EU Criminal Law Research Articles

Comparative Analysis of Bribery Laws and Implications

In light of the Global Peace Index's recognition of Denmark, New Zealand, and Finland as nations with excellent governance standards and low levels of corruption, this study compares the bribery laws and their effects in these three nations. Denmark's legislative system strictly prohibits bribery in the public and private sectors, as outlined in particular provisions of its Criminal Code. In line with international anti-corruption conventions including the OECD Convention and EU Criminal Law Convention, provisions prohibit both active and passive bribery. Similarly, New Zealand's approach to bribery is broad, extending its authority extraterritorially, and penalising offenders severely. It is largely handled by the Crimes Act 1961 and Secret Commissions Act 1910. Finland, on the other hand, has a thorough legislative approach that is scattered throughout its Criminal Code and covers fraud, bribery, and other corrupt practices. This strategy is in line with Finland's resolve to fight corruption by enacting specific laws and enforcing strict penalties—which include fines and jail time in more serious cases.The methodology employed is qualitative in nature and entails a thorough examination of statutory texts, case law, and international agreements. Secondary sources, such as government reports and scholarly literature, are also consulted. A detailed investigation of how each nation defines, prosecutes, and deters bribery is made possible by comparative legal analysis, which takes into account contextual elements like historical evolution, the socio-political climate, and international commitments. This study advances our knowledge of how well legal frameworks function to prevent corruption, advance transparency, and build public confidence in the public and private sectors of the economy. The comparative analysis provides valuable insights that guide efforts to strengthen anti-corruption measures worldwide. These tactics highlight the significance of strong legislative frameworks that are customised to national circumstances in order to maintain integrity and accountability in government.

The Impact of EU Criminal Law Policy on the Prevention of Transnational Environmental Crime

The Impact of EU Criminal Law Policy on the Prevention of Transnational Environmental Crime

In search of the role of punishment from the EU criminal law perspective

This paper deals with punishment in the context of EU criminal law. Its aim is to search for the role of punishment in the area of European criminal justice, focussing on EU legislation and the case law of the Luxembourg and Strasbourg Courts. The methods used are analysis, synthesis and comparative research. The findings lead to the conclusion that, first of all, the priority behind punishment should be the rehabilitation of an offender, followed by their reintegration into society, and not the severity of imposing a long prison sentence itself. Additionally, a life sentence seems unacceptable without the possibility of conditional release or clemency, as it would be contrary to the European standards of protecting human rights. The role of punishment within the EU is therefore strongly influenced by a human rights-based approach in line with the provisions of the CFR and the ECHR.

The Systemic and the Particular in European Law—Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters

AbstractThe article discusses the role for systemic and particular deficiencies in EU criminal law. It does so by analyzing in depth that law as regards the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), but also across measures of EU criminal law that have not yet been explored under this light. While the attention of the literature has been mainly on the EAW and the way those deficiencies can led to refusing the execution of the warrant, a wider assessment reveals the existence of a latent law of the systemic and the particular in this field. The conclusions reveal that the understanding and application of systemic and particular deficiencies in EU criminal law have significant implications in terms of the principle of mutual trust and the complex interaction between different EU values.

The increasing power of the European Union in the field of criminal law and the consequences for the national law of the Member States

The increasing power of the European Union in the field of criminal law and the consequences for the national law of the Member StatesKeywords: criminal law, European Union, EU primary law, EU secondary law, EAW, EIO.In the following pages, the author gives a brief explanation of what does it mean European criminal law and which parts of criminal law are actually affected by the EU. Possible future development is assessed in the last part ofthe article. The article aims to present a brief history of European criminal law, that helps us understand why the EU criminal law has its main features and why the specific areas are affected. The specification of rules and areasdirectly affected by European criminal law explains the EU’s influence and its interest in involvement in particular social relations and also in criminal law which developed into the increasing importance of EU criminal law in lastyears. The article uncovered and explained the positive elements of EU criminal law and envisaged the future deeper harmonisation in the field of criminal law which the author thinks is a natural development of the EU integration,which started more than 70 years ago

The protection of the EU financial interests between administrative and criminal tools: OLAF and EPPO

The article argues that both administrative and criminal tools are necessary for the protection of EU financial interests and that the mechanisms of cooperation between OLAF and the EPPO are suitable to foster a functioning collaboration. However, criticisms still emerge, both on the functioning of OLAF, and as regards operational activities of the EPPO and its cooperation with national prosecutors. Guarantees for private parties involved in administrative and criminal investigations cannot be ignored, and several shortcomings in the system of judicial protection need to be addressed. Effectiveness of the system and protection of guarantees should not be considered separate, especially in the context of the challenges that Next Generation EU (NGEU) raises for the protection of EU financial interests. Guarantees such as legal certainty and independence of the judiciary, are basic tenets of the rule of law, which, as set out in the Conditionality Regulation and further clarified by the ECJ, is in itself a condition for effectively protecting EU financial interests. European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF, European Public Prosecutor Office, EPPO, protection of EU financial interests, institutional cooperation, EU criminal law, legal certainty, judicial protection

The Lisbon Treaty: A Critical Analysis of its Impact on EU Criminal Law

The Lisbon Treaty: A Critical Analysis of its Impact on EU Criminal Law

ЗАРУБІЖНИЙ ДОСВІД ПОПЕРЕДЖЕННЯ НАСИЛЬНИЦЬКИМ ЗЛОЧИНАМ ПРОТИ СТАТЕВОЇ СВОБОДИ ТА СТАТЕВОЇ НЕДОТОРКАНОСТІ НЕПОВНОЛІТНІХ

The article considers international legal acts to prevent violent crimes against sexual freedom and sexual integrity of the child. An analysis of international legal acts and legislation of other states shows that today almost all countries of the world have norms, to some extent related to the criminal law protection of public morality. The existence of these norms is due to the need for state control over prostitution, the circulation of pornographic products, as well as the existence of obligations at the level of interstate relations. It is noted that in international practice there are no generally accepted standards of legal regulation of the market of sexual services - in each country special legal approaches are introduced, taking into account national traditions. At the same time, in most European countries, against the background of loyalty to persons engaged in prostitution, stricter sanctions have been introduced than in Ukraine for sexual violence against children. The urgency of the topic is due to the fact that the expansion of the process of European integration of Ukraine requires the implementation of standards of protection of human rights and freedoms recognized in the law enforcement practice. This is especially true of children who, because of psychological, social and personal immaturity, dependence on adults, lack of life experience and many other factors, are least protected from the dangers, including sexual abuse (according to UNICEF, every fifth child in Europe becomes sexually abused). World-wide humanitarian approaches to the protection of the sexual integrity of the child are enshrined in the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child 1924 p., And subsequently in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 p., The Declaration of the Rights of the Child 1959, the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified in Ukraine 1991 p. .), The Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse. In accordance with international standards, in addition to the punishment of the perpetrators, work should be done with those who have committed acts of a sexual nature, to prevent new violations, as well as to rehabilitate victims. Unlike the EU criminal law doctrine, US federal law addresses the issue of criminal protection of child sexual abuse more broadly, including in the “child sexual abuse” group of acts that have more than direct but also the indirect link with the sexual motivation of the guilty person. These actions are divided into two types by American criminologists: adult and child sexual intercourse (incest) and extramarital sex (pedophilia). At the level of law, most U.S. states punish not only the person who provides sexual services but also the person who uses them (so-called "patronage"). This principle of the American lawmaker seems to be quite relevant because it allows to create evidence base, prevent crime.

Book Review: The Principle of Mutual Trust in EU Criminal Law, by Auke Willems. (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2021)

Book Review: <i>The Principle of Mutual Trust in EU Criminal Law</i>, by Auke Willems. (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2021)

Towards an EU criminal law on violence against women: The ambitions and limitations of the Commission’s proposal to criminalise image-based sexual abuse

In March 2022, the European Commission proposed a new landmark Directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence which includes measures on the non-consensual distribution of intimate and manipulated images. We refer to this form of violence against women as ‘image-based sexual abuse’, a term that encompasses all forms of the non-consensual creating, taking or sharing of intimate images or videos, including threats to share such material and altered material. In this article, we provide a new analysis of current Member State laws covering all forms of image-based sexual abuse, as well as the first detailed examination of the Commission’s proposals to tackle this form of violence against women. We suggest that the Commission’s proposal is characterised by both its ambition and limitations. It is ambitious in its attempts to set minimum rules in challenging areas of criminal law and, in doing so, recognises the serious harms of image-based sexual abuse. At the same time, by seeking to expand the reach of EU criminal law, inevitably requiring compromise, the scope of the proposed measures is somewhat limited. Such compromises and limitations risk entrenching hierarchies between different forms of abuse and, ultimately, the proposal fails to provide a comprehensive response reflective of victims’ experiences.

What about fundamental rights? Security and fundamental rights in the midst of a rule of law breakdown

This article considers the balance between security and fundamental rights that characterises EU criminal law and examines how processes of rule of law backsliding have re-shaped it. Traditionally, EU criminal law has been characterised by its securitisation, which crystallised in the prioritisation of the principle of mutual trust over concerns for the rights of defendants. However, processes of rule of law breakdown at Member State level have challenged this balance and demonstrated the flawed foundations of mutual trust. This paper explores how the CJEU is addressing these contradictions through case law that, nonetheless, continues to prioritise security over the right to a fair trial, whilst Member State courts challenge these interpretations and develop decentralised interpretations of the right to a fair trial. The goal is to evaluate whether judicial dialogue provides an adequate framework to counter the securitisation of EU criminal law and protect the right to a fair trial in the midst of a process of rule of law breakdown.

Some Issues Regarding the Europeanization of National Criminal Law

The subject of the article is the Europeanization of the criminal law of the Member States of the European Union. The author’s opinion is that EU criminal law influences not only the specific part, but also the institutions of the general part of criminal law. This raises the question of bridging the differences between national criminal law systems in order to achieve the European Union's common policy on combating particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension.

Approximation of criminal sanctions in the European Union: A wild goose chase?

The era when criminal law was solely a matter of national legislation is long gone. In the European Union, the approximation of substantive criminal norms and procedural rights has not escaped the attention of the European legislator. Inevitably, the move towards supranational criminal law has affected the field of sentencing and criminal sanctions. This paper seeks to discuss the changes that the development of EU criminal law brings on sentencing. The focus lies on the approximation of criminal sanctions within the EU, in an attempt to understand the scope and the added value of the EU’s approach in the field. First, the legal basis of article 83 TFEU is presented and analyzed, in order to define the limits of the Union’s competence in the field of sentencing. Subsequently, the approach of the European legislator when adopting minimum rules on the approximation of criminal sanctions is unravelled, and the relationship between functional approximation and mutual recognition is discussed. Finally, this paper concludes with some critical reflections upon the approximation of criminal sanctions in the EU, with an eye towards the future of Europe’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ).

ECHR Preamble vs. the European Arrest Warrant: balancing Human Rights protection and the principle of mutual trust in EU Criminal Law?

As stated in the European Convention on Hu- man Rights Preamble, the aim of the Council of Europe is the achievement of greater unity between its members through the maintenance and realisation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms . Nowadays, the European Union includes the majority of the ECHR signatories (27 of 47) and incorporates the key legal instrument of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, namely the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision . Nevertheless, the possible effects of the EAWFD on the practice of the European Court of Human Rights remain understudied – despite the crucial need to properly balance the enforcement of the principle of mutual recognition and Human Rights protection in the European Union. Since the first attempts to approach the EAWFD, the Strasbourg Court preferred to find the applications inadmissible (Pianese, Monedero Angora, Stapleton) or to establish a very high threshold for establishing a Convention violation within this context (Pirozzi). It will be argued that the newly developing Strasbourg Court’s case-law on the EAWFD (Castano, Bivolaru/Moldovan, Alosa) could potentially mark a new step in the judicial dialogue be- tween two European Courts. In the Castano and Bivolaru/ Moldovan rulings, the ECtHR – for the first time – found that the EU Member States had breached their obligations under Arts . 2 ( ́right to life ́) and 3 ( ́prohibition of torture ́) ECHR within the European Arrest Warrant context (murder/traffick- ing in human beings charges). At the same time, this interpre- tation opens the floor for discussion on potential applicability of other Convention provisions (Arts . 4, 5, 8, 13) to other offences listed in Art . 2(2) of the EAWFD (such as, for instance, corruption, fraud, computer-related crime etc .). Even though the Strasbourg Court has transposed the CJEU’s benchmarks of the EAW refusals legality assessment – i .e . a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in the requesting State (Aranyosi/Căldăra­ ru), the EU Member States ́ courts are now forced – de facto – to consider an additional (ECHR-based) criterion for assessing the legality of refusals to execute the European Arrest Warrants. This can arguably pose further questions upon the entry into force of Protocol No. 15 ECHR which aims at the most effective realisation of the ́subsidiarity ́ principle in the European Convention system.

A long way to end rape in the European Union: Assessing the commission’s proposal to harmonise rape law, through a feminist lens

On 8 March 2022, the European Commission presented a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating violence against women and domestic violence. Inter alia, the proposal includes minimum rules on the definition of certain forms of violence against women and domestic violence, including rape. Building on a historical overview of what counts as rape and on the legal context in which the European Commission has tabled the proposal, this article will critically discuss whether the European Union (hereinafter: the EU) has the competence to harmonise the crime of rape pursuant to Article 83 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and what the desirable content of EU legislation in this field should be. For this purpose, the article will use long-lasting, feminist scholarship as an analytical tool to address the transformations that these feminist discourses have traditionally brought into rape law, stressing the legal gaps that still need to be filled, and suggesting a possible new synergy between EU criminal law and feminist scholarship and activism.

Criminalising Hate Crime and Hate Speech at EU Level: Extending the List of Eurocrimes Under Article 83(1) TFEU.

In September 2020, President von der Leyen announced the Commission’s intention to propose to extend the list of EU crimes or Eurocrimes to all forms of hate crime and hate speech, as later reflected in the Commission Work Programme 2021. The article first examines the need for such action at EU level, highlighting also certain shortcomings with existing regulation of hate crime and hate speech across the EU. Next, it raises a few additional challenges, relating to the regulation of the freedom of expression in view of the historical experience in some EU countries, the criminal offence element of public order violation or endangerment, and the harm-offence distinction. It then inspects whether specific conditions for EU action under Article 83(1) TFEU can be satisfied by the proposed area(s) of crime, not only from the perspective of a textual legal analysis but also drawing where appropriate on relevant empirical data. While acknowledging the somewhat controversial topic of regulation in the already sensitive field of EU criminal law as well as certain clear political hurdles linked with the procedural aspects of enlarging the EU crimes’ list, it is submitted that the mentioned crimes and their regulation raise legitimate concerns that warrant the proposed legislative action at EU level.

Interaction of EU Financial Interest and Legal Principles in EU Criminal Law

This article examines the intersection differing the supremacy of law, the effectiveness of the protection of the financial interests of the European Union, and the principles of legality the same as predictability of the law in EU criminal law. The authors analyze the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, assessing cases where the principle of the supremacy of EU law is applied to ensure the effective protection of the Union’s financial interests and where the ECJ imposes mandatory exceptions to this principle for national courts. In order to strike a balance between the principles of effectiveness and legal predictability, different liability conditions are assessed for a natural person and a Member State that fails to fulfill its obligation to protect the EU’s financial interests.

Interplay between European Union criminal law and administrative sanctions: Constituent elements of transposing punitive administrative sanctions into national law

The post-Lisbon punitive sanctioning law of the EU is divided between criminal and non-criminal sanctions. The legislator has preferred non-criminal sanctions for reasons of ultima ratio but more recently also for reasons of efficiency. In the search for efficiency, the regulation on such sanctions has become increasingly precise, and the legislator has started to refer to the administrative nature of such sanctions. This can limit the discretion of the Member States in finding the most suitable way to transpose such sanctions, and it could amount to a prohibition on resorting to criminal law (a negative harmonisation of criminal law). When EU law prescribes specific requirements on administrative sanctioning systems, fundamental aspects of national sanctioning systems might be affected, and this can also bring about a lower protection for procedural guarantees. This article explores the interplay between EU criminal law and administrative sanctions to ascertain whether there is a coherent understanding of what the term administrative refers to in EU law. Based on this evaluation, this article analyses whether the EU legislation allows for conclusions to be made on the minimum requirements of transposing sanctions that are labelled as administrative into national law (the constituent elements) and whether this labelling interferes with the use of criminal law.

EU Criminal Law and Persons with Disabilities: Reflections on “Vulnerability” and the Influence of the CRPD

This essay examines how EU criminal law, which regulates certain aspects of criminal procedural law of the twenty-seven EU member states, addresses the situation of persons with disabilities who come into contact with the criminal justice system. EU law on victims and on suspects and accused persons (partially) addresses disability through the prism of “vulnerability.” This essay argues that associating persons with disabilities with “vulnerability” can be stigmatizing. Moreover, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which requires that persons with disabilities have effective access to justice and receive appropriate accommodations, does not link these rights to a prior recognition of “vulnerability.” Even though the EU is a party to the CRPD, the 2013 Recommendation from the European Commission on Procedural Safeguards for Vulnerable Persons Suspected or Accused in Criminal Proceedings, frames disability in terms of “vulnerability.” In contrast, parts of the EU Victims’ Rights Directive address the situation of individuals with disabilities without using the language of vulnerability.

Implementation of the EPPO Regulation from the Slovak Perspective

Nowadays, 22 Member States are participating in enhanced cooperation for establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office. Due to the fact that the establishment and exercise of powers of the European Public Prosecutor's Office significantly changes the current concept of EU criminal law, it was necessary for the participating Member States to adapt to this change. To ensure effective application of the Regulation in practice, the Member States had to adopt different implementing measures. As in other Member States, also the national authorities of the Slovak Republic needed to consider necessary legislative measures ensuring effective application of the EPPO Regulation for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting criminal offences affecting financial interests of the EU.