EU criminal law and justice

EU Criminal Law and Justice

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 1-235

  Fletcher, Maria ^a   Lööf, Robin ^b   Gilmore, Bill ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84890746300     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4337/9781848443884     Document Type: Book

References (502)

1. See, for example, T. Blair (2006), 'I don't destroy liberties, I protect them', The Observer, London.
2. This model is usually traced back to L.N. Lindberg (1963), The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integration, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
3. J. Monar (2001), 'The dynamics of justice and home affairs: laboratories, Driving factors and costs', Journal of Common Market Studies, 39(4), 747-64, at p. 754.
4. S. Douglas-Scott (2004), 'The rule of law in the European Union-putting the security into the area of freedom, security and justice', European Law Review, 29(2), 219-42, at p. 222.
5. See also L. Ferola (2002), 'The fight against organized crime in Europe-building an area of freedom, security and justice in the EU', International Journal of Legal Information, 30(1), 53-91.
6. See, e.g., A. Weyembergh (2004), L'harmonisation des législations: condition de l'espace pénal européen et révélateur de ses tensions, Bruxelles: Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles, at p. 180.
7. See generally contributions in P. Williams and D. Vlassis (eds) (2001), Combating Transnational Crime-Concepts, Activities and Responses, London: Frank Cass.
8. Roy Godson and Phil Williams (2001), 'Strengthening cooperation against transnational crime: a new security imperative', in P. Williams and D. Vlassis (eds), Combating Transnational Crime-Concepts, Activities and Responses, London: Frank Cass.
9. Cyrille Fijnaut (2001), 'Transnational organized crime and institutional reform in the European Union: the case of judicial cooperation', in P. Williams and D. Vlassis (eds), Combating Transnational Crime-Concepts, Activities and Responses, London: Frank Cass, at p. 278. Along the same lines, see also Europol's EU Organised Crime Threat Assessment 2006, at p. 10.
10. See, e.g., A. Alvazzi del Frate (2004), 'The international crime business survey: findings from nine Central-Eastern European cities', European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 10(2-3), 137-161;
11. C. Lewis, G. Barclay et al. (2004), 'Crime trends in the EU', European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 10(2-3), 187-223;
12. and H. Brady and M.Roma (2006), 'Let justice be done: punishing crime in the EU' (policy brief), London: Centre for European Reform.
13. Gerhard O.W. Mueller (2001), 'Transnational crime: definitions and concepts', in P. Williams and D. Vlassis (eds), Combating Transnational Crime-Concepts, Activities and Responses, London: Frank Cass, at p. 16.
14. Cyrille Fijnaut (2004), 'Police co-operation and the area of freedom, security and justice', in N. Walker (ed.), Europe's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, at p. 267.
15. Willy Bruggeman (2004), 'Policing in a European context', in J. Apap (ed.), Justice and Home Affairs in the EU: Liberty and Security Issues after Enlargement, Cheltenham,UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, at p. 164.
16. See Nikos Passas (2001), 'Globalization and transnational crime: effects of criminogenic asymmetries', in P. Williams and D. Vlassis (eds), Combating Transnational Crime-Concepts, Activities and Responses, London: Frank Cass.
17. Europol's EU Organised Crime Report 2005, at p. 8.
18. Cyrille Fijnaut, above n. 8.
19. Paul de Hert (2004), 'Division of competencies between national and European levels with regard to justice and home affairs', in J. Apap (ed.), Justice and Home Affairs in the EU: Liberty and Security Issues after Enlargement, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, at p. 71.
20. Cyrille Fijnaut, above n. 8, at p. 287.
21. L.N. Lindberg, above n. 2, at p. 10.
22. This reasoning coincides with that of the ECJ on Article 308 of the EC Treaty in Opinion 2/94 (EC accession to the ECHR) [1996] ECR I-1759.
23. See M. Delmas-Marty (1997), Corpus juris: introducing penal provisions for the purpose of the financial interests of the European Union, Paris: Economica.
24. Cyrille Fijnaut (2001), above n. 8, at p. 293.
25. See also, on the proposed European Public Prosecutor, Christine Van den Wyngaert (2004), 'Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor in the Corpus Juris Model: Water and Fire?', in N. Walker (ed.), Europe's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Neil Walker (2004), 'In Search of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: a constitutional odyssey', in N. Walker (ed.), Europe's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, at p. 13.
27. S. Douglas-Scott, above n. 4, at p. 220.
28. Nikos Passas, above n. 13, above, at p. 46.
29. See, e.g., Roy Godson and Phil Williams, above, n. 7;
30. B. Gruszczynśka (2004), 'Crime in Central and Eastern European countries in the enlarged Europe', European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 10(2-3), 123-36.
31. A. von Bogdandy (2000), 'The European Union as a human rights organization? Human rights and the core of the European Union', Common Market Law Review, 37, 1307-38.
32. J. Monar, above n. 3, at p. 758.
33. See, e.g., Raymond E. Kendall (2001), 'Responding to Transnational Crime', in P. Williams and D. Vlassis (eds), Combating Transnational Crime-Concepts, Activities and Responses, London: Frank Cass;
34. and N. Gerspacher (2005), 'The roles of international police cooperation organizations-beyond mandates, towards unintended roles', European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 13(3), 413-34.
35. Neil Walker, above n. 26, at p. 12.
36. Denza, E. (2002), The Intergovernmental Pillars of the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press, at pp. 286-7.
37. See, e.g., K. Lenaerts and M. Desomer (2002), 'New models of constitution-making in Europe: the quest for legitimacy', Common Market Law Review, 39, 1217-53.
38. More generally on 'input legitimacy', see Fritz W. Scharpf (1999), Governing in Europe. Democratic and Efficient? Oxford: Oxford University Press
39. Neil Walker (2003), 'Freedom, security and justice', in B. De Witte (ed.), Ten Reflections on the Constitutional Treaty for Europe, Florence: European University Institute and Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies and Academy of European Law, at p. 164.
40. See Chapters 2 and 3, below.
41. See Chapter 2, below.
42. C-176/03 Commission v. Council, judgment of 13 September 2005.
43. C-303/05 Advocaten voor de Wereld, judgment of 3 May 2007, at para. 37.
44. Council Act of 26 July 1995 drawing up the Convention on the establishment of a European Police Office (OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 1).
45. Council Act of 29 May 2000 establishing the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union (OJ C 197, 12.7.2000, p. 1-2).
46. Council Act of 10 March 1995 drawing up the Convention on simplified extradition procedure between the Member States of the European Union (OJ C 78, 30.3.1995, p. 1).
47. Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime.
48. 41/74, judgment of 4 December 1974.
49. C-105/03, judgment of 16 June 2005. For comment, see M. Fletcher (2005), 'Extending "Indirect Effect" to the Third Pillar: The Significance of Pupino', European Law Review, 30(6), 862-77.
50. At para. 43.
51. At para. 44.
52. At para. 47.
53. C-212/04, judgment of 4 July 2006.
54. On this, see R. Lööf (2007), 'Temporal aspects of the duty of consistent interpretation in the First and Third Pillars', European Law Review, 32(6), 888-95.
55. It needs to be remembered that this statement needs to be issued with a major caveat with respect to the effect of the AFSJ on the UK which is governed by a special protocol.
56. This division will be developed in Chapter 6.
57. See the discussion on 'jumping of scales' in Chapter 6.
58. Note that yet different provisions apply to preliminary references under Title IV EC-immigration asylum-where only courts of final instance can request preliminary rulings but 'must' do so.
59. See 283/81 Cilfit, judgment of 6 October 1982.
60. 314/85 Foto-Frost, judgment of 22 October 1987.
61. Dabas v. High Court of Justice, Madrid, [2007] UKHL 6.
62. Pupino, above n. 50, at para. 29.
63. C-176/03, above n. 40.
64. C-440/05 Commission v. Council ('ship-source pollution'), judgment of 23 October 2007.
65. See, e.g., Joanna Apap and Sergio Carrera (2004), 'Progress and obstacles in the area of justice and home affairs in an enlarging Europe: an overview', in J. Apap (ed.), Justice and Home Affairs in the EU: Liberty and Security Issues after Enlargement, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA:
66. Edward Elgar; Z. Deen-Racsmány and R. Blekxtoon (2005), 'The decline of the nationality exception in European extradition?', European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 13(3), 317-63;
67. S. Douglas-Scott, above n. 4.
68. Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, pp. 1-20).
69. Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism (OJ L 164, 22.6.2002, p. 3).
70. D. Flore (2002), 'Le mandat d'arrêt Européen: première mise en Oeuvre d'un Nouveau Paradigme de la Justice Pénale Européenne', Journal des tribuneaux (6050), 273-81.
71. S. Douglas-Scott, above n. 4, at p. 220.
72. S. Douglas-Scott, above n. 4, at p. 221.
73. See, e.g., T. Blair (2006), above n. 1.
74. See, e.g., Article 36 of the French Constitution of 1958.
75. See reasoning of the UK House of Lords in A. v. Home Secretary [2004] UKHL 56.
76. See discussion under 'Freedom', above.
77. S. Alegre and M. Leaf (2004), 'Mutual recognition in European judicial cooperation: a step too far too soon? Case study-the European arrest warrant', European Law Journal, 10(2), 200-217, at p. 215.
78. S. Peers (2000), EU Justice and Home Affairs Law, Harlow: Pearson Education, at p. 187.
79. Sarah Ludford (2004), 'An EU JHA policy: what should it comprise?', in J. Apap (ed.), Justice and Home Affairs in the EU: Liberty and Security Issues after Enlargement, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, at p. 27.
80. M. Jimeno-Bulnes (2004), 'After September 11th: the fight against terrorism in national and European law. Substantive and procedural rules: some examples', European Law Journal, 10(2), 235-53, at p. 252.
81. Tampere European Council conclusions, 15-16 October 1999, at para. 33.
82. Mutual Recognition of Final Decisions in Criminal Matters (COM(2000) 495 final), 26.7.2000, at p. 4.
83. Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters (OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, pp. 10-22), Introduction, at p. 10.
84. Green Paper on procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union (COM(2003) 75 final).
85. Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union (COM(2004) 328 final).
86. Submission of Professor Kaiafa-Gbandi to 'Procedural rights in criminal proceedings', Session 2004-2005, HL Paper 28, 7.2.2005.
87. S. Lavanex and W.Wallace (2005), 'Justice and home affairs: towards a "European public order"?' in H. Wallace, W. Wallace and M.A. Pollack, Policy-Making in the European Union, (15th ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press, 457-80 at p. 470.
88. See further J. Monar (2002), 'Institutionalizing freedom, security and justice', in J. Peterson and M. Shackleton (eds), The Institutions of the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 186-209.
89. J. Monar (2006), 'Cooperation in JHA domain: characteristics, constraints and progress', European Integration, 28(5), 495-509 at p. 499.
90. See Council document 6626/05, Brussels 21 February 2005. Also see Statewatch bulletin, 15(1) (2005).
91. For instance see the discussion on the procedural safeguards framework decision and the Green Paper on criminal jurisdiction and ne bis in idem in Chapter 4.
92. Communication on the mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters and the strengthening of mutual trust between Member States (COM(2005) 195 final, 19.5.2005).
93. Communication on the implications of the Court's judgment of 13 September 2005 (Case C-176/03 Commission v Council). COM(2005) 583 final, 24.11.2005.
94. Communication on Evaluation of EU Policies on Freedom, Security and Justice: Evaluation of EU Policies on Freedom, Security and Justice. COM(2006) 332 final, 28.6.2006.
95. S. Lavanex and W. Wallace; above n. 2, at p. 469.
96. Peers refers to the 'rubber-stamping' role of EU leaders in respect of The Hague Programmes. S. Peers (2007) EU Justice and Home Affairs Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, at p. 22.
97. For instance, in the field of discrimination law, see C-249/96 Grant v South West Trains, judgment of 17.2.98. For a comprehensive account of how the ECJ uses comparative law as a method of interpretation, see K. Lenaerts (2003), 'Interlocking legal orders in the European Union and comparative law', International Comparative Law Quarterly, 52(4), 873-906.
98. G. Conway (2005), 'Judicial interpretation and the Third Pillar: Ireland's acceptance of the European arrest warrant and the Gözütok and Brügge Case', European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 13(2), 255-83, at p. 278. Conway argues that, where possible, judicial weight should be given to the expressed intentions of the legislative drafters when interpreting third pillar measures and their implementation in national law.
99. C-440/05 Commission v. Council ('Environmental crimes'), judgment of 13 September 2005.
100. For a full list of cases and further discussion, see Chapter 4.
101. See also C-303/05 Advocaten voor de Wereld, judgment of 3 May 2007.
102. Further discussion on the actual interventions of the national courts and the ECJ in this field can be found spread throughout the various chapters of the book.
103. Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime (OJ L 63 6.3.2002. pp. 1-13), later amended in respect of budget issues only by Council Decision 2003/659/JHA of 18 June 2003 (OJ L 245 29.9.2003. pp. 44-5).
104. See also Rules of procedure of Eurojust (OJ C 286, 22.11.2002. pp. 1-7).
105. Although such roles have been officially envisaged at the EU level by the Commission. See below.
106. C. van den Wyngaert (2005), 'Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor in the Corpus Juris model: water and fire?', in N. Walker (ed.), Europe's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 201-39, at p. 210.
107. The Hague Programme: strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, 4-5 November 2004 (OJ C 53, 3.3.2005, pp. 1-14) at para. 3.3.3.
108. Eurojust's contribution for the European Commission Communication concerning the future of Eurojust and the European Judicial Network, Council Document 13079/07, Brussels, 20 September 2007, at p. 6.
109. Article III-274.
110. Green Paper on conflicts of jurisdiction and the principle of ne bis in idem in criminal proceedings COM(2005) 696, final. 23.12.2005. See also Annexed Commission Staff Working Document SEC(2005)1767.
111. Eurojust Decision 2002/187/JHA, above n. 21, at Article 26.
112. Eurojust Decision 2002/187/JHA, above n. 21, at Article 27.
113. Eurojust's contribution for the European Commission Communication concerning the future of Eurojust and the European Judicial Network, Council Document 13079/07, Brussels, 20 September 2007.
114. For further detail about JITs, see Chapter 3.
115. Eurojust's contribution for the European Commission Communication, see above, n. 26, at pp. 14-16.
116. On this point see C. Fijnaut (2006), 'Police Co-operation and the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice' in N.Walker (ed.), Europe's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 253-58, at p. 253.
117. Proposal for a Council Decision establishing the European Police Office (Europol), COM (2006) 817 final, 20.12.2006.
118. See, for example, C. van den Wyngaert, above n. 24, at p. 235.
119. Eurojust's contribution for the European Commission Communication; above n. 26, at p. 13.
120. Terms used in the UK House of Lords Select Committee on European Union report 'Judicial Co-operation in the EU: The Role of Eurojust', Session 2003-04, HL 138, 21.7.2004, at para. 68.
121. Eurojust's contribution for the European Commission Communication, above n. 26, at p. 17.
122. As a body with legal personality, Eurojust may conclude agreements with third parties.
123. Eurojust's contribution for the European Commission Communication, above n. 26, at p. 19.
124. UK House of Lords report, above n. 41, at para. 20.
125. Council and Commission Action Plan implementing the Hague Programme on strengthening. freedom, security and justice in the European Union (OJ C 198, 12.8.05, pp. 1-12). At para. 2.3 under point (9).
126. Existing rules on data protection are enshrined in Eurojust's Rules of Procedure on the Processing and Protection of Personal Data (OJ C 68, 19.3.2005, p. 1).
127. Discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.
128. For a fuller account of this thesis, see A. Weyemberg (2005), 'Approximation of criminal laws, the Constitutional Treaty and the Hague Programme', Common Market Law Review, 42, 1567-97.
129. Joint Action on the creation of a European Judicial Network of 29 June 1998 (OJ L 19, 7.6.1998, p. 4).
130. UK House of Lords report, above n. 41, at para. 80.
131. Cited in G. Corstens and J. Pradel (2002), European Criminal Law, Kluwer Law International, at p. 54.
132. Joint Action of 22 April 1996 adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, concerning a framework for the exchange of liaison magistrates to improve judicial cooperation between the Member States of the European Union 96/277/JHA (OJ L 105 27.4.1996, p. 1).
133. Joint Action 98/428/JHA of 29 June 1998 adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the creation of a European Judicial Network (OJ L 191, 7.7.1998, pp. 4-7) at Article 2(4).
134. http://www.ejtn.net.
135. Catalogue of the European Judicial Training Network 2006, at p. 5. Available via http://www.ejtn.net.
136. See for instance Communication on the mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters and the strengthening of mutual trust between Member States in May 2005. COM(2005) 195 final, Brussels, 19.5.2005. Staff Working Paper SEC (2005) 641.
137. http://www.eurojustice.org.
138. Convention based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the establishment of a European Police Office, (OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 2) at Article 2.1.
139. Proposal for a Council Decision establishing the European Police Office (Europol); above n. 37.
140. See document 13887/07 EUROPOL 102, Brussels 16.10.07 and document 14363/07 EUROPOL 110. Brussels, 9.10.07.
141. Article 29 EU.
142. Issue of data protection will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.
143. Europol Convention: above n. 60, at Article 2(2).
144. See for instance Council Presidency Document 7868/06 and Statewatch (August 2006), 'The future of Europol' available via www.statewatch.org.
145. C. Fijnaut, above n. 36, at p. 255.
146. Europol Convention, above n. 60, at Articles 23(10) and 34.
147. Europol Convention, above n. 60, at Article 26.
148. Certain constraints are placed upon Europol's external powers by a Council decision of 2000, for instance rules with regard to the exchange of personal data and with precisely whom Europol is authorized to negotiate (OJ C 106, 13.4.2001, pp. 1-2).
149. Council Decision of 22 December 2000 establishing a European Police College (CEPOL) (OJ L 336, 30.12.2000, p. 1).
150. T. Bunyan, 'The EU's Police Chief Task Force (PCTF) and Police Chiefs Committee', available at http://www.statewatchorg/news/2006/mar/pctf.pdf.
151. J. Monar, above n. 5 at p. 504.
152. http://www.eucpn.org/.
153. Council Decision 2001/427 of 28 May 2001. OJ L 153/1, 8.6.2001. See also Rules of Procedure of 25.6.2001.
154. COM(2004) 165 final, 12.3.2004.
155. G. De Kerchove (2002), 'Améliorations institutionelles à apporter au titre VI du traité sur l'Union européenne dans le domaine de la sécurité intérieure', in G. De Kerchove and A. Weyembergh (eds), Quelles Réformes pour l'Espace Pénal Européen?, Brussels: Editions de L'Université de Bruxelles, 19-39, at p. 37.
156. Article 29 EU. Note that this chapter will focus almost exclusively on police cooperation pursuant to the third pillar and make only passing reference to customs cooperation. On the links between police cooperation and EC law, and the issue of customs cooperation, see generally, S. Peers (2007) EU Justice and Home Affairs Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 510-14.
157. Article 30(1)(a) EU.
158. Article 30(1)(b) EU.
159. For more on the relationship between Europol and Eurojust, see Chapter 2. For more on the relationship between police cooperation and judicial cooperation generally, see C. Fijnaut (2006), 'Police co-operation and the area of freedom, security and justice', in N. Walker (ed.), Europe's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 253-8.
160. However, some small inroads have been made into this underpinning ideology, as evidenced by the on going attempts to confer some limited operational powers on Europol.
161. The Hague Programme: strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union (OJ C 53, 3.3.2005, pp. 1-14) at para. 3.1.
162. Article 29 EU.
163. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: enhancing police and customs cooperation in the European Union. COM (2004) 376 final, 18.5.2004.
164. Note that the UK is a signatory of those parts of the Schengen acquis that relate to police operations except 'hot pursuit'.
165. See, generally, M. Plachta (2005), 'Joint investigation teams: a new form of international cooperation in criminal matters', European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 13(2), 284-302.
166. Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union, adopted on 29 May 2000 (OJ C 197, 12.7.2000, p. 1).
167. Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams 2002/465/JHA (OJ L 162, 20.6.02, p. 1).
168. The web pages are available at www.eurojust.europa.eu/jits,www.europol.europa.eu/jits.
169. Note that a legal basis for the establishment of JITs is contained in the 2003 EU-US. Agreement on mutual legal assistance between the European Union and the United States of America, signed on 25 June 2003 (OJ L181, 19.7.2002, p. 34).
170. T. Balzacq, D. Bigo, S. Carrera and E. Guild (2006), 'Security and the two-level game: the Treaty of Prüm, the EU and the management of threats',CEPS Working Document No. 234, Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels, at p. 13.
171. For instance there are measures concerning terrorism, customs, football security, public order and immigration.
172. Supplementary Information Request at the National Entries.
173. In general, on information exchange systems, readers are directed to the civil liberties organization Statewatch which does an excellent job of monitoring and critiquing developments. See http://www.statewatch.org.
174. T. Mathieson (2006), 'Lex Vigilatoria-towards a control system without a state?', in S. Armstrong and L. McAra, (eds), Perspectives on Punishment: The Contours of Control, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 119-31.
175. European Council, Declaration on combating terrorism 25.3.2004.
176. COM(2005) 597 final, 24.11.2005. For a detailed comment on this Communication, see P. Hobbing (2006), 'An Analysis of the Commission Communication (COM(2005) 597 Final of 24.11.2005) on Improved Effectiveness, Enhanced Interoperability and Synergies among European Databases in the area of Justice and Home Affairs.' (Available via www.libertysecurity.org.)
177. The Commission specifically mentions the External Border Agency FRONTEX as a possible candidate to manage EURODAC, SIS II and VIS. FRONTEX was established by Council Regulation 2007/2004 of 26.10.2004 (OJ L 349 5.11.2004, p. 2).
178. Which contains fingerprints of all persons who submit a claim for asylum within the territory of the EU.
179. Discussed further in Chapter 6.
180. T. Mathieson, above n. 24, at p. 128.
181. P. Breyer, above n. 19, at p. 366.
182. The Hague Programme, above n. 8, at para 2.1.
183. Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the exchange of information under the principle of availability. COM(2005) 490 final, 12.10.2005.
184. S. Peers, above n. 1, at 499.
185. T-228/02, Organisation des Modjahedin du people d'Iran v Council of the European Union, judgment of 12 December 2006.
186. F. Geyer (2007), 'Fruit of the Poisonous Tree: Member State's Indirect Use of Extraordinary Rendition and the EU Counter-Terrorism Strategy', Working Document No. 263 Centre for European Policy Studies, available via http://www.ceps.be.
187. Council of Europe Convention for the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data. Council Convention 108 (1 January 1981).
188. Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31).
189. F. Bignami, above n. 19.
190. Note that Article 68 of the EU Charter on fundamental rights guarantees protection of personal data in all the EU's activities.
191. COM (2005) 475 final, 4.10.2005.
192. The data protection regime for transfer of data to third parties is particularly significant in light of the Passenger Name Record (PNR) agreements between the EU and US. For more on this, see Chapter 5.
193. Most recently, Third opinion of 27 April 2007 on the proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters (OJ C 139, 23.06.2007, pp. 1-14).
194. Conclusions available via http://www.statewatch.org. Also available there is the Declaration agreed after the most recent meeting of the group on 18 October 2007.
195. Council Secretariat, Brussels, 7 July 2005, 10900/05.
196. See Article 40 EU which established the 'enhanced cooperation' mechanism.
197. T. Balzacq, D. Bigo, S. Carrera and E. Guild (2006), 'Security and the two-level game: the Treaty of Prüm, the EU and the Management of Threats', Centre for European Policy Studies, E. Guild and F. Geyer (2006), 'Getting local: Schengen, Prüm and the dancing procession of Echternach', Centre for European Policy Studies.
198. For instance concerns about the proposed abolition of the dual criminality along the same lines as the EAW has led Germany to negotiate an exemption in respect of six types of serious crime, including terrorism.
199. COM(2005) 91 final, 17.3.2005.
200. In particular, Austria, Sweden and Finland have presented an ambitious draft framework decision on the mutual recognition and enforcement of sentences of imprisonment in the EU (OJ C 150 21.6.2005 pp. 1-16).
201. COM(2006) 468 final, 29.8.2006.
202. France and Germany have presented a draft framework decision on the recognition and supervision of suspended sentences, alternative sanctions and conditional sentences (OJ C 147, 30.6.2007, pp. 1-16).
203. S. Alegre (2002), 'The myth and the reality of a modern European judicial space', New Law Journal, 986.
204. Communication on mutual recognition; above n. 14.
205. Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition; above n. 14.
206. 19 June 1990. OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, pp. 19-62.
207. Joined Cases C-187/01 and C-385/01, Gözütok and Brügge, judgment of 11 February 2003.
208. See e.g.G. de Kerchove and A.Weyembergh (eds) (2005), La Confiance Mutuelle au sein de l'Espace pénal Européen. Mutual Trust in the European Criminal Area, Brussels: Éditions de L'Université de Bruxelles.
209. See for instance B. Schünemann (2007), Criminal Law Forum, 'Alternative-Project for a European criminal law and procedure', 18(2), 227-51.
210. Communication on the mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters and the strengthening of mutual trust between Member States COM(2005) 195, Brussels, 19.5.2005. See also Annexed Staff Working Paper SEC(2005) 641, Brussels, 19.5.2005.
211. Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition; above n. 14.
212. M. Fichera and C. Janssens (2007), 'Mutual recognition of judicial decision in criminal matters and the role of the national judge', ERA Forum, 8(2), 177-202, at p. 183.
213. EAW; above n. 4.
214. EAW; above n. 4, at Article 2(1).
215. See judgment of the Bundesverfassungsgericht of 18 July 2005, 2 BvR 2236/04. This is discussed further below.
216. On the limits of the internal market analogy, see S. Peers (2004), 'Mutual recognition and criminal law in the European Union: has the Council got it wrong?', Common Market Law Review, 41, 5-36;
217. V. Mitsilegas (2006), 'The Constitutional Implications of Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters in the EU', Common Market Law Review 1278
218. and S. Lavanex (2007), 'Mutual recognition and the monopoly of force: limits of the single market analogy', Journal of European Public Policy, 14(5), 762-79.
219. A term coined by K. Nikolaïdis. For a recent exposition, see K. Nikolaïdis and S.K. Schmidt (2007), 'Mutual recognition on "trial": the long road to services liberalization', Journal of European Public Policy, 14(5), 717-34.
220. Also referred to as 'dual criminality'.
221. EAW; above n. 4, at paragraph 10 of the Preamble.
222. C-303/05, Advocaten voor de Wereld, judgment of 3 May 2007.
223. Previous attempts to move away from the nationality exception had been made (the Convention relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union 1996) but were limited and received only reluctantly. For a full discussion of the nationality exception see Z. Deen-Racsmàny and R. Blekxtoon (2005), 'The decline of the nationality exception in European Extradition', European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 13(3), 317-63.
224. EAW, above n. 4, at Article 4(6) and Article 5(3), respectively. See also Articles 32 and 33 for some additional, limited remnants of the nationality privilege.
225. Z. Deen-Racsmàny and R. Blekxtoon, above, at n. 54.
226. For detailed comment on the implementation of the EAW in Italy, see F. Impalà (2005), 'The European Arrest Warrant in the Italian legal system: between mutual recognition and mutual fear within the European area of Freedom, Security and Justice', Utrecht Law Review, 1(2), 56-78.
227. The JHA Council asked the Commission to update its evaluation of the EAW to 1 June 2007 with the entry of Romania and Bulgaria into the Union on 1 January 2007. Council Press Release No 8849/05, 3.6.2005, p.10; document No 8842/1/05, 19.5.2005.
228. COM(2005) 63 final, 23.2.2005.
229. COM(2006) 8 final, 24.1.2006.
230. In the case of suspects consenting to be surrendered, the Commission reports that the average time has fallen to only 13 days.
231. COM(2007) 407 final, 11.7.2007.
232. F. Impalà, above n. 58.
233. Doc no. 10975/07 DG H 2B.
234. Judgment of 27 April 2005, P1/05.
235. Judgment of 18 July 2005, above, at n. 42.
236. Judgment of 7 November 2005, Ap. No. 294/2005.
237. C-303/05 Advocaten voor de Wereld, judgment of 3 May 2007.
238. C-105/03 Pupino, judgment of 16 June 2005. For a discussion of this case, see Chapter 1.
239. E. Van Sliedregt (2007), 'The European Arrest Warrant: between trust, democracy and the rule of law-introduction', EU Constitutional Law Review, 3, 244-52.
240. S. Trechsel (2005), Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings, Oxford: Oxford University Press, at p. 7.
241. Article 6 EU. See C-303/05 Advocaten voor de Wereld, judgment of 3 May 2007, at para. 45. As a matter of EC and EU law, the EU institutions when exercising their competences and EU Member States when implementing, applying and seeking to derogate from EU law are bound by the guarantees enshrined in the ECHR.
242. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000 (OJ C 364 18.12.2000, pp. 1-22).
243. Although note that the Reform Treaty provides a legal basis for the EU to accede to the ECHR. See Chapter 1.
244. Vienna Action Plan of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the area of freedom, security and justice of 3 December 1998 (OJ C 19, 23.1.1999, pp. 1-15).
245. M. Leaf and W. van Ballegooij (2006), 'The future of EU criminal justice: making mutual recognition work', European Arrest Warrant Project article available via http://www.eurowarrant.net. Note, however, that certain rights are guaranteed to the requested person in Article 11(2) EAW.
246. See, for instance, P. Garlick (2005), 'The European Arrest Warrant and the ECHR', in R. Blekxtoon and W. van Ballegooij (eds) (2005), Handbook on the European Arrest Warrant, The Hague: T.M.C.Asser Press, 167-182 at p. 169.
247. S. Alegre and M. Leaf (2004), 'Mutual recognition in European Judicial Cooperation: a step too far too soon? Case Study-the European Arrest Warrant', European Law Journal, 10(2), 200-217;
248. S. Douglas-Scott (2004), 'The Rule of Law in the European Union-Putting the security into the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice', European Law Review, 29(2), 219-42;
249. E. Guild (2004), 'Crime and the EU's Constitutional Future in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice', 29(2), European Law Review, 219-42.
250. [2002] EWHC 1278 (Admin).
251. Soering v. United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989.
252. Mamatkulov and Abdurasulovic v. Turkey, judgment of 4 February 2005 (judgment of the First Section of 6 February 2003).
253. Chamaïev et autres c. Géorgie et Russie, judgment of 12 April 2005.
254. See Mamatkulov, above n. 97.
255. Commission Green Paper on Procedural Safeguards for Suspects and Defendants in Criminal Proceedings. COM(2003) 75, 19.2.2003, at p. 10.
256. COM(2004) 328 final, 28.4.2004.
257. The Commission's programme in respect of defence rights was being pursued as an integral part of the mutual recognition strategy and the wider AFSJ agenda and not merely in response to criticisms of the European Arrest Warrant. See Morgan, C. (2005), 'The European Arrest Warrant and Defendants' Rights: An Overview' in Blekxtoon, R, and van Ballegooij, W, see above n. 90, at 195-208.
258. Peers, S. (2007), EU Justice and Home Affairs Law (2nd ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press, at p. 429.
259. On this, see J.A. Andrews (ed.) (1982), Human Rights in Criminal Procedure-A comparative study, London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, at p. 8. See also S. Trechsel above, n. 82.
260. Even if it cannot be described as an autonomous system of criminal justice.
261. Emphasis added.
262. Lööf, R. (2006), 'Shooting from the hip: proposed minimum rights in criminal proceedings throughout the EU', European Law Journal, 12(3), 421-30.
263. Note that, for the Commission, the aim 'is not in any way to replace or even complement the EctHR' but 'rather to achieve better standards of compliance with the ECHR'.
264. See B. M. Zupančič and J. Callewaert (2007), 'Relationship of the EU framework to the ECHR', ERA Forum, 8(2), 265-71.
265. Cited in House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, 'Justice and Home Affairs Issues at the European Union Level.' Session 2006-07, HC 76-I, 5.6.2007, at para. 220.
266. Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 (OJ L 68, 15.3.2005, p. 49).
267. See para. 51 of the Tampere European Council Conclusions, 15-16 October 1999.
268. Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 (OJ L 82, 22.3.2001, p. 1).
269. C-105/03 Pupino, judgment of 16 June 2005. See Chapter 1 for further discussion of this ruling.
270. Council and Commission Action Plan implementing the Hague Programme on strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union of 10 June 2005, at point 4.2 (OJ C 198, 12.8.2005, pp. 1-22).
271. Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement of 19 June 1990 (OJ L 239, 22.10.2000, pp. 19-62).
272. A common rationale of the ne bis in idem principles in all its various forms is to protect individuals against possible abuses by the State of its ius puniendi.
273. For example, Article 4 of Protocol 7 of the ECHR (of 22 November 1984) and Article 14(7) of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
274. Vienna Action Plan; above n. 88. See also the Commission Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition; above n. 14.
275. Green Paper on Conflicts of Jurisdiction; above n. 12. A Greek proposal for a Framework Decision on ne bis in idem in 2003 was not seriously pursued largely owing to its limited scope and the retention of numerous exceptions to the principle (OJ C 100 2003, p. 4).
276. Joined Cases C-187/01 and C-385/01 Gözütok and Brügge, judgment of 11 February 2003.
277. C-150/05 Van Straaten, judgment of 28 September 2006.
278. C-436/04 Van Esbroeck, judgment of 9 March 2006, at paras 36-38.
279. See Case C-150/05 Van Straaten, judgment of 28 September 2006, Case C-467/04 Gasparini, judgment of 28 September 2006 and Case C-288/05 Kretzinger, judgment of 18 July 2007.
280. C-385/01 Gözütok and Brügge, judgment of 11 February 2003 at para. 32.
281. Article 2 EU. See, also, C-469/03 Miraglia, judgment of 10 March 2005.
282. See C-150/05 Van Straaten, judgment of 28 September 2006, at para. 59.
283. See R. Lööf, above n. 126.
284. C-288/05 Kretzinger, judgment of 18 July 2007.
285. C-297/07 Klaus Bourquain.
286. Case C-288/05 Kretzinger, judgment of 18 July 2007.
287. AG Opinion delivered on 5 December 2006, at paras 46 and 49.
288. Kretzinger, at para. 50.
289. EAW, above n. 4, at Article 1. Emphasis added.
290. Kretzinger, judgment of 18 July 2007, at para. 59.
291. Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams (OJ L 162 20.6.2002, p. 1).
292. Communication on the mutual recognition and mutual trust; above n. 35.
293. COM(2006) 356, final, 29.06.2006.
294. Commission Communication of 14 July 2004 to the Council and the European Parliament 'Financial Perspectives 2007-2013' COM(2004) 101 final, 14.7.2004.
295. Commission Communication establishing for the period 2007-2013 a framework programme on fundamental rights and justice (OJ C 211, 30.8.2005, p. 6).
296. D. McGoldrick (1997), International Relations Law of the European Union, London: Longman.
297. J. Monar (2004), 'The EU as an international actor in the domain of justice and home affairs', European Foreign Affairs Review, 9, 395-415, at p. 395.
298. See Chapter 1.
299. See, generally, (1998) Commentary on the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988: done at Vienna on 20 December 1988, New York: United Nations.
300. See W. Gilmore 'Drug trafficking and the control of precursor and essential chemicals: the international dimension', in W. Gilmore and A. Brown (eds) (1996), Drug Trafficking and the Chemical Industry, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1-24.
301. See W. Gilmore (2004), Dirty Money: The evolution of international measures to counter money laundering and the financing of terrorism, 3rd edn, Strasbourg Council of Europe Publishing, at pp. 89-91.
302. The only other full institutional member of the FATF is the Gulf Cooperation Council.
303. W. Gilmore, above at n. 7, at pp. 173-6.
304. See generally, M. Levi and B. Gilmore (2002), 'Terrorist finance, money laundering and the rise and rise of mutual evaluation: a new Paradigm for crime control?', European Journal of Law Reform, 4(2), 337-64.
305. W. Gilmore, above at n. 7, at pp. 137-8 and 146-9.
306. V. Mitsilegas (2007), 'The external dimension of EU action in criminal matters', European Foreign Affairs Review, 12, 457-97, at pp. 492-3.
307. See, also, V. Mitsilegas and B. Gilmore (2007), 'The EU legislative framework against money laundering and terrorist finance: a critical analysis in the light of evolving global standards', International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 56, 119-41.
308. Council Directive 91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering (OJ L 166, 28.6.1991, p. 77).
309. See P. Koutrakos (2006), EU International Relations Law, Oxford: Hart, at p. 8.
310. J. Monar, above n. 2, at pp. 404-5.
311. OJ L 26, 29.1.2004, p. 3.
312. OJ L 292, 21.10.2006, p. 1.
313. S. Peers (2007), EU Justice and Home Affairs Law, 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, at p. 85.
314. See, e.g., OJ L 37, 12.2.2000, p. 1.
315. S. Peers, above n. 23, p. 36.
316. Council of Europe Treaty Series/198.
317. An official Explanatory Report, following normal Council of Europe practice, was also drafted in respect of this Convention and is available on its official website: www.coe.int.
318. Council of Europe Treaty Series/141.
319. OJ L 331, 9.12.1998, p. 1.
320. OJ L 182, 5.7.2001, p. 1.
321. Explanatory Report, above n. 28, at pp. 3-4.
322. COM (2004) 444 final, 25.6.2004, Art. 2.
323. Art. 3.
324. As of the time of writing it had not yet entered into force. Of the EU Member States only Poland and Romania had ratified.
325. See, e.g., Arts 12 and 14.
326. See Art. 7. and Arts 17-19.
327. See Art. 2.
328. Explanatory Report, above n. 28, at para. 306.
329. Council document 9778/2/05, Brussels, 10 June 2005, at p. 24.
330. See Commission document SEC (2007) 896, Brussels, 3.7.2007.
331. See, also, H. Nilsson (2003), 'Organs and bodies of the third pillar as instruments of external relations of the Union', in G. de Kerchove and A.Weyembergh (eds), Sécurité et Justice: enjeu de la politique extérieure de l'Union Européenne, Brussels: Editions Université de Bruxelles, at p. 206.
332. OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 1.
333. OJ C 26, 30.1.1999, p. 19.
334. H. Nilsson, above n. 42.
335. See, e.g., Council Act of 12 March 1999 governing the transmission of personal data by Europol to third States and third bodies (OJ C 88, 30.3.1999, p. 1).
336. OJ C 106, 13.4.2000, p. 1.
337. S. Peers, above n. 23, at p. 558.
338. OJ L 63, 6.3.2002.
339. See, e.g., V. Mitsilegas (2006), 'Judicial cooperation in criminal matters between the EU and Third States: international agreements', in M. Leaf (ed.), Cross-Border Crime (JUSTICE, 2006), pp. 79-92.
340. H. Nilsson, above n. 42.
341. See 2006 Annual Report, at pp. 52-5.
342. See, e.g., M. Anderson, M. den Boer, P. Cullen,W.G. Gilmore, C.D.Raab and N.Walker (eds) (1995), Policing the European Union, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 53-6.
343. See, generally, B. Gilmore (2003), The Twin Towers and the Third Pillar: Some Security Agenda Developments, Florence: European University Institute (Working Paper Law No. 2003/7).
344. 'Conclusion and Plan of Action of the Extraordinary European Council Meeting on 21 September 2001', Council of Europe document GMT (2001) Inf. 31, p. 1.
345. Resolution of 4 October 2001 on the extraordinary European Council meeting in Brussels on 21 September 2001.
346. Reproduced as Council of Europe doc. GMT (2001) Inf. 33.
347. See House of Lords, Select Committee on the European Union, 'EU/US Agreements on Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance', Session 2002-03, 38th Report, HL Paper 153, at p. 9.
348. 'Conclusions adopted by the Council (Justice and Home Affairs)', document 12156/01, 25/9/2001, p. 12.
349. B. Gilmore, above n. 59, at p. 10.
350. See, V. Mitsilegas (2003) 'The new EU-USA cooperation on extradition, mutual legal assistance and the exchange of police data', European Foreign Affairs Review, 8, 515-36, at p. 515.
351. B. Gilmore, above n. 59, at p. 10.
352. V. Mitsilegas, above n. 67, at p. 526.
353. Council of Europe Treaty Series/190.
354. See Art. 10.
355. See Art. 49.
356. V. Mitsilegas, above n. 67, at p. 24.
357. Background paper issued by the Danish Presidency at the informal JHA Ministerial meeting in Copenhagen, 13-14 September 2002. Copy of typescript on file with the authors.
358. House of Lords, above n. 64, at p. 9.
359. See Article 4, OJ L 181, 19.7.2003, p. 27.
360. Unpublished typescript on file with the authors, at p. 8.
361. House of Lords, above n. 64, at p. 40.
362. OJ L 181, 19.7.2003, p. 34.
363. OJ C 197, 12.7.2000, p. 1. For the explanatory report see, OJ C 397, 29.12.2000. See also, E. Denza (2003), 'The 2000 Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters' Common Market Law Review, 40, 1047-74.
364. OJ C 326, 21.11.2001, p. 1. For the explanatory report see, OJ C 257, 24.10.2002, p. 1.
365. Council of Europe Treaty Series/182.
366. V. Mitsilegas, above n. 67, at p. 533.
367. V. Mitsilegas, above n. 17, at p. 476.
368. See Council document 5916/2/07, Brussels, 17.10.2007, p. 2.
369. V. Mitsilegas, above n. 17, p. 477.
370. For the Council Decision on the conclusion of the Agreement see, OJ L 183, 20.5.2004, p. 83. For the Commission Decision as adequate protection, see OJ L 235, 6.7.2004, p. 11.
371. Joined cases C-317/04 and C-318/04, European Parliament v Council and Commission, judgment of 30 May 2006.
372. V. Mitsilegas, above n. 17, p. 481.
373. OJ C 219, 12.9.2006, p. 1.
374. OJ L 298, 27.10.2006, p. 29.
375. See OJ L 204, 4.8.2007, at pp. 16and 18.
376. B. Gilmore, above n. 59, at pp. 11-12.
377. The text is to be found on the Europol website: www.europol.europa.eu.
378. See Arts 1 and 3.
379. Art. 1. These terms are defined in Art. 2.
380. See Art. 8.
381. The text is to be found on the Europol website: www.europol.europa.eu.
382. V. Mitsilegas, above n. 67, at p. 520.
383. See OJ C 2, 6.1.2004, p. 1.
384. V. Mitsilegas, above n. 67, at pp. 521-2.
385. Letter from Lord Filkin, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Home Office to Lord Grenfell, Chairman of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, 10 January 2003. Copy on file with the authors.
386. V. Mitsilegas, above n. 67, at pp. 517-18.
387. Agreement between Eurojust and the United States of America of 6.11.2006. Text available on the Eurojust website: http://eurojust.europa.eu
388. The Hague Programme: strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, 4-5 November 2004 (OJ C 53, 3.3.2005, pp. 1-14).
389. See Council document 9778/2/05, Brussels, 10 June 2005, at p. 24.
390. See Commission document SEC (2007) 896, Brussels, 3.7.2007.
391. The Hague Programme, above n. 117 at '4. External Relations'.
392. See Council document 15446/05, Brussels, 6 December 2005.
393. See Council document 15001/06, Brussels, 20 November 2006.
394. See, e.g., V. Mitsilegas, above n. 17, at pp. 457-69.
395. Council Act of 26 July 1995 drawing up the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests (OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 49).
396. OJ C 195, 25.6.1997, p. 2.
397. OJ L 167, 25.6.1997, p. 1.
398. Council Decision on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances (OJ L 127, 20.5.2005, p. 32).
399. OJ L 351, 29.12.1998, p. 1.
400. Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JHA of 28 May 2001 combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment (OJ L 149, 2.6.2001, p. 1).
401. Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA of 26 June 2001 on money laundering, the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime (OJ L 182, 5.7.2001, p. 1).
402. Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism (OJ L 164, 22.6.2002, p. 3).
403. Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA of 19 July 2002 on combating trafficking in human beings (OJ L 203, 1.8.2002, p. 1).
404. Council Framework Decision 2002/946/JHA of 28 November 2002 on the strengthening of the penal framework to prevent the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence (OJ L 328, 5.12.2002, p. 1).
405. Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 on combating corruption in the private sector (OJ L 192, 31.7.2003, p. 54).
406. Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA of 22 December 2003 on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (OJ L 13, 20.1.2004, p. 44).
407. Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25 October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking (OJ L 335, 11.11.2004, p. 8).
408. Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA of 24 February 2005 on attacks against information systems (OJ L 69, 16.3.2005, p. 67).
409. Council Framework Decision 2005/667/JHA of 12 July 2005 to strengthen the criminal-law framework for the enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution (OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 164).
410. C-440/05 Commission v Council ('Ship-source pollution'), judgment of 23 October 2007.
411. A.Weyembergh (2005), 'Approximation of criminal laws, the Constitutional Treaty and the Hague Programme', Common Market Law Review, 42(6), 1567-97, at p. 1586.
412. See 68/88 Commission v Greece ('Greek Maize'), judgment of 21 September 1989.
413. See, e.g., 80/86 Kolpinghuis Nijmegen, judgment of 8 October 1987.
414. S. Peers (2006), EU Justice and Home Affairs Law, (2nd edn), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
415. OJ L 328, 5.12.2002, p. 17.
416. See above n. 12.
417. See, e.g., Donysios Spinellis (2003), 'Opportunité et légitimité de l'harmonisation-Issues for discussion', in M. Delmas-Marty, G. Giudicelli-Delage et al. (eds), L'harmonisation des sanctions pénales en Europe, Paris: Société de législation comparée. 7. OJ L 29, 5.2.2003, p. 55.
418. C-176/03 Commission v Council ('Environmental crimes'), E.C.R. [2005] I-7879.
419. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implications of the Court's judgment of 13 September 2005 (Case C-176/03 Commission v Council), COM(2005) 583 final.
420. On this, see S. White (2006), 'Harmonisation of Criminal Law under the First Pillar', European Law Review, 31(1), 81-92; and also the measured House of Lords report: 'The Criminal Law Competence of the European Community', Session 2005-2006,HL Paper 227, 28.7.2006.
421. Resolution on the consequences of the judgment of the Court of 13 September 2005 (C-176/03 Commission v Council) (2006/2007(INI)).
422. OJ C 240E, 28.8.2001, p. 125.
423. COM(2005) 276 final.
424. See above n. 17.
425. C-440/05 Commission v Council ('Ship-source pollution').
426. Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements (OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 11).
427. C-440/05, para. 74.
428. Opinion, para. 89.
429. Judgment, para. 69.
430. See above, n. 22.
431. See, e.g., J. Dugard and C. Van den Wyngaert (1998), 'Reconciling extradition with human rights', American Journal of International Law, 92, 187-212.
432. See A.Weyembergh (2004), L'harmonisation des législations: condition de l'espace pénal européen et révélateur de ses tensions, Bruxelles: Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles, especially at p. 143.
433. See, e.g., Z. Deen-Racsmány and R. Blekxtoon (2005), 'The decline of the nationality exception in European extradition?', European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 13(3), 317-63.
434. See, e.g., Henri Labayle (1995), 'L'application du titre VI sur L'Union Européenne', in M. Delmas-Marty (ed.), Vers un droit pénal communautaire?, Paris: Dalloz.
435. See E. Denza (2002), The Intergovernmental Pillars of the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
436. See L. Ferola (2002), 'The fight against organized crime in Europe-building an area of freedom, security and justice in the EU', International Journal of Legal Information, 30(1), 53-91.
437. See above, n. 6.
438. See above, n. 10.
439. V. Mitsilegas (2001), 'Defining organised crime in the European Union: the limits of European criminal law in an Area of "Freedom, Security and Justice"', European Law Review, 26(6), 565-81.
440. See, e.g., S. Douglas-Scott (2004), 'The rule of law in the European Union-putting the security into the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice', European Law Review, 29(2), 219-42.
441. E.g. crimes de passion.
442. E.g. 'honour killings'.
443. Article 5(2) of Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA.
444. See above, n. 11.
445. See, e.g., H. Brady and M. Roma (2006), 'Let justice be done: punishing crime in the EU', London: Centre for European Reform (policy brief).
446. See, e.g., S. Douglas-Scott (2004), above n. 67;
447. and S. Alegre and M. Leaf (2004), 'Mutual recognition in European judicial cooperation: a step too far too soon? Case Study-the European arrest warrant', European Law Journal, 10(2), 200-217.
448. See A. Weyembergh (2004), above, n. 58.
449. S. Peers (2004), 'Mutual recognition and criminal law in the European Union: has the Council got it wrong?', Common Market Law Review, 41, 5-36.
450. D. Flore (2002), 'Le Mandat d'Arrêt Européen: Première mise en Oeuvre d'un Nouveau Paradigme de la Justice Pénale Européenne', Journal des tribuneaux (6050), 273-281.
451. Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
452. Brottsbalken, chapter 6, para. 1.
453. Article 4(7)(a).
454. Article 4(7)(b).
455. We are indebted to Rob Blekxtoon for this example.
456. OJ L 239, 22.09.2000, pp. 19-62.
457. Article 54.
458. See C-436/04 Van Esbroek, judgment of 9 March 2006; C-150/05 van Straaten, judgment of 28 September 2006; C-288/05 Kretzinger, judgment of 18 July 2007; and C- 367/05 Kraaijenbrink, judgment of 18 July 2007.
459. Van Esbroek, at para. 31.
460. This follows from the rulings in van Straaten, and C-467/04 Gasparini, judgment of 28 September 2006.
461. Petter Asp (2005), 'Mutual recognition and the development of criminal law cooperation within the EU', in E.J. Husabø and A. Strandbakken (eds), Harmonization of Criminal Law in Europe, Antwerpen-Oxford: Intersentia, at p. 32.
462. J. Sievers (2007), 'The European arrest warrant: the potential and prerequisites of mutual recognition as a mode of governance', 3rd Challenge Training School: Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters in the EU: Which Future for EU's Third Pillar?, Brussels: CEPS.
463. The UK Extradition Act 2003 is a good example.
464. S.P. Fragòla and P. Atzori (1990), Prospettive per un diritto penale europeo, Padova: CEDAM-Casa Editrice Dott. Antonio Milani., at p. 127.
465. E.g. M. Hildebrandt (2007), 'European criminal law and European identity', Criminal Law and Philosophy, (1), 57-78.
466. For a good discussion of this in the context of drugs legislation, see S. Harris (2005), The End of Faith, New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
467. On this, see discussion in B. Schünemann (2007), 'Alternative-project for a European criminal law and procedure', Criminal Law Forum, 18(2), 227-51.
468. Article 2.
469. Article 1(b).
470. 535 U.S. 234 (2002).
471. At para. 111.
472. Article 3(2)(a).
473. Article 1(a).
474. Article 3(2)(b).
475. Article 3(2)(c).
476. Article 2 EU.
477. See J. Monar (2001), 'The Dynamics of Justice and Home Affairs: Laboratories, Driving Factors and Costs', Journal of Common Market Studies, 39(4), 747-64.
478. OJ L 63, 4.3.1997, p. 2.
479. Title III, para. A.
480. OJ L 138, 9.6.2000, p. 1.
481. Monica den Boer (2004), 'The European Convention and its Implications for Justice and Home Affairs Cooperation', in Apap, J. (ed), Justice and Home Affairs in the EU: Liberty and Security Issues after Enlargement, Cheltenham, UK and Northhampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
482. Paul de Hert (2004), see above n. 59.
483. Environmental crimes and Ship-source pollution.
484. C-303/05 Advocaten voor de Wereld, judgment of 3 May 2007.
485. C-105/03 Maria Pupino, judgment of 16 June 2005.
486. See discussion on pre-legislative scrutiny and post-adoption monitoring mechanisms in Chapter 4.
487. This is one aspect of the so-called 'inter-institutional balance' deemed to form an integral and crucial part of the justification for the 'Community method' of decision making.
488. COM(2001) 664 final (original proposal).
489. OJ L 85, 24.7.1996, pp. 5-7.
490. 'EU agrees breakthrough hate-crime law', EUobserver.com, 20 April 2007.
491. See also discussion on the proposed framework decision on procedural rights in Chapter 4.
492. See Fragòla, S.P. and P. Atzori (1990), above n. 92.
493. See Cadoppi, A. (1996), 'Towards a European Criminal Code?', European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 4(1), 2-17.
494. See, e.g., Delmas-Marty, M. and J.R. Spencer (2002), European Criminal Procedures, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
495. Kimmo Nuotio (2003), 'Reasons for maintaining the diversity', in Delmas-Marty, M., G. Giudicelli-Delage, et al. (eds), L'harmonisation des sanctions pénales en Europe, Paris: Société de législation comparée, at p. 465.
496. On this, see e.g. Alessandro Bernardi (2003), 'Opportunité de l'harmonisation', in Delmas-Marty, M., G. Giudicelli-Delage, et al. (eds), L'harmonisation des sanctions pénales en Europe, Paris: Société de législation comparé.
497. Weyembergh, A. (2005), see above n. 19, at p. 1588.
498. Simon Claisse et Jean-Sébastien Jamart (2003), 'L'harmonisation des sanctions', in Flore, D., S. Bosly, et al. (eds), Actualités de droit pénal européen, Bruxelles: La Charte, at p. 71.
499. E.g. England and Wales.
500. E.g. Sweden.
501. Article 4(1) of 2003/568/JHA on combating corruption in the private sector does not require the possibility of extradition.
502. Article 6(1) of 2005/222/JHA on attacks against information systems.