Encyclopedia of Law and Economics

2019 Edition
| Editors: Alain Marciano, Giovanni Battista Ramello

Confiscation Orders and Judicial Cooperation in the EU

  • Barbara Piattoli GirardEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7753-2_632


Following ongoing reflection and experience at European level, it is possible and necessary to reason about the main features of the EU’s legal strategy in building a simplified procedure for the recognition of confiscation orders among EU countries, in order to avoid the different barriers to the effectiveness of the EU’s regime on the confiscation of proceeds of crime. It’s significant in this context to focus on the consequences of the principle of mutual recognition on the rights of individuals. The proposal for a new regulation on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders aims to amend the EU’s regime and eliminate gaps, uncertainties that legal rules still present; however, its adoption might significantly improve effectiveness of the EU’s action if the emphasis on legal solutions doesn’t come at the expense of broader questions concerning the safeguards applicable to domestic criminal proceedings which are crucial to ensuring effective cooperation between Member States in recovery action.


Criminal law Asset confiscation EU Mutual recognition Fundamental rights Confiscation order Execution 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Alagna F (2015) Non-conviction based confiscation: why the EU directive is a missed opportunity. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 21(4):447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boucht J (2013) Extended confiscation and the proposed directive on freezing and confiscation of criminal proceeds in the EU: on striking a balance between efficiency, fairness and legal certainty. European Journal of Crime Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 21(2):127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown AN (1996) Proceeds of crime, money laundering, confiscation and forfeiture. W. Green/Sweet&Maxwell, EdimburghGoogle Scholar
  4. Fazekas M, Nanopoulos E (2016) The effectiveness of EU law: insights from the EU legal framework on asset confiscation. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 24(1):39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Feraldo Cabana P (2014) Improving the recovery of assets resulting from organised crime. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 22:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Flore D (2014) Droit pénal européen: les enjeux d’une justice pénale européenne. LarcierGoogle Scholar
  7. Kingah S (2015) Measures for asset recovery: a multiactor global fund for recovered stolen assets. World Bank Legal Review 6:457Google Scholar
  8. Lelieur J (2015) Freezing and confiscating criminal assets. European Union in Criminal Law Review 5(3):279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Simonato M (2015) Directive 2014/42/EU and social reuse of confiscated assets in the EU: advancing a culture of legality. New Journal of European Criminal Law 2:195Google Scholar
  10. Vermeulen G (2014) Essential texts on international and European criminal law. Maklu, Antwerp-ApeldoornGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza e Scienze Politiche, Economiche e SocialiUniversità degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro”AlessandriaItaly