European Criminal Policy
Inhoud
1. Introduction to JHA & Preschengen ....................................................................................... 3
1.1 JHA policy areas ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Principal JHA cooperation levels .......................................................................................... 3
Council of Europe; development and mandate ................................................................... 3
Council of Europe; judicial cooperation ................................................................................ 4
Council of Europe; Crime & criminal policy .......................................................................... 4
EC/EU institutional framework ................................................................................................. 5
European Economic Community.............................................................................................. 5
2. Schengen (1984-Today) ............................................................................................................ 6
Background; CoE + EC/EU integration history .................................................................... 6
Schengen evolution .................................................................................................................... 6
Schengen; post-Amsterdam development ............................................................................ 8
Schengen; crises, challenges, resilience ................................................................................. 9
3. EPC and Maastricht treaty ..................................................................................................... 10
TEU / Maastricht / 3 pillars (1 November 1993 - 30 April 1999) ............................ 11
TEU | Maastricht | decision-making & Legal instruments ............................................ 12
4. Amsterdam, Nice, Constitution and Lisbon ....................................................................... 13
TEU | post-Amsterdam .......................................................................................................... 13
TEU | post-Nice ....................................................................................................................... 14
post-Lisbon ............................................................................................................................... 15
5. EU institutions .......................................................................................................................... 16
5.1 selection of relevant case law ........................................................................................... 20
6. EU JHA Policies ......................................................................................................................... 27
6.1 Market ................................................................................................................................ 27
6.2 Intra and immigration..................................................................................................... 27
Intra-migration .......................................................................................................................... 27
Immigration ............................................................................................................................... 29
6.3 Asylum ............................................................................................................................... 30
Pact on Migration & Asylum ................................................................................................. 31
6.4 Judicial cooperation ............................................................................................................. 31
Horizontal .................................................................................................................................. 31
1
, Vertical ....................................................................................................................................... 34
6.5 Police cooperation ................................................................................................................ 34
Horizontal .................................................................................................................................. 34
Vertical ....................................................................................................................................... 36
7 Mutual recognition and criminal law approximation ....................................................... 37
7.1 three connected notions................................................................................................ 38
Mutual recognition .................................................................................................................. 38
Approximation substantive criminal law ............................................................................ 39
EUCLOS ...................................................................................................................................... 41
Approximation procedural criminal law.............................................................................. 41
7.2 Mutual recognition & HR-based mutual trust: incoherent relationship .............. 41
(Assumed) HR-based trust: legitimisation for MR? ................................................................. 41
MR: legitimisation for trust-building via HR-upgrade? ................................................... 45
7.3 Real needs & solutions .................................................................................................. 47
7.4 Broader criminal policy needs ..................................................................................... 49
8 Eurojust, transfer of proceedings & EPPO ........................................................................ 49
8.1 Eurojust / Introduction ........................................................................................................ 50
8.2 Transfer of proceedings / EU hesitation ......................................................................... 51
8.3 Gert Vermeulen & IRCP (Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy) . 52
Jurisdiction to prescribe (=wetgevende macht) ................................................................ 52
Jurisdiction to enforce (= uitvoerende macht) .................................................................. 52
Ne bis in idem, Eurojust, judicial review (rechterlijke controle) .................................... 53
8.4 EU 2024 Regulation on transfer of proceedings.................................................... 54
EU 2024 Regulation | Criteria ............................................................................................. 54
EU 2024 Regulation | Procedure........................................................................................ 55
8.5 EPPO | Background & status ...................................................................................... 55
EPPO | Largely ideological? ................................................................................................. 56
EPPO | Two-headed dragon?............................................................................................... 57
9 Police Cooperation & Europol .............................................................................................. 58
9.1 Operational cooperation ............................................................................................... 58
9.2 Information related cooperation .................................................................................. 59
databases & notification/alert/infoex systems ................................................................. 59
Schengen ‘for police use only’ + flexible border area infoex: ....................................... 60
9.3 Prüm ................................................................................................................................... 61
9.4 Europol | Support, gateway and hosting functions ............................................... 62
2
, 9.5 EMPACT: European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats ........... 63
1. Introduction to JHA & Preschengen
1.1 JHA policy areas
1. asylum, migration, border-crossing…
2. Justice policies (=judicial cooperation in civil matters) --> niet behandeld
3. criminal law/policy
➔ substantive criminal law → what are the offences and the sanctions for offences
• First form of supernationality: Amsterdam treaty
➔ criminal procedural law → regulates the legal rules and mechanisms for investigation and
prosecution of the offences
• First supernationality: Lisbon Treaty
➔ international co-operation in criminal matters: how judicial/police/customs authorities are
able to cooperate across borders --> Was facilitated in very early fase on European level
judicial co-operation
police and customs (= law enforcement) co-operation
4. ‘security’
1.2 Principal JHA cooperation levels
◼ Levels
➔ Council of Europe (hereafter: CoE) (limited unless for EIJHAS course)
Wasn’t sufficient → need to go step further → coal and steel community
➔ European Union (EU)
➔ Schengen (including Prüm)
➔ Benelux, NATO, OSCE, G7/G20, OECD, UN (EIJHAS course only)
◼ transversal European JHA integration overview
➔ during 5 joint classes
➔ transversal, i.e. cross-level character
rationale: institutional and policy dynamics are interwoven
not (entirely) following handbook/paragraph order
Council of Europe; development and mandate
➔ Since: 1949
➔ 1950 imprtant charters ECHR | ECtHR
➔ today: 46 countries
Russian Federation: 28 February 1996 - 15 March 2022
The Council of Europe is a lot bigger than the European Union (27 members)
• = 2 totally different organisations (within the EU you have the Council of the EU and
the European Council =/= Council of Europe!!!))
➔ Intergovernmental cooperation: No supernational power
3
, ➔ Legal instruments:
conventions, resolutions, recommendation (last 2 not binding)
conventions: seemingly strong, still weaknesses
• only strong if the member states pass it in their home countries and pass ratification
(then binding) → has to pass representatives of population
• ratification of conventions can take decades = weakness
➔ broad mandate, including penal matters
judicial co-operation in criminal matters is a very important area (the council of EU is the
group were alle the so called mother conventions have been concluded = the conventions
on which all the rest built)
➔ judicial co-operation in criminal matters & criminal policy (including aspects of substantive
criminal law and criminal procedural law) with regard to specific topics and/or particular
offences
when you make a ratification of a convention it can have effect on the substantive en
procedural criminal law → potential power of The Council of Europe
Council of Europe; judicial cooperation
◼ mother conventions in criminal matters
➔ 1957 European Convention on Extradition | 3 Protocols
➔ 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters | 2 Protocols
➔ 1964 European Convention on Supervision of Conditionally Sentenced/Released Offenders
➔ 1970 European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgements
Allows confiscations, … in other states
Is very far reaching because offence doesn’t need to be offence in your state
➔ 1972 European Convention on Transfer of Proceedings (=prosecution)
Poorly ratified, because it allows to transfer prosecution to another state
Even if it has no connection with your offence or with your state (=far reaching)
➔ 1983 Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons | Protocol
➔ 1990 Laundering Convention | Protocol
➔ 2001 Cybercrime Convention | Protocol
➔ …
Council of Europe; Crime & criminal policy
◼ Judicial co-operation in criminal matters /criminal policy with regard to specific topics and/or
particular offences (sometimes part of the JHA acquis)
➔ computer-related crime & criminal procedural law connected with it, corruption, crimes
against humanity/war crimes, criminal policy/justice in general, cultural property, data
protection, DNA, drugs, environmental crime, firearms, intimidation of witnesses/rights of the
defence, intolerance/racism and xenophobia, mediation, prison, road traffic, sanctions,
(sexual) offences against minors, terrorism, (victims of) violence
4
, EC/EU institutional framework
◼ EC - Treaties Establishing the
➔ European Coal and Steel Community (1951)
➔ European Atomic Energy Community (1957)
➔ European Economic Community (1957) (TEC)
◼ Espace judiciaire Europeén/European Political Co-operation (EPC)
➔ between the Member States, outside the formal framework of the European Communities
➔ 3 communities (they are not about crime fighting) → wanted more than initially agreed upon
This fase is about expanding cooperation in other areas
BUT the initial areas are supernational, the new areas are intergovernmental
◼ Treaty on European Union (TEU) (Maastricht Treaty, February 1992)
◼ Amsterdam Treaty (October 1997)
➔ changes TEC and TEU, integrates Schengen acquis (Schengen protocol)
◼ Nice Treaty (February 2001)
➔ European Constitution (2004)
➔ Lisbon/Reform Treaty (2007) (from TEU/TEC to TEU/TFEU)
European Economic Community
◼ Because of the intergovernmental character of the Council of Europe (not abled to control its
members) they needed a stronger partnership
➔ CoE Perceived as too weak to control key states as Italy and Germany →their war industries
(coal and steel) needed to be controlled
Establishing coal and steel community → no relevance to criminal law
◼ Athomic energy community was established because some countries had enormous resources
that they wanted to trade on a stable market
Was an effective economic partnership, and was broadened to other sectors → European
economic community
◼ the EEC treaty was significantly changed by the European Single Act 1980
internal market was introduced
◼ Realisation of an internal market by 1993 (by the end of 1992)
➔ Area without internal borders in which the free movement of goods, capital, services and
persons is guaranteed
Last bit is important for criminal law: free movement of persons includes criminals
Response needed on cross border crime
• European Economic Community triggered the Schengen cooperation level (was
started for economics and triggered this)
◼ Focus on economic and monetary integration
5
Inhoud
1. Introduction to JHA & Preschengen ....................................................................................... 3
1.1 JHA policy areas ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Principal JHA cooperation levels .......................................................................................... 3
Council of Europe; development and mandate ................................................................... 3
Council of Europe; judicial cooperation ................................................................................ 4
Council of Europe; Crime & criminal policy .......................................................................... 4
EC/EU institutional framework ................................................................................................. 5
European Economic Community.............................................................................................. 5
2. Schengen (1984-Today) ............................................................................................................ 6
Background; CoE + EC/EU integration history .................................................................... 6
Schengen evolution .................................................................................................................... 6
Schengen; post-Amsterdam development ............................................................................ 8
Schengen; crises, challenges, resilience ................................................................................. 9
3. EPC and Maastricht treaty ..................................................................................................... 10
TEU / Maastricht / 3 pillars (1 November 1993 - 30 April 1999) ............................ 11
TEU | Maastricht | decision-making & Legal instruments ............................................ 12
4. Amsterdam, Nice, Constitution and Lisbon ....................................................................... 13
TEU | post-Amsterdam .......................................................................................................... 13
TEU | post-Nice ....................................................................................................................... 14
post-Lisbon ............................................................................................................................... 15
5. EU institutions .......................................................................................................................... 16
5.1 selection of relevant case law ........................................................................................... 20
6. EU JHA Policies ......................................................................................................................... 27
6.1 Market ................................................................................................................................ 27
6.2 Intra and immigration..................................................................................................... 27
Intra-migration .......................................................................................................................... 27
Immigration ............................................................................................................................... 29
6.3 Asylum ............................................................................................................................... 30
Pact on Migration & Asylum ................................................................................................. 31
6.4 Judicial cooperation ............................................................................................................. 31
Horizontal .................................................................................................................................. 31
1
, Vertical ....................................................................................................................................... 34
6.5 Police cooperation ................................................................................................................ 34
Horizontal .................................................................................................................................. 34
Vertical ....................................................................................................................................... 36
7 Mutual recognition and criminal law approximation ....................................................... 37
7.1 three connected notions................................................................................................ 38
Mutual recognition .................................................................................................................. 38
Approximation substantive criminal law ............................................................................ 39
EUCLOS ...................................................................................................................................... 41
Approximation procedural criminal law.............................................................................. 41
7.2 Mutual recognition & HR-based mutual trust: incoherent relationship .............. 41
(Assumed) HR-based trust: legitimisation for MR? ................................................................. 41
MR: legitimisation for trust-building via HR-upgrade? ................................................... 45
7.3 Real needs & solutions .................................................................................................. 47
7.4 Broader criminal policy needs ..................................................................................... 49
8 Eurojust, transfer of proceedings & EPPO ........................................................................ 49
8.1 Eurojust / Introduction ........................................................................................................ 50
8.2 Transfer of proceedings / EU hesitation ......................................................................... 51
8.3 Gert Vermeulen & IRCP (Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy) . 52
Jurisdiction to prescribe (=wetgevende macht) ................................................................ 52
Jurisdiction to enforce (= uitvoerende macht) .................................................................. 52
Ne bis in idem, Eurojust, judicial review (rechterlijke controle) .................................... 53
8.4 EU 2024 Regulation on transfer of proceedings.................................................... 54
EU 2024 Regulation | Criteria ............................................................................................. 54
EU 2024 Regulation | Procedure........................................................................................ 55
8.5 EPPO | Background & status ...................................................................................... 55
EPPO | Largely ideological? ................................................................................................. 56
EPPO | Two-headed dragon?............................................................................................... 57
9 Police Cooperation & Europol .............................................................................................. 58
9.1 Operational cooperation ............................................................................................... 58
9.2 Information related cooperation .................................................................................. 59
databases & notification/alert/infoex systems ................................................................. 59
Schengen ‘for police use only’ + flexible border area infoex: ....................................... 60
9.3 Prüm ................................................................................................................................... 61
9.4 Europol | Support, gateway and hosting functions ............................................... 62
2
, 9.5 EMPACT: European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats ........... 63
1. Introduction to JHA & Preschengen
1.1 JHA policy areas
1. asylum, migration, border-crossing…
2. Justice policies (=judicial cooperation in civil matters) --> niet behandeld
3. criminal law/policy
➔ substantive criminal law → what are the offences and the sanctions for offences
• First form of supernationality: Amsterdam treaty
➔ criminal procedural law → regulates the legal rules and mechanisms for investigation and
prosecution of the offences
• First supernationality: Lisbon Treaty
➔ international co-operation in criminal matters: how judicial/police/customs authorities are
able to cooperate across borders --> Was facilitated in very early fase on European level
judicial co-operation
police and customs (= law enforcement) co-operation
4. ‘security’
1.2 Principal JHA cooperation levels
◼ Levels
➔ Council of Europe (hereafter: CoE) (limited unless for EIJHAS course)
Wasn’t sufficient → need to go step further → coal and steel community
➔ European Union (EU)
➔ Schengen (including Prüm)
➔ Benelux, NATO, OSCE, G7/G20, OECD, UN (EIJHAS course only)
◼ transversal European JHA integration overview
➔ during 5 joint classes
➔ transversal, i.e. cross-level character
rationale: institutional and policy dynamics are interwoven
not (entirely) following handbook/paragraph order
Council of Europe; development and mandate
➔ Since: 1949
➔ 1950 imprtant charters ECHR | ECtHR
➔ today: 46 countries
Russian Federation: 28 February 1996 - 15 March 2022
The Council of Europe is a lot bigger than the European Union (27 members)
• = 2 totally different organisations (within the EU you have the Council of the EU and
the European Council =/= Council of Europe!!!))
➔ Intergovernmental cooperation: No supernational power
3
, ➔ Legal instruments:
conventions, resolutions, recommendation (last 2 not binding)
conventions: seemingly strong, still weaknesses
• only strong if the member states pass it in their home countries and pass ratification
(then binding) → has to pass representatives of population
• ratification of conventions can take decades = weakness
➔ broad mandate, including penal matters
judicial co-operation in criminal matters is a very important area (the council of EU is the
group were alle the so called mother conventions have been concluded = the conventions
on which all the rest built)
➔ judicial co-operation in criminal matters & criminal policy (including aspects of substantive
criminal law and criminal procedural law) with regard to specific topics and/or particular
offences
when you make a ratification of a convention it can have effect on the substantive en
procedural criminal law → potential power of The Council of Europe
Council of Europe; judicial cooperation
◼ mother conventions in criminal matters
➔ 1957 European Convention on Extradition | 3 Protocols
➔ 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters | 2 Protocols
➔ 1964 European Convention on Supervision of Conditionally Sentenced/Released Offenders
➔ 1970 European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgements
Allows confiscations, … in other states
Is very far reaching because offence doesn’t need to be offence in your state
➔ 1972 European Convention on Transfer of Proceedings (=prosecution)
Poorly ratified, because it allows to transfer prosecution to another state
Even if it has no connection with your offence or with your state (=far reaching)
➔ 1983 Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons | Protocol
➔ 1990 Laundering Convention | Protocol
➔ 2001 Cybercrime Convention | Protocol
➔ …
Council of Europe; Crime & criminal policy
◼ Judicial co-operation in criminal matters /criminal policy with regard to specific topics and/or
particular offences (sometimes part of the JHA acquis)
➔ computer-related crime & criminal procedural law connected with it, corruption, crimes
against humanity/war crimes, criminal policy/justice in general, cultural property, data
protection, DNA, drugs, environmental crime, firearms, intimidation of witnesses/rights of the
defence, intolerance/racism and xenophobia, mediation, prison, road traffic, sanctions,
(sexual) offences against minors, terrorism, (victims of) violence
4
, EC/EU institutional framework
◼ EC - Treaties Establishing the
➔ European Coal and Steel Community (1951)
➔ European Atomic Energy Community (1957)
➔ European Economic Community (1957) (TEC)
◼ Espace judiciaire Europeén/European Political Co-operation (EPC)
➔ between the Member States, outside the formal framework of the European Communities
➔ 3 communities (they are not about crime fighting) → wanted more than initially agreed upon
This fase is about expanding cooperation in other areas
BUT the initial areas are supernational, the new areas are intergovernmental
◼ Treaty on European Union (TEU) (Maastricht Treaty, February 1992)
◼ Amsterdam Treaty (October 1997)
➔ changes TEC and TEU, integrates Schengen acquis (Schengen protocol)
◼ Nice Treaty (February 2001)
➔ European Constitution (2004)
➔ Lisbon/Reform Treaty (2007) (from TEU/TEC to TEU/TFEU)
European Economic Community
◼ Because of the intergovernmental character of the Council of Europe (not abled to control its
members) they needed a stronger partnership
➔ CoE Perceived as too weak to control key states as Italy and Germany →their war industries
(coal and steel) needed to be controlled
Establishing coal and steel community → no relevance to criminal law
◼ Athomic energy community was established because some countries had enormous resources
that they wanted to trade on a stable market
Was an effective economic partnership, and was broadened to other sectors → European
economic community
◼ the EEC treaty was significantly changed by the European Single Act 1980
internal market was introduced
◼ Realisation of an internal market by 1993 (by the end of 1992)
➔ Area without internal borders in which the free movement of goods, capital, services and
persons is guaranteed
Last bit is important for criminal law: free movement of persons includes criminals
Response needed on cross border crime
• European Economic Community triggered the Schengen cooperation level (was
started for economics and triggered this)
◼ Focus on economic and monetary integration
5
