten voor de Wereld, paras 52–54 and 60.

  232. 232.

    Pollicino (2008), pp. 1318 and 1329 .

  233. 233.

    Judgment Advocaten voor de Wereld, para. 57.

  234. 234.

    Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer—Case C-303/05—Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v Leden van de Ministerraad.

  235. 235.

    Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer […], paras 100–103.

  236. 236.

    Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer […], para. 104.

  237. 237.

    Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer […], paras 106 and 107.

  238. 238.

    Judgment Advocaten voor de Wereld, rulings.

  239. 239.

    Commission of the European Communities (2006): ‘Report from the Commission based on Article 34 of the Council Framework Decision of 13th June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States’ (revised version), COM(2006) 8 final, p. 3.

  240. 240.

    Article 67(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon ; Záhora (2013), pp. 15–27 ; Turayová et al. (2015), p. 9 et seq.

  241. 241.

    Directive 2009/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18th June 2009 providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals. Official Journal of the European Union, L 168/24 of 30th June 2009.

  242. 242.

    Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7th September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements as amended by the Directive 2009/123/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, L 255/11 of 30th September 2005.

  243. 243.

    Council Framework Decision 2002/946/JHA of 28th November 2002 on the strengthening of the penal frame-work to prevent the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence . Official Journal of the European Communities, L 328/1 of 5th December 2002.

  244. 244.

    Vermeulen et al. (2012), p. 9 .

  245. 245.

    Boister (2012), p. 109.

  246. 246.

    Wells (2011), p. 11 .

  247. 247.

    Article 7 of the Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism as amended by the Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA; Article 5 of the Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims; Article 12 of the Directive 2011/93/EU on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography ; Article 6 of the Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking ; Article 5 of the Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA on combating corruption in the private sector ; Article 7 of the Frame-work Decision 2001/413/JHA on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment; Article 10 of the Directive 2013/40/EU on attacks against information systems ; Article 5 of the Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA on the fight against organised crime .

  248. 248.

    Vermeulen et al. (2012), p. 9 .

  249. 249.

    Article 8 of the Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism as amended by the Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA; Article 6 of the Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims; Article 13 of the Directive 2011/93/EU on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography ; Article 7 of the Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking ; Article 6 of the Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA on combating corruption in the private sector ; Article 8 of the Framework Decision 2001/413/JHA on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment; Article 11 of the Directive 2013/40/EU on attacks against information systems; Article 6 of the Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA on the fight against organised crime .

  250. 250.

    European Commission (2011): ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Towards an EU Criminal Policy: Ensuring the effective implementation of EU policies through criminal law’, COM(2011) 573 final, p. 9.

References

  • Aronowitz AA (2009) Human trafficking, human misery: the global trade in human beings. Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport

    Google Scholar 

  • Askin KD (1999) Crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Crim Law Forum 10:33–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belfiore R (2014) Critical remarks on the proposal for a European investigation order and some considerations on the issue of mutual admissibility of evidence. In: Rugerri S (ed) Transnational evidence and multicultural inquiries in Europe. Developments in EU legislation and new challenges for human rights-oriented criminal investigations in cross-border cases. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Body-Gendrot S et al (2014) The Routledge handbook of European criminology. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Boister N (2012) An introduction to transnational criminal law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner SW (2010) Cybercrime: criminal threats from cyberspace. Praeger, Santa Barbara

    Google Scholar 

  • Burda E (2008) Legalizácia príjmov z trestnej činnosti de lege lata a de lege ferenda [transl.: Money laundering Lex Lata and Lex Ferenda]. In: Hamuľák O (ed) Olomoucké debaty mladých právníků 2008 [transl.: Young lawyers debates in Olomouc, vol 2008]. Proceedings of the international conference, 8–10 September 2008, Faculty of Law, Palacký University. Iuridica Olomucensis, Olomouc, pp 53–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Calderoni F (2008) A definition that could not work: the EU framework decision on the fight against organised crime. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 16:265–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calderoni F (2012) A definition that does not work: the impact of the EU framework decision on the fight against organized crime. Common Mark Law Rev 49:1365–1393

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers D, Davies G, Monti G (2014) European Union law, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough J (2010) Principles of cybercrime. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cools M et al (2009) Readings on criminal justice, criminal law & policing. Maklu, Antwerpen

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen-DuPont K (2009) Global issues: human trafficking. Infobase Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bondt W, Vermeulen G, Van Damme Y (2010) EU cross-border gathering and use of evidence in criminal matters: towards mutual recognition of investigative measures and free movement of evidence? Maklu, Antwerpen

    Google Scholar 

  • De Hert P, Weis K, Cloosen N (2009) The framework decision 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 – a critical assessment. N J Eur Crim Law 0 (Special Edition):55–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Doria J, Gasser H-P, Bassiouni MC (eds) (2009) The legal regime of the International Criminal Court: essays in honour of Professor Igor Blishchenko. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumitrescu L (2011) The evolution of criminal judicial cooperation in the European Union. Revista de Stiinte Politice 32:141–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Enders W, Sandler T (2006) The political economy of terrorism. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro MM, Casey E (2004) Investigating child exploitation and pornography. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington, p 7

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher M, Lööf R, Gilmore B (2008) EU criminal law and justice. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Geyer F (2008) European arrest warrant: Court of Justice of the European Communities: Judgment of 3 May 2007, Case C-303/05, Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v. Leden van de Ministerraad (case note). Eur Constitutional Law Rev 4:149–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gřivna T (2015) Obchodování s lidmi v kontextu práva EU a jeho vliv na české trestní právo [transl.: Trafficking in Human Beings v the Context of the European Union and its impact on the Czech criminal law]. In: Jelínek J, Ivor J (eds) Trestní právo Evropské unie a jeho vliv na právní řád České republiky a Slovenské republiky [transl.: Criminal law of the European Union and its impact on the legal order of the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic]: Proceedings of the international scientific conference, 22 April 2015, Prague. Leges, Prague, pp 295–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart J (2009) Human trafficking. The Rosen Publishing Group, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Holcr K et al (2008) Kriminológia. Iura Edition, Bratislava

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivor J (2015a) Money laundering. In: Ivor J, Jelínek J et al (eds) Euro crimes in the legal systems of the Czech Republic and of the Slovak Republic. Wolters Kluwer, Budapest, pp 173–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivor J (2015b) Pranie špinavých peňazí v európskom a národnom kontexte [transl.: Money laundering in European and national context]. In: Jelínek J, Ivor J (eds) Trestní právo Evropské unie a jeho vliv na právní řád České republiky a Slovenské republiky [transl.: Criminal law of the European Union and its impact on the legal order of the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic]: Proceedings of the international scientific conference, 22 April 2015, Prague. Leges, Prague, pp 151–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivor J, Klimek L, Záhora J (2013) Trestné právo Európskej únie a jeho vplyv na právny poriadok Slovenskej republiky [transl.: Criminal law of the European Union and its impact on the legal order of the Slovak Republic]. Eurokódex, Žilina

    Google Scholar 

  • Jason-Lloyd L (1997) The law on money-laundering: statutes and documentary. Frank Cass, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins P (2001) Beyond tolerance: child pornography on the Internet. New York University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaczorowska A (2013) European Union law, 3rd edn. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Klátik J (2008) Trestný čin poškodzovania finančných záujmov Európskych spoločenstiev [transl.: Fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union]. Justičná revue 60:409–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2009) Európsky zatýkací rozkaz [transl. European arrest warrant]. Student research competition held at the Faculty of Law, Bratislava College of Law, Bratislava

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2010) European arrest warrant. Diploma thesis, Bratislava College of Law, Bratislava

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2012a) Counterfeiting and protection of the Euro: from early beginnings to current legislative development. Issues Bus Law 4:12–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2012b) Solicitation of children for sexual purposes: the new offence in the EU (under the Directive 2011/92/EU). Int Comp Law Rev 12:135–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2013a) European arrest warrant. Dissertation thesis, Pan-European University, Bratislava

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2013a) Obchodovanie s ľuďmi: analýza novej právnej úpravy na úrovni EÚ [transl.: Trafficking in human beings: analysis of new legislation at EU level]. Justičná revue 65:259–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2014) European Police Office (Europol): past, present and future. In: Bělohlávek AJ, Černý F, Rozehnalová N (eds) Czech yearbook of international law – vol 5 – The role of governmental and non-governmental organizations in the 21st century. Juris Publishing, New York, pp 209–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2015a) European arrest warrant. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2015b) Trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of women and children. In: Ivor J, Jelínek (eds) Euro crimes in the legal systems of the Czech Republic and of the Slovak Republic. Wolters Kluwer, Budapest, pp 151–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Klip A (2012) European criminal law: an integrative approach, 2nd edn. Intersentia, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackarel M (2007) The European arrest warrant – the early years: implementing and using the warrant. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 15:37–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh D (2009) The Euro: the politics of the new global currency. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • McClean D (2012) International co-operation in civil and criminal matters, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Medelská Tkáčová Z (2012) Následky trestných činov právnických osôb vo vybraných krajinách Európskej únie [transl.: Consequences of crimes of legal persons in selected countries of the European Union]. In: Právní rozpravy 2012 [transl.: Legal discourses, vol 2012]. Proceedings of the international conference, 6–10 February 2012, Hradec Králové. Hradec Králové, pp 59–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Medelský J (2014) Medzinárodné organizácie [transl.: International organisations]. Academy of the Police Force, Bratislava

    Google Scholar 

  • Miettinen S (2013) Criminal law and policy in the European Union. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsilegas V (2009) EU criminal law. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Navrátilová J (2015) Problematika korupce z pohledu Evropské unie [transl.: Corruption in the view of the European Union]. In: Jelínek J, Ivor J (eds) Trestní právo Evropské unie a jeho vliv na právní řád České republiky a Slovenské republiky [transl.: Criminal law of the European Union and its impact on the legal order of the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic]: Proceedings of the international scientific conference, 22 April 2015, Prague. Leges, Prague, pp 246–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Ost S (2009) Child pornography and sexual grooming: legal and societal responses. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 28–29

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Paoli L (2008) Organized crime: new label, new phenomenon or policy expedient? Int Ann Criminol 46:37–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterson N, Vermeulen G (2011) Mutual recognition, prisoner transfer & sentence execution in the European Union – a journey bound for choppy waters? In: Cools M et al (eds) EU criminal justice, financial & economic crime: new perspectives. Maklu, Antwerpen, pp 39–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Peers S, Hervey T, Kenner J, Ward A (eds) (2014) The EU charter of fundamental rights: a commentary. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollicino O (2008) European arrest warrant and constitutional principles of the Member States: a case law-based outline in the attempt to strike the right balance between interacting legal systems. German Law J 9:1313–1354

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugerri S (2013) Horizontal cooperation, obtaining evidence overseas and the respect for fundamental rights in the EU. From the European Commission’s proposals to the proposal for a directive on a European investigation order: towards a single tool of evidence gathering in the EU? In: Rugerri S (ed) Transnational inquiries and the protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 279–310

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sands P (2003) Principles of international environmental law, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sievers J (2008) Too different to trust? First experiences with the application of the European arrest warrant. In: Guild E, Geyer F (eds) Security versus justice? Police and judicial cooperation in the European Union. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 109–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith RG, Grabosky P, Urbas G (2004) Cyber criminals on trial. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer JR (2014) EU criminal law. In: Barnard C, Peers S (eds) European Union law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 751–776

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Spinellis D (2006) Court of Justice of the European Communities: Judgment of 13 September 2005 (Case C-176/03, Commission v. Council) annulling the Council Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA of 27 January 2003 on the protection of the environment through criminal law. Eur Constitutional Law Rev 2:293–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stessens G (2000) Money laundering: a new international law enforcement model. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Szarek-Mason P (2010) The EU’s fight against corruption: the evolving policy towards member states and candidate countries. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Turayová Y, Tobiášová L, Čentéš J et al (2015) Corporate criminal liability. Comenius University, Bratislava

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen G, De Bondt W (2014) EU justice and home affairs: institutional and policy development. Maklu, Antwerpen

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen G, De Bondt W (2015) Justice, home affairs and security: European and international institutional and policy development. Maklu, Antwerpen

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen G, Van Kalmthount A, Paterson N, Knapen M, Verbeke P, De Bondt W (2011) Cross-border execution of judgements involving deprivation of liberty in the EU: overcoming legal and practical problems through flanking measures, vol 40. Maklu, Antwerpen

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen G, De Bondt W, Ryckman C (2012) Liability of legal persons for offences in the EU. Maklu, Antwerpen

    Google Scholar 

  • Weil A, Rosen W (2003) From chocolate to morphine: everything you need to know about mind-altering drugs, revised and updated. Houghton Muffin Company, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells C (2011) Containing corporate crime: civil or criminal controls? In: Gobert J, Pascal A-M (eds) European developments in corporate criminal liability. Routledge, Oxon, pp 13–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Záhora J (2005) Počítačová kriminalita v európskom kontexte [transl.: Cybercrime in European context]. Justičná revue 57:207–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Záhora J (2013) Zodpovednosť právnických osôb za trestné činy v európskej dimenzii – komparatívny prehľad. In: Jelínek J (ed) Třestní odpovědnost právnických osob v České republice – bilance a perspektivy. Conference proceedings. Leges, Praha, pp 15–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Záhora J (2015) Terrorist offences. In: Ivor J, Jelínek J et al (eds) Euro crimes in the legal systems of the Czech Republic and of the Slovak Republic. Wolters Kluwer, Budapest, pp 125–150

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Pan-European University, Bratislava, Slovak Republic

    Libor Klimek

Authors
  1. Libor Klimek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Klimek, L. (2017). Mutual Recognition Offences. In: Mutual Recognition of Judicial Decisions in European Criminal Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44377-5_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44377-5_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-44375-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-44377-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation