EUROPEAN LAW
KU Leuven
FULL
SUMMMARY
,PART 1: INTRODUCTION — HISTORY AND SOURCES
A. Introduction
Forces Driving the “Europeanisation” of Criminal Law and Justice
The growing internationalisation of social and economic activities, combined with the
rapid expansion of air travel and global communication networks, has deeply influenced
the evolution of European criminal law. As European integration progresses, the
influence of EU law on national legal systems has increased significantly. Because
criminal law serves as the coercive instrument of state power, it too has come under the
impact of European legal developments.
Key motivations for this trend include the fight against economic and financial crimes,
particularly offences involving misuse of EU funds, as well as the collective effort to
combat organised crime and terrorism. These concerns have elevated criminal justice to
a prominent position on the European agenda.
This ongoing evolution reached a major milestone with the adoption of the Lisbon
Treaty in 2009, which strengthened the EU’s role in shaping criminal law and justice
across member states.
Chronological Development of European Criminal Law (up to 2010)
Historically, member states retained primary responsibility for their national criminal
laws. However, their systems were heavily influenced by several European frameworks
and institutions, including:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR): whose case law has
significantly shaped procedural and human rights aspects of criminal justice.
The Council of Europe (CoE): which facilitated intergovernmental cooperation
in justice and policing matters.
, The European Community’s involvement in criminal law: where the
protection of the EU’s financial interests and internal market demanded legal
harmonisation.
The European Union’s Third Pillar: focusing on police and judicial cooperation
in criminal matters before the Lisbon Treaty.
Following the Lisbon Treaty, these previously separate pillars were consolidated under
a single institutional framework, forming the new European Union, and strengthening
cooperation between the EU, its institutions, and the member states.
, Before the Lisbon Treaty (2009)
Prior to the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union did not function as a
federal system in the field of criminal law.
“Federal Europe” (Red): Represents the idea of a more unified, centralised
Europe where legislative power, including in criminal matters, would be exercised
at the European level — similar to how a federal state operates.
“Intergovernmental Europe” (Yellow): Reflects the reality that existed before
2009, when member states retained primary control over criminal law.
Cooperation was mainly intergovernmental, relying on conventions or treaties
between states, which operated much like contracts.
Participation in these conventions was voluntary, meaning each country could
choose whether or not to join specific agreements or initiatives.
In summary, before the Lisbon Treaty, criminal law cooperation in Europe was based
on state sovereignty and voluntary collaboration, rather than on binding
supranational authority.
B. Multilateral Cooperation within the Council of Europe (CoE)
Before the Lisbon Treaty, member states remained primarily responsible for their
criminal law systems, but their approaches were strongly influenced by European
cooperation mechanisms, particularly those established under the Council of Europe
and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
1. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
The ECtHR oversees compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR) — a legally binding international treaty adopted after the Second World War.
KU Leuven
FULL
SUMMMARY
,PART 1: INTRODUCTION — HISTORY AND SOURCES
A. Introduction
Forces Driving the “Europeanisation” of Criminal Law and Justice
The growing internationalisation of social and economic activities, combined with the
rapid expansion of air travel and global communication networks, has deeply influenced
the evolution of European criminal law. As European integration progresses, the
influence of EU law on national legal systems has increased significantly. Because
criminal law serves as the coercive instrument of state power, it too has come under the
impact of European legal developments.
Key motivations for this trend include the fight against economic and financial crimes,
particularly offences involving misuse of EU funds, as well as the collective effort to
combat organised crime and terrorism. These concerns have elevated criminal justice to
a prominent position on the European agenda.
This ongoing evolution reached a major milestone with the adoption of the Lisbon
Treaty in 2009, which strengthened the EU’s role in shaping criminal law and justice
across member states.
Chronological Development of European Criminal Law (up to 2010)
Historically, member states retained primary responsibility for their national criminal
laws. However, their systems were heavily influenced by several European frameworks
and institutions, including:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR): whose case law has
significantly shaped procedural and human rights aspects of criminal justice.
The Council of Europe (CoE): which facilitated intergovernmental cooperation
in justice and policing matters.
, The European Community’s involvement in criminal law: where the
protection of the EU’s financial interests and internal market demanded legal
harmonisation.
The European Union’s Third Pillar: focusing on police and judicial cooperation
in criminal matters before the Lisbon Treaty.
Following the Lisbon Treaty, these previously separate pillars were consolidated under
a single institutional framework, forming the new European Union, and strengthening
cooperation between the EU, its institutions, and the member states.
, Before the Lisbon Treaty (2009)
Prior to the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union did not function as a
federal system in the field of criminal law.
“Federal Europe” (Red): Represents the idea of a more unified, centralised
Europe where legislative power, including in criminal matters, would be exercised
at the European level — similar to how a federal state operates.
“Intergovernmental Europe” (Yellow): Reflects the reality that existed before
2009, when member states retained primary control over criminal law.
Cooperation was mainly intergovernmental, relying on conventions or treaties
between states, which operated much like contracts.
Participation in these conventions was voluntary, meaning each country could
choose whether or not to join specific agreements or initiatives.
In summary, before the Lisbon Treaty, criminal law cooperation in Europe was based
on state sovereignty and voluntary collaboration, rather than on binding
supranational authority.
B. Multilateral Cooperation within the Council of Europe (CoE)
Before the Lisbon Treaty, member states remained primarily responsible for their
criminal law systems, but their approaches were strongly influenced by European
cooperation mechanisms, particularly those established under the Council of Europe
and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
1. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
The ECtHR oversees compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR) — a legally binding international treaty adopted after the Second World War.
