Abstract
The Treaty of Lisbon formulates ambitious goals for the European Union. It holds that the EU shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of citizens is guaranteed in combination with appropriate measures with respect to crime control. This wording – which explicitly establishes a relationship between citizenship, free movement and a common area of justice – raises certain expectations. Still, the promotion of free movement also induces conflicts of jurisdiction. EU law further encourages those conflicts by obliging Member States to establish extraterritorial jurisdiction, in order to prevent negative conflicts of jurisdiction. These types of conflict easily harm the position of the EU citizen. This contribution analyses this problem in light of the legality principle, a cornerstone of every criminal law system, which is also included in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Its central argument is that with the transfer of powers from the national to the European level and the increasing horizontal intertwinement of national criminal justice systems and the resulting intensified cooperation, it is also increasingly difficult to protect EU citizens against arbitrary investigation, prosecution, conviction and punishment in Europe’s area of freedom, security and justice. EU Charter rights therefore need to be interpreted in light of their new, transnational setting. This contribution concludes with a series of recommendations for a revised European framework for choice of forum in criminal matters.
Highlights
The gap between the current practice and the expressed aspirations offers food for thought
We need – as they call it – ‘aspirational principles’ for transnational criminal justice, in order to provide guidance to lawmakers, courts, et cetera. They point to the fact that existing principles of criminal justice, including human rights standards, are not designed to deal with problems of transnational crime
If the European Union truly wishes to promote the free movement of its citizens, should European law not offer European citizens a more detailed – and more foreseeable and accessible – framework for choice of forum than it does in order to protect individuals against arbitrary investigation, prosecution, conviction and punishment? If so, what elements should such a system contain? What would be its limits? What lessons can be learned from this for the debate on principles of transnational criminal law in general?
Summary
In their introductory remarks to this special issue of the Utrecht Law Review, Gless and Vervaele conclude that a new path must be taken which puts the individual as a rights bearer at the centre.[1] We need – as they call it – ‘aspirational principles’ for transnational criminal justice, in order to provide guidance to lawmakers, courts, et cetera. Problems for individuals, lead to an inefficient use of investigative resources or to negative conflicts of jurisdiction, for instance in cases of fraud against the EU’s financial interests (including VAT fraud) This does not mean that the European Union is not concerned with these issues,[4] it does show how difficult it is, even in the setting of the European Union, to reconcile interests of crime control with those of the European citizens in transnational relationships. I wish to stress that this is a direct result of the current EU institutional setting (for which it is rightly and widely criticized),[7] and nothing more
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
