Implementing framework decisions

Common Market Law Review

Volumn 44, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 1361-1386

  Borgers, Matthias J ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 51249145939     PISSN: 01650750     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (177)

1. See Prechal, Directives in EC Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 74-91.
2. Case C-29/84, Commission v. Germany, [1985] ECR 1661, para 23.
3. See also Case C-365/93, Commission v. Greece, [1995] ECR I-499, para 9;
4. Case C-144/99, Commission v. Netherlands, [2001], ECR I-3541, para 17;
5. Case C-455/00, Commission v. Italy, [2002] ECR I-9231, para 23;
6. Case C-70/03, Commission v. Spain [2004] ECR I-7999, para 15.
7. See e.g. Case C-366/89, Commission v. Italy, [1993] ECR I-4201, para 17.
8. Case C-339/87, Commission v. Netherlands, [1990] ECR I-851, para 25.
9. See also Case C-340/96, Commission v. United Kingdom, [1999] ECR I-2023, para 27;
10. Case C-429/01, Commission v. France, [2003] ECR I-14355, para 40;
11. Case C-410/03, Commission v. Italy, [2005], ECR I-3507, para 32.
12. Cf. Case C-131/88, Commission v. Germany, [1991] ECR 825, para 8;
13. Case C-394/00, Commission v. Ireland, [2002] ECR I-581, para 11;
14. Case C-259/01, Commission v. France, [2002] ECR 11093, para 19;
15. Case C-146/04, Commission v. Netherlands, judgement of 14 April 2005, nyr, para 6.
16. Cf. Prechal, op. cit. supra note 1, pp. 83-84.
17. Cf. Case 14/83, Von Colson & Kamann, [1984] ECR 1891, para 18, 23, 28;
18. Case C-68/88, Commission v. Greece, [1989] ECR 2965, para 24;
19. Case C-382/92, Commission v. United Kingdom [1994] ECR I-2435, para 55;
20. Case C-40/04, Yonemoto, [2005] ECR I-7755, para 59.
21. See also Prechal, op. cit. supra note 1, p. 54: "There has been a discernible shift in attention towards situations concerning the non-application of the directive which has, as such, been correctly transposed."
22. Prechal, op. cit. supra note 1, p. 75.
23. Case C-363/85, Commission v. Italy, [1987] ECR 1733, para 7.
24. Cf. Case C-363/85, Commission v. Italy, [1987] ECR 1733;
25. Case C-247/85, Commission v. Belgium, [1987] ECR 3029;
26. Case C-233/00, Commission v. France, [2003] ECR I-6625.
27. See for example Case C-363/85, Commission v. Italy, [1987] ECR 1733.
28. Case C-105/03, Pupino, [2005] ECR I-5285.
29. Art. 46(2), 47(2), 94 and 95(2) EC.
30. Cf. Ligeti, Strafrecht und strafrechtliche Zusammenarbeit in der Europäischen Union (Duncker & Humblot, 2005), p. 263.
31. Pupino, supra note 12, para 33.
32. Monjal, "Le droit dérivé de l'Union européenne en quête d'identité", (2001) RTDE, 357-358;
33. Baddenhausen and Pietsch, "Rahmenbeschlüsse der Europäischen Union - Nach den Entscheidungen zum Europäischen Haftbefehlsgesetz (BVerfG) und in der Rechtssache Pupino (EuGH)", (2005) Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt, 1565;
34. Hillgruber, "Unionsrecht und nationales recht - der Fall Pupino", (2005) JZ, 842;
35. Lenaerts and Van Nuffel, Constitutional Law of the European Union, (Sweet & Maxwell, 2005), pp. 806-807;
36. Tinkl, "Anmerkung zum Urteil des EuGH vom 16.6.2005 - C-105/03 (Pupino)", (2006) Strafverteidiger, 37.
37. See also Bundesverfassungsgericht 18 July 2005, nr. 2 BvR 2236/04, (2005) NJW, 2289-2303, para 80.
38. Cf. Fetzer and Groß, "Die Pupino-Entscheidung des EuGH - Abkehr vom intergouvernementalen Charakter der EU?", (2005) EuZW, 550;
39. Hecker, Europäisches Strafrecht, (Springer, 2005), pp. 158-159;
40. Opinion of A.G. Kokott in Pupino, supra note 12, para 31.
41. Denza, The intergovernmental pillars of the European Union, (Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 1-4, 18-20, 287;
42. Jour-Schröder and Wasmeier, in: Von der Groeben & Schwarze, Kommentar zum Vertrag über de Europäische Union und zur Gründung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, Band I, (Nomos, 2003), pp. 273-274;
43. Satzger, in: Streinz (ed.), EUV/EGV, (C.H. Beck, 2003), p. 140;
44. Geiger, EUV/EGV, (C.H. Beck, 2004), p. 105;
45. Adam, "Die Wirkung von EU-Rahmenbeschlüssen im mitgliedstaatlichen Recht", (2005) EuZW, 558-560;
46. Oppermann, Europarecht, (C.H. Beck, 2005), pp. 139, 186-187;
47. Fetzer and Groß, op. cit. supra note 17, at 550;
48. Herrmann, "Gemeinschaftsrechtskonforme Auslegung nationalen Rechts in Strafverfahren", (2005) EuZW, 437;
49. Hillgruber, op. cit. supra note 16, at 841;
50. Ligeti, op. cit. supra note 14, pp. 59, 63, 261-262;
51. Gärditz and Gusy, "Zur Wirkung europäischer Rahmenbeschlüsse im innerstaatlichen Recht. Zugleich Besprechung von EuGH, Urteil vom 16.6.2005", (2006) Goltdammer's Archiv für Strafrecht, 225-226;
52. Haratsch/Koenig/Pechstein, Europarecht, (Mohr Siebeck, 2006), pp. 511-512;
53. Tinkl, op. cit. supra note 16, at 37;
54. Von Unger, "Pupino: Der EuGH vergemeinschaftet das intergouvernementale Recht", (2006) Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht, 47.
55. On the intention of the authors of the Treaty on European Union in relation to the legal order of the Third Pillar, see also extensively Peers, "Salvation Outside the Church: Judicial Protection in the Third Pillar after the Pupino and Segi Judgments", 44 CML Rev. (2007) 919-921.
56. See Fletcher, "Extending 'indirect effect' to the third pillar: the significance of Pupino?", (2005) EL Rev., 862;
57. Prechal, op. cit. supra note 1, pp. 180, 219.
58. Confirming: Fetzer and Groß, op. cit. supra note 17, at 550-551;
59. Fletcher, op. cit. supra note 19, at 872;
60. Hillgruber, op. cit. supra note 16, at 842;
61. Tinkl, op. cit. supra note 16, at 39;
62. Von Unger, op. cit. supra note 18, at 48.
63. Denying: Lenaerts and Van Nuffel, op. cit. supra note 16, p. 712;
64. Adam, op. cit. supra note 18, at 561;
65. Herrmann, op. cit. supra note 18, at 437;
66. Killmann, "Die rahmenbeschlusskonforme Auslegung im Strafrecht vor dem EuGH", (2005) Juristische Blätter, 569;
67. Lenaerts and Corthaut, "Of birds and hedges: the role of primacy in invoking norms of EU law", (2006) EL Rev., 288-290.
68. Adam, op. cit. supra note 18, at 561;
69. Egger, "Die Bindung der Mitgliedstaaten an die Grundrechte in der III. Säule", (2005) EuZW, 653-654;
70. Haratsch, Koenig and Pechstein, op. cit. supra note 18, p. 511;
71. Fetzer and Groß, op. cit. supra note 17, at 551;
72. Herrmann, op. cit. supra note 18, at 437;
73. Lenaerts and Corthaut, op. cit. supra note 20, at 293;
74. Fletcher, op. cit. supra note 19, at 873, 875-876;
75. Killmann, op. cit. supra note 20, at 571;
76. Peers, op. cit supra note 18, at 913-924. On the issue of supremacy of Third Pillar law without direct effect,
77. cf. also Dougan, "When Worlds Collide! Competing Visions of the Relationship between Direct Effect and Supremacy", 44 CML Rev., (2007) 931-963.
78. Chalmers, "The Court of Justice and the Third Pillar", (2005) EL Rev., 773-774.
79. See also Fletcher, op. cit. supra note 19, at 869-870, 877;
80. Hillgruber, op. cit. supra note 16, at 844;
81. Tinkl, op. cit. supra note 16, at 40;
82. Von Unger, op. cit. supra note 18, at 48. Since the EU summit of 21 June 2007, it would seem that the Constitution as such is abandoned, but the integration of First and Third Pillars is still aimed at by other means. See Presidency Conclusions, Council Document 11177/07.
83. Council Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA of 27 Jan. 2003 on the protection of the environment through criminal law, O.J. 2003, L 29/55.
84. Case C-176/03, Commission v. Council, [2005] ECR 2005, I-7879.
85. Communication from the Commission on the implications of the Court's judgment of 13 September 2005 (Case C-176/03 Commission v. Council), COM(2005)583 final; European Parliament resolution on the consequences of the judgment of the Court of 13 September 2005 (C-176/03 Commission v Council), Document A6-0172/2006.
86. Cf. Council Document 6466/06.
87. Cf. Peers, op. cit. supra note 18, at 915.
88. A list of these reports, with sources, is included in the annex. Below (in the footnotes) reference is made only to the source of these reports. The annex also contains the full title as well as the sources of the framework decisions to which these reports relate. These framework decisions are cited briefly below.
89. See e.g. Art. 11(2) Framework Decision 2003/383/JHA; Art. 18 Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA.
90. E.g. COM(2004)346 final, p. 6.
91. See e.g. Art. 11 Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA; Art. 9(2) Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25 Oct. 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking, O.J. 2004, L 335/8;
92. Art. 20(7) Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 Feb. 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, O.J. 2005, L 76/16.
93. Art. 34 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA.
94. However, the Commission Report can help to establish a solid factual basis for this procedure. Cf. COM(2006)770 final, p. 4.
95. European Parliament recommendation to the Council with a proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on evaluation of the European arrest warrant, P6-TA(2006)0083.
96. COM(2001)771 final, pp. 10, 17;
97. COM(2003)532 final, p. 6;
98. COM(2004)54 final, p. 2;
99. COM(2004)230 final, pp. 3, 22, 23;
100. COM(2004)346 final, pp. 3, 19;
101. COM(2004)409 final, p. 3;
102. COM(2005)63 final, p. 2;
103. COM(2005)858 final, p. 4;
104. COM(2006)8 final, p. 2;
105. COM(2006)65 final, p. 7;
106. COM(2006)72, pp. 2, 6;
107. COM(2006)187 final, p. 3;
108. COM(2006)770 final, pp. 3, 6, 8.
109. See e.g. COM(2001)771 final, p. 4.
110. Council Document 14603/3/01 REV 3, p. 5;
111. Council Document 10371/2/04 REV 2, pp. 6-7;
112. Council Document 14830/2/04 REV 2, pp. 11-12;
113. Council Document 10369/2/04 REV 2, p. 8;
114. Council Document 11685/2/04 REV 2, p. 9;
115. Council Document 11678/2/04 REV 2, p. 11.
116. Council Document 14830/2/04 REV 2, p. 6;
117. Council Document 11685/2/04 REV 2, p. 5;
118. Council Document 11687/2/04 REV 2, p. 6.
119. Cf. Report on the implementation of the Hague programme for 2005, COM(2006) 333 final, p. 11.
120. Council Document 11528/05, pp. 35, 38, 83, 95, 99.
121. Council Document 11528/05, p. 68.
122. COM(2001)771 final, pp. 4-7.
123. COM(2004)54 final, pp. 3-4;
124. COM(2004)230 final, pp. 4-6;
125. COM(2004)346 final, pp. 3-6;
126. COM(2004)409 final, pp. 4-5;
127. SEC(2005)267, pp. 3-4;
128. SEC(2004)1725, pp. 5-6;
129. SEC(2006)79, pp. 3-4;
130. COM(2006)187 final, pp. 4-5;
131. COM(2006)770 final, p. 4-5;
132. SEC(2007)979, p. 3.
133. COM(2001)771 final, p. 5.
134. Art. 8 Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA.
135. COM(2004)54 final, p. 14.
136. Art. 12 Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA.
137. COM(2004)54 final, p. 16.
138. Art. 4 Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA.
139. COM(2004)230 final, p. 20.
140. See also COM(2006)72 final, p. 5.
141. COM(2005)858 final, p. 6.
142. See e.g. COM(2004)54 final, pp. 7, 10, 12, 20;
143. SEC(2005)267, p. 4;
144. SEC(2006)79, p. 4.
145. See e.g. SEC(2004) 1725, p. 29.
146. COM(2004)230 final, p. 16.
147. See for other examples COM(2001)771 final, pp. 12-13;
148. COM(2004)346 final, p. 13;
149. COM(2006)65 final, p. 3;
150. SEC(2004)688, p. 26.
151. SEC(2004)1725, p. 6;
152. COM(2006)187 final, p. 5.
153. See also Art. 4, 5, 10, 13, 14 and 15 Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA; Art. 11 and 12 Framework Decision 2001/413/JHA;
154. Art. 10 (2) Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA;
155. Art. 7 (3) Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA.
156. SEC(2005)267, p. 31;
157. SEC(2006)79, p. 33.
158. See also SEC(2007)979, p. 36.
159. Council Document 11528/05, pp. 66, 89, 101, 113.
160. Cf. the remark of the Dutch government in Council Document 11528/05, p. 67: "The evaluation in the staff working document lacks consistency. Conclusions at both the beginning and end of that document highlight the fact that national legislation conflicts with the FD [framework decisions; MJB] on a number of points. The central section does mention discrepancies but gives no evaluation of them. Nor does the document reflect a balanced assessment of the various Member States."
161. An exception is Council Document 11528/05.
162. SEC(2004)688, pp. 14-15.
163. SEC(2005)267, p. 10, with reference to Cases C-187 & 385/01, Gözütok and Brugge, [2003] ECR I-1345.
164. COM(2006)187 final, p. 7.
165. Case C-176/03, Commission v. Council, [2005] ECR 2005, I-7879.
166. Besides the Presidency conclusions referred to in note 22 supra, one may also refer to the recent debate on the "bridge" provision of Art. 42 TEU. See COM(2006)211 final, p. 6.
167. Cf. also Jour-Schröder and Konow, "Die Passerelle des Art. 42 EU-Vertrag - Macht sie die Regeln des Verfassungsentwurfs für einen europäischen Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts obsolet?", (2006) EuZW, 550-555.
168. Cf. COM(2001)771 final, p. 18;
169. COM(2004)346 final, p. 19.
170. Cf. e.g. Joint Action of 5 Dec. 1997 adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, establishing a mechanism for evaluating the application and implementation at national level of international undertakings in the fight against organized crime, O.J. 1997, L 344/7.
171. See e.g. Council Document 6206/06.
172. Cf. COM(2007)407 final, p. 10.
173. Evaluation of EU Policies on Freedom, Security and Justice, COM(2006)332 final
174. COM(2006)332 final, pp. 4-5, 99-100.
175. COM(2006)332 final, pp. 2-13.
176. COM(2006)332 final, pp. 93-94.
177. Pupino, supra note 12.