Theoretical Ideals for European Constitutional Structures and Criminal Legislation

Kettunen, Merita

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-16174-3_4

Merita Kettunen³¹

Part of the book series: Comparative, European and International Criminal Justice ((CEICJ,volume 2))

380 Accesses

Abstract

Some principles and doctrines of the ECHR regime, the subsidiarity principle, the doctrine of margin of appreciation (and proportionality analysis) and the doctrine on equivalent protection, represent heterarchical flexible constitutional structures. Heterarchical constitutional structures between the national legal systems and the ECHR regime refer to constitutional structures that create an integrated and flexible constitutional system between the contracting parties and the ECHR regime.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 119.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 159.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 159.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Alkema (2000), p. 50.
2.
The doctrine of equivalent protection is examined in Sect. 4.1.2 and Chap. 5.1.
3.
See, for example, Handyside v. the United Kingdom App no 5493/72 (ECtHR, 7 December 1976), para 48.
4.
Steven Greer (2000), pp. 20–21.
5.
Tümay (2008), p. 201.
6.
Brauch (2005), pp. 113, 116.
7.
“Relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium” v. Belgium (Merits) App no 1474/62, 1677/62, 1769/63, 1994/63, 2126/64 (ECtHR, 23 July 1968) para 10.
8.
Arai-Takahashi (2002), pp. 2–3.
9.
Arai-Takahashi (2002), p. 5; Tümay (2008), p. 209.
10.
Report of the Commission, Application No 332/57, Gerard Richard Lawless against the Republic of Ireland (Adopted on 19th December 1959), paras 82, 85.
11.
Arai-Takahashi (2002), p. 5; Tümay (2008), p. 209.
12.
Ireland v. The United Kingdom App no 5310/71 (ECtHR, 18 January 1978), para 207.
13.
Brauch (2005), pp. 113, 120.
14.
Tümay (2008), pp. 209–210; Mowbray (2005), pp. 57, 58.
15.
Christine Goodwin v. the united Kingdom App no 28957/95 (ECtHR, 11 July 2002), para 74.
16.
Brauch (2005), pp. 113, 148.
17.
Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections) Ap no 15318/89 (ECtHR, 23 March 1995), paras 12, 18, 24–25.
18.
Ibid., para 55.
19.
Ibid., paras 70–72.
20.
Ibid., paras 87–89.
21.
Ibid., paras 35–36, 43, 56, 63–64.
22.
Brauch (2005), pp. 113, 126–127.
23.
Klass and Others v. Germany App no 5029/71 (ECtHR, 6 September 1978), paras 49–50, 59–60. See also Brauch (2005), pp. 113, 127.
24.
Brauch (2005), p. 128; de la Rasilla del Moral (2006), pp. 611, 617.
25.
Krisch (2007), p. 28.
26.
Craig and de Búrca (2015), p. 380.
27.
See, for example, Case C-6/64 Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L. [1964] ECR p. 1195; Case C-29/69 Erich Stauder v City of Ulm – Sozialamt [1969] ECR p. 419; Case C-11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel [1970] ECR p. 1125.
28.
See, for example, Case C-36/75 Roland Rutili v Ministre de l’intérieur [1975] ECR p. 1219, para 32; Case C-222/84 Marguerite Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1986] ECR p. 1651, para 18.
29.
Simone White (2011), p. 9.
30.
Opinion 2/94 Opinion of the Court of 28 March 1996. Accession by the Community to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [1996] ECR I-1783.
31.
Ibid., para 27.
32.
Ibid., para 35.
33.
47+1(2013)008rev2, Fifth negotiation meeting between the CDDH ad hoc negotiation group and the European Commission on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, Final report to the CDDH, Strasbourg, 10 June 2013. For previous versions of the draft agreement, see, for example, Steering Committee for Human Rights, CDDH(2011)009, Report to the Committee of Ministers on the elaboration of legal instruments for the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, Strasbourg, 14 October 2011; There were disagreements on the content of the draft, see, for example Friends of Presidency (FREMP) Accession of the EU to the ECHR: Working Document from the Presidency (DS 1675/11), Brussels 4 November 2011.
34.
47+1(2013)008rev2, Final report to the CDDH, p. 17; CDDH(2011)009, pp. 16 and 19.
35.
47+1(2013)008rev2, p. 8; CDDH(2011)009, p. 8.
36.
47+1(2013)008rev2, Final report to the CDDH, pp. 16–20; CDDH(2011)009, pp. 16–18.
37.
Suominen (2011), pp. 37, 38–39.
38.
Ibid., pp. 37, 43.
39.
Fondation Robert Schuman Policy Paper by Xavier Groussot, Tobias Lock and Laurent Pech (2011), p. 4; Tobias Lock (2009), p. 395.
40.
Tobias Lock (2009), p. 396; Scheeck (2006), pp. 837, 862.
41.
47+1(2013)008rev2, p. 27; CDDH(2011)009, p. 16.
42.
Fondation Robert Schuman Policy Paper by Xavier Groussot, Tobias Lock and Laurent Pech (2011), p. 9.
43.
47+1(2013)008rev2, Article 5; CDDH(2011)009, p. 7, Fondation Robert Schuman Policy Paper by Xavier Groussot, Tobias Lock and Laurent Pech (2011), p. 9.
44.
Fondation Robert Schuman Policy Paper by Xavier Groussot, Tobias Lock and Laurent Pech (2011), pp. 9–10.
45.
47+1(2013)008rev2, p. 27; CDDH(2011)009, 24–25. Fondation Robert Schuman Policy Paper by Xavier Groussot, Tobias Lock and Laurent Pech (2011), pp. 14–15.
46.
47+1(2013)008rev2, p. 27; CDDH(2011)009, pp. 15–18; See also, Huomo-Kettunen (2013), pp. 47, 61.
47.
Opinion 2/13 Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 18 December 2014. (Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU—Draft international agreement—Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms—Compatibility of the draft agreement with the EU and FEU Treaties).
48.
47+1(2013)008rev2, p. 27; CDDH(2011)009, p. 16.
49.
Łazowski and Wessel (2016), p. 212. For an opposing view, see Peers (2016), p. 222.
50.
European Parliament, EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), 6 July 2017 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/607298/EPRS_BRI(2017)607298_EN.pdf, accessed 25 June 2018.
51.
Halberstam (2012), p. 202.
52.
Daniel Halberstam (2011), p. 13; Maduro (2003), p. 98.
53.
See Krisch (2012).
54.
Maduro (2003), p. 99.
55.
Case C-6/64 Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L. [1964] ECR p. 1195.
56.
Craig and de Búrca (2015), p. 268.
57.
Case C-11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel [1970] ECR p. 1125, para 3.
58.
Case C-106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA [1978] ECR p. 629, para 24.
59.
Declarations, Annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which Adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, 13 December 2007, A.17 Declaration concerning primacy, OJEU C 83/337, 30 March 2010, p. 10.
60.
In similar way see Preuss (2010), p. 39.
61.
Rosas and Armati (2010), pp. 55–56.
62.
Avbelj (2011), pp. 744, 750–751.
63.
Case C-6/64 Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L. [1964] ECR p. 1195.
64.
Nieminen (2004), p. 30.
65.
Likewise, Avbelj (2011), pp. 744, 746–751.
66.
See also Avbelj (2011), pp. 744–745.
67.
Case C-283/81 Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health [1982] ECR p. 3415, paras 17–20. See also Paunio and Lindroos-Hovinheimo (2010), pp. 395, 396.
68.
Paunio and Lindroos-Hovinheimo (2010), pp. 395, 397–399, 409.
69.
Case C-14/68 Walt Wilhelm and others v Bundeskartellamt [1969] ECR p. 1, para 5.
70.
Case C-93/71 Orsolina Leonesio v Ministero dell’agricoltura e foreste [1972] ECR p. 287.
71.
Case C-34/73 Fratelli Variola S.p.A. v Amministrazione italiana delle Finanze [1973] ECR p. 981, para 15.
72.
For example, Case C-314/08 Krzysztof Filipiak v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu [2009] ECR I-11049; Case C-2/08 Amministrazione dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzia delle entrate v Fallimento Olimpiclub Srl [2009] ECR p. I-7501; Joined cases C-392/04 and C-422/04 i-21 Germany GmbH (C-392/04) and Arcor AG & Co. KG (C-422/04) v Bundesrepublik Deutschland [2006] ECR p. I-8559; Case C-234/04 Rosmarie Kapferer v Schlank & Schick GmbH [2006] ECR p. I-2585; Case C-453/00 Kühne & Heitz NV v Produktschap voor Pluimvee en Eieren [2004] ECR p. I-837.
73.
Case C-409/06 Winner Wetten GmbH v Bürgermeisterin der Stadt Bergheim [2010] ECR p. I-8015.
74.
Malathouni (2008), pp. 118–120.
75.
Lenaerts and Van Nuffel (2011), p. 98. Voluntary withdrawal clause from the Union is sometimes referred as the sunset clause. Malathouni (2008), p. 115.
76.
Weyembergh (2017).
77.
Avbelj (2011), pp. 744, 750.
78.
In Article VI of the Constitution of United States, the second sentence reads: ‘This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.’
79.
Zuleeg (2011), p. 775; Lenaerts and Van Nuffel (2011), p. 151.
80.
Case C-14/86 Pretore di Salò v Persons unknown [1987] ECR p. 2545, para 20; Case C-80/86 Criminal proceedings against Kolpinghuis Nijmegen BV [1987] ECR p. 3969, para 14; Case C-105/03 Criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino [2005] ECR p. I-5285, paras 44–45.
81.
Of course this does not affect to the possibility that the implementation acts by the Member States can be delayed.
82.
Asp (2012), p. 140.
83.
Kumm (2012), p. 40.
84.
Elholm (2014), pp. 71–73.
85.
Some of the ideas presented in Sects. 4.4.1 to 4.4.4 are previously published in Huomo-Kettunen (2014), p. 301.
86.
Husak (2004), p. 207.
87.
Ibid., p. 215.
88.
Ouwerkerk Jannemieke (2012), pp. 228, 238.
89.
The European Criminal Policy Initiative (2011), p. 88.
90.
Case C-297/07 Klaus Bourquain [2008] ECR p. I-9425, Opinion of AG Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, para 70.
91.
See, for example, Case C-440/05 Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union [2007] ECR p. I-9097, Opinion of AG Mazák, para 71.
92.
Council Conclusions on model provisions, guiding the Council’s criminal law deliberations, 2979th JUSTICE and HOME AFFAIRS Council meeting, Brussels, 30 November 2009, pp. 1–2.
93.
COM (2011)573 final, p. 7; European Parliament, Report on an EU approach on criminal law, A7-0144/2012, 24 April 2012, p. 4.
94.
Stockholm Programme, OJ C 115 4.5.2010, 15.
95.
Huomo-Kettunen (2014), pp. 301, 313.
96.
Melander (2013), p. 46.
97.
Ibid., pp. 42, 51–52.
98.
The European Criminal Policy Initiative (2011), p. 91.
99.
Edward (2012), pp. 93–103, 93–96.
100.
Schütze (2009a), p. 242; Edward (2012), pp. 93–103, 101, 96.
101.
Edward (2012), pp. 93–103, 101, 96.
102.
Schütze (2009b), pp. 525, 527; see also Ian Cooper (2006), p. 281.
103.
David Edward has suggested that these questions would be appropriate for the Court to use in assessing whether the principle of subsidiarity has been complied with. See Edward (2012), pp. 99–100.
104.
Also the Commission has found that the EU-level criminal law measures ought to “respect the consistency of the Union’s system of criminal law [—] to ensure that criminal provisions do not become fragmented and ill-matched” (COM(2005) 583 final/2 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), Brussels 24 November 2005, p. 5).
105.
Melander (2008), pp. 464–465.
106.
Lisbon judgment: BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08 vom 30.6.2009, Absatz-Nr. (1-421), para 253. Available in English www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208en.html, accessed 25 June 2018; Klip (2016), p. 40.
107.
Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA [2011] OJ L 101, 15.4.2011, pp. 1–11.
108.
Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA [2011] OJ L 335, 17.12.2011, pp. 1–14.
109.
Directive 2013/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013 on attacks against information systems and replacing Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA [2013] OJ L 218, 14.8.2013, pp. 8–14.
110.
Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union [2014] OJ L 127, 29.4.2014, pp. 39–50.
111.
Directive 2014/57/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on criminal sanctions for market abuse (market abuse directive) [2014] OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, pp. 179–189.
112.
Directive 2014/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA [2013] OJ L 151, 21.5.2014, pp. 1–8.
113.
Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council Decision 2005/671/JHA OJ L 88, 31.3.2017, pp. 6–21.
114.
Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law OJ L 198, 28.7.2017, pp. 29–41.
115.
Directive (EU) 2017/2103 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2017 amending Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA in order to include new psychoactive substances in the definition of ‘drug’ and repealing Council Decision 2005/387/JHA, OJEU L 305/12, 21.11.2017.
116.
Melander (2014), pp. 274, 291.
117.
Satzger (2012), p. 81; Melander (2014), pp. 274, 277, 291.
118.
Weyembergh (in collaboration with Serge de Biolley) (2013a), p. 23.
119.
Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism, OJ L 164, 22.6.2002, pp. 3–7.
120.
Finnish Penal Code, Chapter 2(c) Section 2.
121.
Finnish Penal Code, Chapter 34a Section 3(3).
122.
Melander (2008), p. 505.
123.
See, for example, ibid., p. 204.
124.
Case C-63/83 Regina v Kent Kirk [1984] ECR 2689, para 22. See also, Herlin-Karnell (2010), pp. 1115, 1120.
125.
Roxin (2006), pp. 146–147; see also Melander (2008), p. 194.
126.
The European Criminal Policy Initiative (2011), p. 90.
127.
Peristeridou (2015), p. 45.
128.
Weyembergh (in collaboration with Serge de Biolley) (2013a), p. 22.
129.
Satzger (2012), p. 84.
130.
The European Criminal Policy Initiative (2011), p. 90. The Manifesto has designated six guiding principles for EU criminal policy. These are the requirement of a legitimate purpose, and the principles of ultima ratio, guilt, legality, subsidiarity, and coherence.
131.
Weyembergh (in collaboration with Serge de Biolley) (2013a), p. 21.
132.
Vervaele (2013), p. 70.
133.
Eurobarometer 75, Spring 2011, p. 58 (available in internet http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb75/eb75_en.htm, accessed 25 June 2018; Herlin-Karnell (2012).
134.
Similarly, see, Peristeridou (2015), pp. 45–48.
135.
The European Criminal Policy Initiative (2011), pp. 89–90.
136.
Case C-105/14 Taricco I [2015], para 37.
137.
Ibid., para 43.
138.
Ibid., para 53.
139.
Ibid., paras 55–56.
140.
Similarly, see Marco Bassini and Oreste Pollicino (2017).
141.
Michal Krajewski (2017).
142.
Case C-42/17 Taricco II (M.A.S. and M.B.) [2017], para 20.
143.
Ibid., para 41.
144.
Ibid., para 46.
145.
Ibid., para 59.
146.
Dana Burchardt (2017).
147.
Ibid.; Case C-42/17 Taricco II (M.A.S. and M.B.) [2017], para 47.
148.
The European Criminal Policy Initiative (2011), p. 89.
149.
On the inner dimention of the ultima ratio principle, see Melander (2008), p. 407.
150.
The European Criminal Policy Initiative (2011), p. 91.
151.
Joined cases C-74/95 and C-129/95 Criminal proceedings against X [1996] ECR p. I-6609, paras 24–25; Case C-14/86 Pretore di Salò v Persons unknown [1987] ECR p. 2545, para 20; Case C-80/86 Criminal proceedings against Kolpinghuis Nijmegen BV [1987] ECR p. 3969, para 14; Case C-105/03 Criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino [2005] ECR p. I-5285, paras 44–45.
152.
Case C-303/05 Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v Leden van de Ministerraad [2007] ECR p. I-3633, paras 48, 52–54.
153.
COM(2011) 573 final, p. 8.
154.
Herlin-Karnell (2007), pp. 1147, 1156; Melander (2010), pp. 131–132.
155.
Defeis (2007–2008), pp. 1, 2; see also Case C-29/69 Erich Stauder v City of Ulm – Sozialamt [1969] ECR p. 419.
156.
47+1(2013)008rev2, Fifth negotiation meeting between the CDDH ad hoc negotiation group and the European Commission on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, Final report to the CDDH, Strasbourg, 10 June 2013; Steering Committee for Human Rights (2011), pp. 15–18; see also Huomo-Kettunen (2013), pp. 47, 61.
157.
Tulkens (2011), p. 577; similarly, Maugeri (2013), p. 374.
158.
Affaire Goktepe c. Belgique Requete no 50372/99 (ECtHR, 2 juin 2005), paras 26, 29; The Council of the European Union, Council Conclusions on model provisions, guiding the Council’s criminal law deliberations, 2979th JUSTICE and HOME AFFAIRS Council meeting Brussels, 30 November 2009; European Commission, COM(2011) 573 final, Towards an EU Criminal Policy: Ensuring the effective implementation of EU policies through criminal law, Brussels, 20 September 2011; European Parliament, Report on an EU approach on criminal law, A7-0144/2012, 24 April 2012.
159.
The European Criminal Policy Initiative (2011), p. 88.
160.
Case C-399/11 Stefano Melloni v Ministerio Fiscal [2013], paras 58–64.
161.
Article 53 of the Charter: “Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as restricting or adversely affecting human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognised, in their respective fields of application, by Union law and international law and by international agreements to which the Union or all the Member States are party, including the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and by the Member States’ constitutions.”
162.
Bering Liisberg (2001), p. 1171.
163.
Case C-399/11 Stefano Melloni v Ministerio Fiscal [2013], para 60.
164.
See detailed analysis on the Taricco I and Taricco judgments in Sect. 4.4.3.2.
165.
Case C-42/17 Taricco II (M.A.S. and M.B.) [2017], paras 46–47.
166.
Ibid., para 48.
167.
Ibid., para 61.
168.
Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC [2006] OJ L 105, 13.4.2006, pp. 54–63.
169.
Joined cases C-293/12 and C-594/12 Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and Others and Kärntner Landesregierung and Others [2014], para 69.
170.
Ibid., para 58.
171.
Case C-301/06 Ireland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union [2009] ECR p. I-593, paras 1, 10, 72.
172.
Joined cases C-293/12 and C-594/12 Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and Others and Kärntner Landesregierung and Others [2014], para 41.
173.
See both language versions of Case C-70/72 Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany [1973] ECR p. 813.
174.
Orla Lynskey (2014).
175.
In this way, for example Sylvain Métille (2014).
176.
Miettinen (2015), pp. 357–358.
177.
2000/520/EC, Commission Decision of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce (notified under document number C(2000) 2441) (Text with EEA relevance.) [2000] OJ L 215, 25.8.2000, pp. 7–47.
178.
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 [1995] OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, pp. 31–50.
179.
Case C-362/14 Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner [2015]. For example, the Court stated that ‘Decision 2000/520 lays down that ‘national security, public interest, or law enforcement requirements’ have primacy over the safe harbour principles, primacy pursuant to which self-certified United States organisations receiving personal data from the European Union are bound to disregard those principles without limitation where they conflict with those requirements and therefore prove incompatible with them’ (para 86), and that ‘[i]n particular, legislation permitting the public authorities to have access on a generalised basis to the content of electronic communications must be regarded as compromising the essence of the fundamental right to respect for private life, as guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter’ (para 94).
180.
The Council of the European Union, Council Conclusions on model provisions, guiding the Council’s criminal law deliberations, 2979th JUSTICE and HOME AFFAIRS Council meeting Brussels, 30 November 2009, 2.
181.
The European Criminal Policy Initiative (2011), p. 87.
182.
Ibid., pp. 87–88.
183.
Satzger (2012), p. 71; Melander (2008), pp. 378–379.
184.
Case C-68/88 Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic [1989] ECR p. 2965, paras 23–24.
185.
Melander (2008), p. 379.
186.
Vervaele (2013), p. 69.
187.
Darley et al. (2001), p. 165.
188.
Article 67 TFEU states that “The Union shall constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States”.
189.
Beck (2002), pp. 39, 48–49.
190.
Miettinen (2015), pp. 103–104.
191.
Klip (2016), p. 35.
192.
The Council of the European Union, Council Conclusions on model provisions, guiding the Council’s criminal law deliberations, 2979th JUSTICE and HOME AFFAIRS Council meeting Brussels, 30 November 2009.
193.
Weyembergh (in collaboration with Serge de Biolley) (2013a), p. 24.
194.
Council of the European Union, Interinstitutional File 2011/0295 (COD), 16512/12, Brussels, 30 November 2012, available in Internet http://db.eurocrim.org/db/en/doc/1838.pdf, accessed 25 June 2018, 1; Council of the European Union, Interinstitutional File 2012/0193 (COD), 10232/13, Brussels, 3 June 2013, available in the Internet http://db.eurocrim.org/db/en/doc/1909.pdf, accessed 25 June 2018, 1.
195.
COM(2011) 573 final, Towards an EU Criminal Policy: Ensuring the effective implementation of EU policies through criminal law, Brussels, 20 September 2011.
196.
COM(2011) 573 final, p. 2.
197.
European Parliament, Report on an EU approach on criminal law, A7-0144/2012, 24 April 2012.
198.
The resolution was adopted in the European Parliament plenary with clear majority of votes: 537 MEP’s votes in favor and only 38 against. It was drafted by rapporteur doctor Cornelis de Jong from his own request. See, de Jong (2013), p. 37; The Manifesto on European Criminal Policy was first published in internet https://sites.google.com/site/eucrimpol/manifest/manifesto and later in European Criminal Law Review (2011) 1(1) 86–103.
199.
The three documents are often considered as EU criminal policy documents. See, for example, Satzger (2012), pp. 82–83; de Hert and Wieczorek (2012), p. 394.
200.
Weyembergh (2013a), p. 224.
201.
European Parliament, Report on an EU approach on criminal law, A7-0144/2012, 24 April 2012, p. 10.

References

Alkema EA (2000) The European Convention as a constitution and its court as a constitutional court. In: Mahoney P, Matscher F, Petzold H, Wildhaber L (eds) Protection des droits de l’homme: la perspective européenne (Protecting human rights: the European perspective – studies in memory of Rolv Ryssdal). Carl Heymann
Google Scholar
Arai-Takahashi Y (2002) The margin of appreciation doctrine and the principle of proportionality in the jurisprudence of the ECHR (Intersentia 2002)
Google Scholar
Asp P (2012) The substantive criminal law competence of the EU (Stiftelsen Skrifter utgivna av Juridiska fakulteten vid Stockholms universitet). Jure
Google Scholar
Avbelj M (2011) Supremacy or primacy of EU law – (why) does it matter? Eur Law J 17(6)
Article Google Scholar
Beck U (2002) The terrorist threat: world risk society revisited. Theory Cult Soc 19(4)
Article Google Scholar
Bering Liisberg J (2001) Does the EU charter of fundamental rights threaten the supremacy of community law? Common Mark Law Rev 38(5)
Google Scholar
Brauch AJ (2005) The margin of appreciation and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: threat to the rule of law. Columbia J Eur Law 11
Google Scholar
Cooper I (2006) The watchdogs of subsidiarity: national parliaments and the logic of arguing in the EU. J Common Mark Stud 44(2):281
Article Google Scholar
Craig P, de Búrca G (2015) EU law: text, cases, and materials, 6th edn. OUP
Google Scholar
Darley JM, Carlsmith KM, Robinson PH (2001) The ex ante function of the criminal law. Law Soc Rev 35(1)
Article Google Scholar
de Hert P, Wieczorek I (2012) Testing the principle of subsidiarity in EU criminal policy: the omitted exercise in the recent EU documents on principles for substantive European criminal law. New J Eur Crim Law 3(3–4)
Google Scholar
de Jong C (2013) The European Parliament Resolution of 22 May 2012 on a EU approach to criminal law. In: Galli F, Weyembergh A (eds) Approximation of substantive criminal law in the EU: the way forward. Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles
Google Scholar
de la Rasilla del Moral I (2006) The increasingly marginal appreciation of the margin-of-appreciation doctrine. German Law J 7(6)
Google Scholar
Defeis E (2007–2008) Dual system of human rights: the European Union. ILSA J Int Comp Law 14(1)
Google Scholar
Edward D (2012) Subsidiarity as a legal concept. In: Cardonnel P, Rosas A, Wahl N (eds) Constitutionalising the EU judicial system: essays in honour of Pernilla Lindh. Hart Publishing
Google Scholar
Elholm T (2014) Legitimacy and EU criminal law regulation. In: Peršak N (ed) Legitimacy and trust in criminal law, policy and justice: norms, procedures, outcomes. Ashgate
Google Scholar
Halberstam D (2012) Local, global and plural constitutionalism. In: de Búrca G, Weiler JHH (eds) The worlds of European constitutionalism. CUP
Google Scholar
Herlin-Karnell E (2007) In the wake of Pupino: Advocaten voor de Wereld and Dell’Orto. German Law J 8(12)
Article Google Scholar
Herlin-Karnell E (2010) What principles drive (or should drive) European criminal law? German Law J 11(10)
Article Google Scholar
Herlin-Karnell E (2012) Is the citizen driving the EU’s criminal law agenda? In: Spaventa, Shuibhne (eds) Empowerment and disempowerment of the European citizen. Hart Publishing
Google Scholar
Huomo-Kettunen M (2013) Heterarchical constitutional structures in the European legal space. Eur J Leg Stud 6(1)
Google Scholar
Huomo-Kettunen M (2014) EU criminal policy at a crossroads between effectiveness and traditional restraints for the use of criminal law. New J Eur Crim Law 5(3)
Article Google Scholar
Husak D (2004) The criminal law as last resort. Oxf J Leg Stud 24(2)
Article Google Scholar
Klip A (2016) European criminal law: an integrative approach, 3rd edn. Intersentia
Google Scholar
Krisch N (2007) The open architechture of European human rights law, LSE law, society, and economy working papers 11/2007, London School of Economics and Political Science Law Department 15
Google Scholar
Krisch N (2012) The case for pluralism in the postnational law. In: de Búrca G, Weiler JHH (eds) The worlds of European constitutionalism. CUP
Google Scholar
Kumm M (2012) Rethinking constitutional authority: on the structure and limits of constitutional pluralism. In: Avbelj M, Komárek J (eds) Constitutional pluralism in the European Union and beyond. Hart Publishing
Google Scholar
Łazowski A, Wessel RA (2016) When caveats turn into locks: opinion 2/13 on accession of the European Union to the ECHR. German Law J 16(1)
Article Google Scholar
Lenaerts K, Van Nuffel P (2011) In: Robert B, Nathan C (eds) European Union law. Sweet & Maxwell
Google Scholar
Maduro MP (2003) Europa and the constitution: what if this is as good as it gets? In: Weiler JHH, Wind M (eds) European constitutionalism beyond the state. CUP
Google Scholar
Malathouni E (2008) Should I stay or should I go: the sunset clause as self-confidence or suicide? Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 15(1)
Article Google Scholar
Maugeri AM (2013) Fundamental rights in the European legal order, both as a limit on punitive power and as a source of positive obligations to criminalise. New J Eur Crim Law 4(4)
Article Google Scholar
Melander S (2008) Kriminalisointiteoria – rangaistavaksi säätämisen oikeudelliset rajoitukset. Suomalaisen lakimiesyhdistyksen julkaisuja
Google Scholar
Melander S (2010) EU-rikosoikeus. WSOYpro
Google Scholar
Melander S (2013) Ultima ratio in European criminal law. Oñati Socio-Leg Ser 3(1)
Article Google Scholar
Melander S (2014) Effectiveness in EU criminal law and its effects on the general part of criminal law. New J Eur Crim Law 5(3)
Article Google Scholar
Miettinen S (2015) The Europeanization of criminal law: competence and its control in the Lisbon era. University of Helsinki
Google Scholar
Mowbray A (2005) The creativity of the European Court of Human Rights. Hum Rights Law Rev 5(1)
Article Google Scholar
Nieminen L (2004) Eurooppalaistuva valtiosääntöoikeus – Valtiosääntöistyvä Eurooppa. Suomalaisen Lakimiesyhdistyksen Julkaisuja
Google Scholar
Ouwerkerk Jannemieke W (2012) Criminalisation as a last resort: a national principle under the pressure of Europeanisation? New J Eur Crim Law 3(3–4)
Article Google Scholar
Paunio E, Lindroos-Hovinheimo S (2010) Taking language seriously: an analysis of linguistic reasoning in EU law. Eur Law J 16(4)
Google Scholar
Peers S (2016) The EU’s accession to the ECHR: the dream becomes a nightmare. German Law J 16(1)
Article Google Scholar
Peristeridou C (2015) The principle of leaglity in European criminal law. Intersentia
Google Scholar
Preuss UK (2010) Disconnecting constitutions from statehood – is global constitutionalism a viable concept. In: Dobner P, Loughlin M (eds) The twilight of constitutionalism? OUP
Google Scholar
Rosas A, Armati L (2010) EU constitutional law: an introduction. Hart Publishing
Google Scholar
Roxin C (2006) Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil – Band I, Grundlagen, Der Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre. Verlag C.H.Beck
Google Scholar
Satzger H (2012) International and European criminal law. C.H.Beck
Google Scholar
Scheeck L (2006) The relationship between the European courts and integration through human rights. Zeitschrift für ausländishes öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 65
Google Scholar
Schütze R (2009a) From dual to cooperative federalism: the changing structure of European law. OUP
Google Scholar
Schütze R (2009b) Subsidiarity after Lisbon: reinforcing the safeguards of federalism? Camb Law J 68(3)
Article Google Scholar
Suominen A (2011) Perus- ja ihmisoikeusnäkökohtia Suomen kansainvälisessä yhteistyössä rikosasioissa. Defensor Legis 92(1)
Google Scholar
Tulkens F (2011) The paradoxical relationship between criminal law and human rights. J Int Crim Justice 9
Article Google Scholar
Tümay M (2008) The “margin of appreciation doctrine” developed by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Ankara Law Rev 5(2)
Google Scholar
Vervaele JAE (2013) Harmonised union policies and the harmonization of substantive criminal law. In: Galli F, Weyembergh A (eds) Approximation of substantive criminal law in the EU: the way forward. Editions de l’Universite de Bruxelles
Google Scholar
Weyembergh A (2013a) Approximation of substantive criminal law: the new institutional and decision-making framework and new types of interaction between EU actors. In: Galli F, Weyembergh A (eds) Approximation of substantive criminal law in the EU: the way forward. Serge de Biolley, Editions de l’Universite de Bruxelles
Google Scholar
Weyembergh A (2013b) Conclusion: the way forward. In: Galli F, Weyembergh A (eds) Approximation of substantive criminal law in the EU: the way forward. Editions de l’Universite de Bruxelles
Google Scholar
Weyembergh A (2017) Consequences of Brexit for European Union criminal law. New J Eur Crim Law 8(3)
Article Google Scholar
Zuleeg M (2011) The advantages of the European constitution. In: von Bogdandy A, Bast J (eds) Principles of European constitutional law, 2nd edn. Hart Publishing
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Helsinki, Finland
Merita Kettunen

Authors

Merita Kettunen
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kettunen, M. (2020). Theoretical Ideals for European Constitutional Structures and Criminal Legislation. In: Legitimizing European Criminal Law. Comparative, European and International Criminal Justice, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16174-3_4

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16174-3_4
Published: 09 November 2019
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-16173-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-16174-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics