volledige lesnotities European criminal policy 25-26

ADVANCED EUROPEAN CRIMINAL
POLICY 25-26
ADVANCED EUROPEAN CRIMINAL POLICY 25-26 .................................................... 1
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 8
1. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS ................................................................ 8
2. INTRODUCTION TO EUROPEAN JHA INTEGRATION ............................................. 8
2.1. JHA POLICY AREAS ...................................................................................... 8
2.2. PRINCIPAL JHA COOPERATION LEVELS ........................................................ 9
LEVELS .......................................................................................................... 9
TRANSVERSAL EUROPEAN JHA INTEGRATION OVERVIEW ................................ 9
2.3. COUNCIL OF EUROPE ................................................................................. 9
DEVELOPMENT AND MANDATE ....................................................................... 9
JUDICIAL COOPERATION .............................................................................. 10
CRIME AND CRIMINAL POLICY ...................................................................... 11
2.4. EC/EU INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK .......................................................... 11
EC – EUROPEAN COMMUNITY PHASE............................................................ 11
EPC – EUROPEAN CO-OPERATION PHASE ..................................................... 12
EU – EUROPEAN UNION ............................................................................... 12
II. SCHENGEN ....................................................................................................... 13
1. COE + EC/EU INTEGRATION HISTORY............................................................... 13
2. SCHENGEN .................................................................................................... 13
2.1. INITIAL AGREEMENT .................................................................................. 13
2.2. SCHENGEN IMPLEMENTATION CONVENTION (SIC) .................................... 14
RELATIONSHIP SCHENGEN – EC ................................................................... 18
ENTRY INTO FORCE ...................................................................................... 19
2.3. POST-AMSTERDAM DEVELOPMENT ........................................................... 20
AMSTERDAM TREATY .................................................................................... 20
SCHENGEN ................................................................................................. 21
SIS II + 3 NEW SIS REGULATIONS ................................................................... 21
2.4. CRISES, CHALLENGES, RESILIENCE .......................................................... 22

1

,III. EPC AND MAASTRICHT ...................................................................................... 25
1. EUROPEAN POLITICAL CO-OPERATION EPC..................................................... 25
2. TEU MAASTRICHT ............................................................................................ 26
2.1. THREE PILLARS ......................................................................................... 26
2.2. THIRD PILLAR: JHA AREAS.......................................................................... 26
2.3. VISUAL SUPPORT | FROM EC/EPC TO EU .................................................... 27
COMMUNITIES | EPC (first phase 1950-1992) ................................................. 27
FIRST PILLAR | SECOND PILLAR | THIRD PILLAR (second phase 1992-2008) ...... 27
TEU | TFEU (third phase 2008-) ....................................................................... 27
2.4. DECISION-MAKING ................................................................................... 27
RIGHT OF INITIATIVE ..................................................................................... 27
DECISION MAKING ....................................................................................... 28
ROLE TRADITIONAL EC INSTITUTIONS ........................................................... 30
2.5. LEGAL INSTRUMENTS................................................................................ 31
JOINT POSITIONS ......................................................................................... 31
JOINT ACTIONS ............................................................................................ 31
CONVENTIONS/TREATIES ............................................................................. 32
IV. AMSTERDAM, NICE, CONSTITUTION AND LISBON............................................... 33
1.TEU POST-AMSTERDAM ................................................................................... 33
1.1. MAIN CHANGES ........................................................................................ 33
1.2. VISUAL SUPPORT FROM MAASTRICHT TO AMSTERDAM .............................. 33
1.3. DECISION-MAKING ................................................................................... 33
RIGHT OF INITIATIVE ..................................................................................... 33
DECISION-MAKING ...................................................................................... 34
ROLE TRADITIONAL EC INSTITUTIONS ........................................................... 34
1.4. LEGAL INSTRUMENTS................................................................................ 35
JOINT POSITIONS ......................................................................................... 35
JOINT ACTIONS ............................................................................................ 35
FRAMEWORK DECISIONS (NEW) ................................................................... 35
DECISIONS (NEW) ........................................................................................ 36
CONVENTIONS/TREATIES ............................................................................. 37
1.5. AFSJ: CLOSER COOPERATION ................................................................... 37
2

, POLICE CO-OPERATION ............................................................................... 37
JUDICIAL CO-OPERATION ............................................................................. 38
2. TEU POST-NICE............................................................................................... 39
3. EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION ............................................................................. 40
4. EU POST-LISBON ............................................................................................ 41
4.1. VISUAL SUPPORT FROM AMSTERDAM/NICE TO LISBON .............................. 41
4.2. GENERAL CHANGES ................................................................................. 41
FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE ............................................................... 42
V. EU INSTITUTIONS ............................................................................................... 45
1. EUROPEAN COUNCIL ..................................................................................... 45
1.1. TAMPERE (14-15 October 1999).................................................................. 45
1.2. THE HAGUE (4-5 November 2004) .............................................................. 47
1.3. STOCKHOLM (15-16 October 2009) ............................................................ 47
1.4. 2020 (26-27 June 2014) .............................................................................. 48
2. COUNCIL ....................................................................................................... 49
3. EUROPEAN COMMISSION ............................................................................... 49
4. PARLIAMENT................................................................................................... 51
5. COURT ........................................................................................................... 51
5.1. SELECTION OF RELEVANT CASE LAW ......................................................... 51
NE BIS IN IDEM ............................................................................................. 51
LOYALTY PRINCIPLE ..................................................................................... 53
CHOICE OF LEGAL BASIS.............................................................................. 54
EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT...................................................................... 55
DATA PROTECTION ...................................................................................... 57
VI. EU JHA POLICIES ............................................................................................... 60
1. MARKET .......................................................................................................... 60
2. INTRA AND IMMIGRATION ............................................................................... 60
2.1. INTRA-MIGRATION .................................................................................... 60
FREE MOVEMENT FOR EU CITIZENS, INCLUDING FOR WORK ......................... 60
POSTING OF WORKERS ................................................................................ 62
2.2. IMMIGRATION ........................................................................................... 63
LEGAL IMMIGRATION ................................................................................... 63
3

, ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ................................................................................. 64
3. ASYLUM ......................................................................................................... 65
3.1. PACT ON MIGRATION AND ASYLUM ........................................................... 66
4. JUDICIAL COOPERATION ................................................................................. 67
4.1. HORIZONTAL ............................................................................................ 67
HARMONISATION ......................................................................................... 67
COOPERATION ............................................................................................ 68
MUTUAL RECOGNITION................................................................................ 69
FLANKING MEASURES .................................................................................. 69
4.2. VERTICAL ................................................................................................. 70
EUROJUST ................................................................................................... 70
EJN .............................................................................................................. 71
EPPO ........................................................................................................... 71
5. POLICE COOPERATION ................................................................................... 71
5.1. HORIZONTAL ............................................................................................ 71
AVAILABILITY AND INTEROPERABILITY........................................................... 71
5.2. VERTICAL ................................................................................................. 73
CEPOL ......................................................................................................... 74
EUROPOL .................................................................................................... 74
VII. MUTUAL RECOGNITION AND CRIMINAL LAW APPROXIMATION .......................... 76
1. THREE KEY EU-LEVEL CRIMINAL POLICY DOMENSIONS: THREE CONNECTED
NOTIONS ........................................................................................................... 76
1.1. MUTUAL RECOGNITION (MR) ..................................................................... 76
1.2. APPROXIMATION SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW ......................................... 78
AUTONOMOUS FUNCTION OF APPROXIMATION ............................................ 78
ANCILLARY FUNCTIONS OF APPROXIMATION | OFTEN NEGLECTED THOUGH
NEEDED ...................................................................................................... 80
1.3. APPROXIMATION PROCEDURAL CRIMINAL LAW ......................................... 82
POSSIBLE SINCE LISBON TREATY .................................................................. 82
EX-POST SUPPORT FOR MR .......................................................................... 82
2. THE EU LEVEL OFFENCE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM........................................... 85



4

, 2.1. BENCH-MARK FOR ENHANCED COHERENCE OF THE EU’S CRIMINAL POLICY
....................................................................................................................... 85
2.2. IMPROVED ECRIS CLASSIFICATION ........................................................... 85
2.3. EULOCS ILLUSTRATED .............................................................................. 85
3. MUTUAL RECOGNITION AND HR-BASED MUTUAL TRUST: INCOHERENT
RELATIONSHIP ................................................................................................... 86
3.1. (ASSUMED) HR-BASED TRUST: LEGITIMISATION FOR MR? ........................... 86
REALITY CHECK ........................................................................................... 87
DUAL CRIMINALITY BUBBLE .......................................................................... 87
FURTHER ILLOGICAL TRUST DERIVATES ........................................................ 88
BOOMERANG EFFECTS ................................................................................ 88
MUTUALITY BUBBLE ..................................................................................... 91
3.2. MR: LEGITIMISATION FOR TRUST VIA HR-UPGRADE?................................... 93
4. REAL NEEDS AND SOLUTIONS ......................................................................... 95
5. BROADER CRIMINAL POLICY NEEDS ................................................................ 98
VIII. EUROJUST, TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS AND EPPO ....................................... 99
1. EUROJUST | INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 100
1.1.(PRO) EUROJUST...................................................................................... 100
1.2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................... 100
1.3. COMPOSITION ........................................................................................ 101
1.4. OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................ 101
1.5. COMPETENCES ...................................................................................... 101
2. TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS | EU HESITATION .............................................. 101
2.1. TRADITIONALLY/FORMERLY: COE ISSUE .................................................. 101
2.2. REDISCOVERED BY EU ............................................................................ 101
2.3. EUROJUST NEWSLETTER AND REPORT ..................................................... 102
3. GV AND IRCP ................................................................................................ 102
3.1. JURISDICTION TO PRESCRIBE .................................................................. 102
ARTICLE 82(2)(b) TFEU ................................................................................ 103
TO DATE: COUNTERPRODUCTIVE EFFORTS EU ............................................ 103
WHEREAS [GV AND IRCP] ........................................................................... 103
3.2. JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE .................................................................... 103

5

, CRITERIA FOR CHOOSING THE FORUM? ..................................................... 104
‘PROPER’ ADMINISTRATIOON OF JUSTICE AND REASONABLE ENFORCEMENT
OF JURISDICTION ....................................................................................... 104
3.3. NE BIS, EUROJUST, JUDICIAL REVIEW ...................................................... 104
NE BIS IN IDEM EFFECT TO IRREVOCABLE SETTLEMENTS PREVENTING FURTHER
PROSECUTION POSSIBILITY EUROJUST CONFLICT ‘RESOLUTION’ OR
‘MEDIATION’ .............................................................................................. 105
PRE-TRIAL STAGE ....................................................................................... 105
TRIAL STAGE .............................................................................................. 105
POST-TRIAL STAGE ..................................................................................... 105
4. EU 2024 REGULATION ON TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS ................................ 105
4.1. CRITERIA ................................................................................................ 107
4.2. PROCEDURE........................................................................................... 108
HAVING ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ............................................................... 108
NOT HAVING ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ........................................................ 108
5. EPPO ............................................................................................................ 108
5.1. BACKGROUND AND STATUS .................................................................... 108
5.2. LARGELY IDEOLOGICAL?......................................................................... 110
VERTICAL, TOP-DOWN, SUPRANATIONAL, PYRAMIDAL ................................ 110
PIF ............................................................................................................. 110
TERRORIST CRIMES? .................................................................................. 110
UNNECESSARY IF TRULY STRONG EUROJUST IN EU-WORTHY CASES (PIF-
INCLUSIVE) ................................................................................................ 110
WHICH WAS UNWANTED BY FORMER COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE ........... 111
5.3. TWO-HEADED DRAGON? ........................................................................ 111
IX. POLICE COOPERATION ................................................................................... 112
1. OPERATIONAL COOPERATION ....................................................................... 112
2. INFORMATION-RELATED COOPERATION........................................................ 113
2.1. DATABASES AND NOTIFICATION/ALERT/INFOEX SYSTEMS ........................ 113
EUROPOL .................................................................................................. 113
SIS, CIS, VIS, EURODAC, ECRIS, ECRIS-TCN, EES, ETIAS … ........................... 114
2.2. SCHENGEN ............................................................................................ 114


6

, 2.3. FIU INFOEX ............................................................................................. 115
2.4. INTEROPERABILITY EU INFORMATION SYSTEMS ....................................... 115
2.5. PRINCIPLE OF AVAILABILITY .................................................................... 115
2.6. EU INFORMATION EXCHANGE STRATEGY ................................................. 115
2.7. DATA PROTECTION ................................................................................. 115
3. PRÜM .......................................................................................................... 117
3.1. INITIALLY ................................................................................................ 117
3.2. SOON AFTER........................................................................................... 117
3.3. 2021 ....................................................................................................... 117
4. EUROPOL ..................................................................................................... 117
4.1. STRATEGIC ANALYSIS.............................................................................. 117
4.2. SPECIALISED SUPPORT ........................................................................... 118
4.3. GATEWAY ............................................................................................... 118
4.4. HOSTING ................................................................................................ 119
5. EMPACT ....................................................................................................... 119




7

, I. INTRODUCTION
1. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
GOAL 16: peace, justice and strong institutions
1.Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere
2.End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of
children
3.Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal
access to justice for all
4.By 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen the recovery
and return of stolen assets and combat all forms of organized crime
5.Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms
6.Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels
7.Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all
levels
8.Broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in the institutions of
global governance
9.By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration
10.Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in
accordance with national legislation and international agreements
A.Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation,
for building capacity at all levels, in particular in developing countries, to prevent
violence and combat terrorism and crime
B.Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable
development


2. INTRODUCTION TO EUROPEAN JHA
INTEGRATION
2.1. JHA POLICY AREAS
asylum, migration, border-crossing…

(judicial cooperation in civil matters: part of the effort of justice policy, not further
discussed in class)

criminal law/ criminal policy: 3 domains

- substantive criminal law: what constitutes crime, what are the offences and
what are the sanctions for those offences
- criminal procedural law: what are the rules of play of crime fighting and
investigating crime, what are the competences of the policy/judge/..., what sort
of technics and investigating matters are allowed, what about admissibility of
evidence...

->international levels may impact domestic substantive and procedural criminal law


8

, - international co-operation in criminal matters = how judicial authorities or
police and customs authorities are able to cooperate across borders (crime is
not limited to national territory)
o judicial co-operation
o police and customs co-operation (law enforcement = umbrella term for
police and customs)
o = classification used by European Union

‘security’: criminal law, criminal policy... supposed to bring more security for citizens
and society, however security is broader (military, intelligence services...)

2.2. PRINCIPAL JHA COOPERATION LEVELS
LEVELS
Council of Europe (hereafter: CoE) (limited unless for EIJHAS course)

European Union (EU)

Schengen (including Prüm)

Benelux, NATO, OSCE, G7/G20, OECD, UN (EIJHAS course only)

TRANSVERSAL EUROPEAN JHA INTEGRATION OVERVIEW
during the first 5 classes

transversal, i.e. cross-level character

- rationale: institutional and policy dynamics are interwoven
- not (entirely) following handbook/paragraph order

2.3. COUNCIL OF EUROPE
DEVELOPMENT AND MANDATE
1949

1950 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)
o = 2 totally different organisations (within the EU you have the Council of
the EU and the European Council =/= Council of Europe!!!))

intergovernmental cooperation: states may decide to cooperate if they wish and to
the extend they wish (intergovernmental club of equal nations who find common
ground and built common ground and common instruments that they are all fine with)

9

, - It makes the club quiet weak as an organisation, the organisation cannot take
decisions on behalf of one of the MS
- <-> supranational (nation states have decided to given away certain powers to a
level above them)

legal instruments

- conventions, resolutions, recommendation
- conventions: seemingly strong, still weaknesses (nothing happens until states
actually take things further and are going to seek authorizations of their
parlement or authorization of their population through a referendum to actually
be bound to the treaty convention, if they approve the convention they must
move to the stage of ratification so that the convention becomes binding
o the council of Europe has a lot of conventions, but it needs to be spelled
out that the strength of an intergovernmental organisation is at best in the
fact there is a lot of ratification; and the organisation is incapable to
control that

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
o sometimes the Council of EU work, especially through the different legal
instruments, may impact aspects of substantive criminal law and of
procedural criminal law (conventions can impact substantive/procedural
criminal law if MS decide it to be binding)

JUDICIAL COOPERATION
mother conventions in criminal matters (mentioned as an example, not study by hard)

- 1957 European Convention on Extradition | 3 Protocols
o signed by Belgium 1957 (in very early phase), but it took Belgium 40 years
before it moved to the stage of ratification
- 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters | 2
Protocols (about evidence collection and gathering across borders)
- 1964 European Convention on Supervision of Conditionally
Sentenced/Released Offenders (make it possible for offenders who would be
conditionally released, to be allowed to also remain mobile and be allowed free
movement (probation))

10