Features of European Criminal Law

Kettunen, Merita

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-16174-3_3

Merita Kettunen³¹

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

429 Accesses

Abstract

The concept of European criminal law is used in a broad sense, referring to the influences the EU law and the ECHR regime have on criminal law. European criminal law consists of EU criminal law (directives, framework decisions, conventions, CJEU case law etc.) and ECtHR case law that is criminal law-related. In turn, the concept of EU criminal law is used to refer to the criminal law measures enacted within the EU framework. European criminal law is thus multileveled. Norms are created at the European level, either in the Council of Europe or the EU framework, and then implemented, applied and enforced at the domestic level. However the European Public Prosecutor’s Office will enforce EU criminal law directly within the limits of its competence.

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.
Klip (2016), pp. 1–2.
2.
Satzger (2012), p. 43.
3.
Klip (2016), p. 2.
4.
Engel and Others v. the Netherlands App no 5100/71, 5101/71, 5102/71, 5354/72, 5370/72 (ECtHR, 8 June 1976), para 82; Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia App no 14939/03 (ECtHR, 10 February 2009), para 53.
5.
Case C-240/90 Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities [1992] ECR p. I-5383, Opinion of AG Jacobs, para 11.
6.
Case C-440/05 Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union [2007] ECR p. I-9097, Opinion of AG Mazák, paras 67–71.
7.
Case C-489/10 Criminal proceedings against Łukasz Marcin Bonda, Opinion of AG Kokott, paras 42–58.
8.
Jussila v. Finland, App no 73053/01 (ECtHR, 23 November 2006), para 38.
9.
Case C-489/10 Criminal proceedings against Łukasz Marcin Bonda [2012], paras 37–41.
10.
Ojanen (2013), p. 97.
11.
Börzel and Panke (2016), pp. 111–120.
12.
Statute of the Council of Europe (London, 5 May 1949) European Treaty Series No. 1, preamble; Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, 25 March 1957, preamble.
13.
Statute of the Council of Europe (London, 5 May 1949) European Treaty Series No. 1.
14.
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (signed in Rome 4 November 1950, entered into force 3 September 1953) European Treaty Series No. 5, preamble.
15.
These are: European Treaty Series No. 24, European Convention on Extradition, Paris 13 December 1957 and its additional protocols; European Treaty Series No. 70, European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments, The Hague, 28 May 1970; European Treaty Series No. 73, European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings of Criminal Matters, Strasbourg 15 May 1972; European Treaty Series No. 112, Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, Strasbourg 21 March 1983.
16.
European Treaty Series No. 90, European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, Strasbourg 27 January 1977.
17.
European Treaty Series No. 141, Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime, Strasbourg 8 November 1990.
18.
Mitsilegas et al. (2003), pp. 19–21.
19.
Craig and de Búrca (2011), p. 3.
20.
Tony Bunyan, Trevi, Europol and the European State http://www.statewatch.org/news/handbook-trevi.pdf, p. 1, accessed 25 June 2018; Mitsilegas (2009), p. 6.
21.
Tony Bunyan, Trevi, Europol and the European State http://www.statewatch.org/news/handbook-trevi.pdf, p. 3, accessed 25 June 2018; Mitsilegas (2009), p. 6; Miettinen (2013a), p. 20.
22.
United Nations Treaty Series vol. 1582, status of the Treaty; see also Mitsilegas (2009), s. 6.
23.
COM (85) 310, White Paper on Completing the Internal Market, Brussels, 14 June 1985, for example paras 26–29.
24.
Lindberg (1963), pp. 10–11.
25.
Fletcher et al. (2008), p. 28.
26.
Craig and de Búrca (2015), p. 965; Melander (2010), p. 3; Mitsilegas (2009), p. 9.
27.
Miettinen (2013a), p. 24.
28.
The then Article M (during the era of Maastricht Treaty) and later Article 47 EU (during the era of Amsterdam Treaty) concerned solving conflicts of competence between the Community and the Union.
29.
Nowell-Smith (2012), pp. 381, 382.
30.
Mitsilegas (2009), pp. 9–11.
31.
Melander (2010), p. 8.
32.
Case C-170/96 Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union [1998] ECR p. I-2763, paras 12–18. See also Sakari Melander (2010), p. 8.
33.
Mitsilegas (2009), pp. 14–17.
34.
Ibid., pp. 18–19.
35.
The Laeken European Council adopted a Declaration on the future of European Union and set the following aims: to better divide and define the competences of the Union, to simplify the Union’s instruments, to becoming more democratic, transparent and effective, and to create a Constitution for the European citizens for the purposes of transparency and simplification of the Treaty structure (Laeken Declaration on the Future of the European Union, Annex I to the presidency conclusions—Laeken, 14 and 15 December 2001). In the summer of 2003 the Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was agreed by the Convention and submitted to the European Council (CONV 850/03, Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, Brussels, 18 July 2003). After the Intergovernmental Conference amended few provisions, an agreement was reached on the draft Constitutional Treaty in 2004 (Presidency Conclusions of Brussels European Council, 17 and 18 June 2004, 10,679/2/04 REV 2, Brussels, 19 July 2004, paras 4–5). The Constitutional Treaty never became in force, because the ratification was stopped when France and Netherlands rejected the Treaty in their referenda (See for example Craig and de Búrca (2015), p. 18.
36.
Craig and de Búrca (2015), p. 20.
37.
Mitsilegas (2009), p. 39.
38.
Melander (2010), p. 15.
39.
Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality [2012] OJ C326/206, Article 6.
40.
Ibid. Article 7(2).
41.
Craig and de Búrca (2015), p. 17.
42.
Case C-29/69 Erich Stauder v City of Ulm – Sozialamt [1969] ECR p. 419, para 7; Case C-11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel [1970] ECR p. 1125, paras 3–4; Case C-4/73 J. Nold, Kohlen- und Baustoffgroßhandlung v Commission of the European Communities [1974] ECR p. 491, para 13; Case C-112/00 Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v Republik Österreich [2003] ECR p. I-5659, para 71.
43.
Case C-222/84 Marguerite Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1986] ECR p. 1651, para 18; Case C-36/02 Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn [2004] ECR p. I-9609, para 33; Case C-112/00 Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v Republik Österreich [2003] ECR p. I-5659, para 71; Case C-60/00 Mary Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ECR p. I-6279, paras 40–46; Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ECR p. I-7091, paras 65–67.
44.
Case C-12/86 Meryem Demirel v Stadt Schwäbisch Gmünd [1987] ECR p. 3719, para 28; Case C-112/00 Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v Republik Österreich [2003] ECR p. I-5659, para 75.
45.
Case C-617/10 Åklagaren v Hans Åkerberg Fransson [2013], para 19.
46.
Marguery (2013), pp. 282, 287.
47.
According to Article 2 TEU the founding values of the Union are respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights.
48.
Ronald Dworkin has distinguished legal principles from legal rules. Whereas rules are applied in all-or-nothing fashion, principles ‘do not set out legal consequences that follow automatically when the conditions provided are met.’ Principles are weighed and balanced against each other, and each applicable principle is to be given relative weight, or to put in other words, optimized. See, Dworkin (1977), pp. 24–26. Constitutional norms are often characterisized as principles. However, some principles can also be applied as absolute rules in the sense that their violation cannot be excused by any argument. For example, if human dignity is violated, the violation will not be evaluated in terms of other conflicting human rights or other principles, but instead the violation is acknowledged and prohibited. In other words, the violation cannot be excused, and in this manner, the principle of human dignity for example is absolute in its rule-like function. See, Alexy (2010), pp. 44, 62–63.
49.
Roach (2011), pp. 91, 99. On the nature of constitutional rights norms, see Alexy (1986), pp. 44–48.
50.
Tuori (1983b), p. 444.
51.
Bingham (2011), p. 37.
52.
Ibid., pp. 37–54.
53.
Ibid., pp. 55–129. Elements of fair trial are, for exmaple: equality of arms for the both sides, impartial and independent courts, public trials, presumption of innocence, the defendant should have a right to know on what crime he is accused of and examine witnesses of the prosecution, and a right to legal assistance and interpretation, and a right to attend the trial.
54.
The Sunday Times v. The United Kingdom App no 6538/74 (ECtHR, 26 April 1979), para 49.
55.
Ukraine-Tyumen v Ukraine App no 22603/02 (ECtHR, 22 November 2007), para 49.
56.
Pretty v. The United Kingdom App no 2346/02 (ECtHR, 29 April 2002), para 65. See also Foster (2011), p. 97. See also European Committee of Social Rights Complaint No. 14/2003 by the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) v. France, para 31.
57.
Bendor and Sachs (2011), pp. 25, 31–32.
58.
Heun (2011), p. 201.
59.
Scheinin (1998), pp. 59–60, 66–67.
60.
Tuori (1983b), p. 670; Tuori (1983a), pp. 74–77.
61.
Tuori (2000), p. 211.
62.
Alexy (1986), pp. 62–63.
63.
Melander (2008), p. 302.
64.
Pretty v. The United Kingdom App no 2346/02 (ECtHR, 29 April 2002), para 65; Statement of the Constitutional Law Committee of the Finnish Parliament, PeVL 23/1997 vp, 2.
65.
Roach (2011), p. 91.
66.
Hassemer (1989), pp. 388, 390–395; Melander (2008), pp. 364–367.
67.
Hassemer (1989), pp. 388,393–394.
68.
Melander (2008), pp. 366–367; Hassemer (1989), pp. 388, 393.
69.
Hassemer (1989), pp. 388, 396.
70.
Similarly, Hassemer (1989), pp. 388, 397.
71.
Hörnle and Kremnitzer (2011), p. 143. Human dignity as a protected interest of certain serious crimes such as genocide and torture, see Melander (2008), pp. 272–276.
72.
Melander (2008), pp. 272–276.
73.
Hörnle and Kremnitzer (2011), pp. 143, 148.
74.
Ibid.
75.
On human dignity and dwarf-tossing, see for example Foster (2011), pp. 95–97.
76.
Hörnle and Kremnitzer (2011), pp. 143, 148, 152, 158–160.
77.
Mayzit v. Russia App no 63378/00 (ECtHR, 20 January 2005).
78.
Muršić v. Croatia App no 7334/13 (ECtHR, 20 October 2016), paras 99 and 110.
79.
Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia App no 48787/99 (ECtHR, 8 July 2004), para 429.
80.
Melander (2008), pp. 308–309.
81.
Tyrer v. The United Kingdom App no 5856/72 (ECtHR, 25 April 1978), paras 9–10, 29–35.
82.
European Parliament, Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union Article 1 Human Dignity, 5. Case Law, internet-address www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/libe/elsj/charter/art01/default_en.htm, accessed 25 June 2018.
83.
Tyrer v. The United Kingdom App no 5856/72 (ECtHR, 25 April 1978), para 31.
84.
Babar Ahmad and Others v. The United Kingdom App no 24027/07, 11,949/08, 66,911/09 and 67,354/09 (ECtHR, 10 April 2012), paras 239–242.
85.
See for example Melander (2008), pp. 310–312.
86.
See for example Appleton and Grover (2007), pp. 597, 609–610.
87.
Kahan (1996), pp. 591, 633. See also Melander (2008), p. 314.
88.
Kahan and Posner (1999), p. 365.
89.
V. v. The United Kingdom App no 24888/94 (ECtHR, 16 December 1999); T. v. The United Kingdom App no 24724/94 (ECtHR, 16 December 1999).
90.
V. v. The United Kingdom App no 24888/94 (ECtHR, 16 December 1999), paras 7, 9, 15–17, 20–24, 35–40.
91.
Ibid., paras 45–46.
92.
Ibid., para 80.
93.
See for example Dan-Cohen (2011), p. 9; McCrudden (2008), p. 655; Foster (2011); On the religious conception see for example Dan-Cohen (2011), pp. 9, 11.
94.
Glensy (2011), pp. 65, 67–68. In relation to freedom of speech see Robert Post (2011).
95.
Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Jonathan Bennett tr), ch 2, pp. 33–34 www.stolaf.edu/people/huff/classes/GoodnEvil/Readings/kantgw.pdf, accessed 25 June 2018.
96.
McCrudden (2008), pp. 655, 679; Foster (2011), pp. 5–6, 10.
97.
McCrudden (2008), pp. 655, 679.
98.
Nieminen (2005), pp. 49, 54–55.
99.
Alexy (1986), p. 246.
100.
Nieminen (2005), pp. 49, 54–55.
101.
Beyleveld and Brownsword (2001), p. 11.
102.
Hörnle and Kremnitzer (2011), pp. 143, 148.
103.
Some EU Member States have explicit references to human dignity in their constitutional documents, as do for example, the constitutions of Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Finland. European Parliament, Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union Article 1 Human Dignity, 6. National Laws, www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/libe/elsj/charter/art01/default_en.htm, accessed 25 June 2018.
104.
Nieminen (2005), pp. 49, 54–55.
105.
Jean-Paul Costa (2008).
106.
Franck (1992), pp. 46–47; Marks (2011), p. 507.
107.
See for example Mirsky (2005), pp. 358, 360.
108.
For example Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1506(2001) Freedom of expression and information in the media in Europe, paras 1, 5, 12. See also Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1535(2007) Threats to the lives and freedom of expression of journalists, paras 3, 6. See also Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1577 (2007) Towards decriminalization of defamation, paras 1, 4–7, 11–14, 17. On the chilling effect, for example, Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v. Romania App no 33348/96 (ECtHR, 17 December 2004), para 119.
109.
Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v. Romania App no 33348/96 (ECtHR, 17 December 2004), paras 37, 48, 50, 112, 115–119; Mariapori v. Finland App no 37751/07 (ECtHR, 6 July 2010), para 67.
110.
Lešnik v. Slovakia App no 35640/97 (ECtHR, 11 June 2003), paras 41–52; Mariapori v. Finland App no 37751/07 (ECtHR, 6 July 2010), paras 50–55; Žugic v. Croatia App no 3699/08 (ECtHR, 31 August 2011), paras 40–44; Lopuch v. Poland App no 43587/09 (ECtHR, 24 July 2012), paras 51–58; Skalka v. Poland App no 43425/98 (ECtHR, 27 May 2003), paras 30–35; Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v. Romania App no 33348/96 (ECtHR, 17 December 2004), paras 84–90; Saaristo and Others v. Finland App no 184/06 (ECtHR, 12 October 2010), paras 52–57; Otegi Mondragon v. Spain App no 2034/07 (ECtHR, 15 March 2011), paras 52–57. See also Jussi Matikkala (2012), p. 153.
111.
Skalka v. Poland App no 43425/98 (ECtHR, 27 May 2003), paras 12, 17, 19, 39, 42.
112.
Lešnik v. Slovakia App no 35640/97 (ECtHR, 11 June 2003), paras 25, 64, 65.
113.
Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v. Romania App no 33348/96 (ECtHR, 17 December 2004), para 116; Mariapori v. Finland App no 37751/07 (ECtHR, 6 July 2010), para 68.
114.
Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v. Romania App no 33348/96 (ECtHR, 17 December 2004), paras 117–119.
115.
Mariapori v. Finland App no 37751/07 (ECtHR, 6 July 2010), para 69; Saaristo and Others v. Finland App no 184/06 (ECtHR, 12 October 2010), para 69; Otegi Mondragon v. Spain App no 2034/07 (ECtHR, 15 March 2011), para 31.
116.
For example Mariapori v. Finland App no 37751/07 (ECtHR, 6 July 2010), para 67.
117.
Committee of Ministers Declaration on freedom of political debate in the media 12 February 2004, para VIII).
118.
Lingens v. Austria App no 9815/82 (ECtHR, 8 July 1986), para 41–42.
119.
Castells v. Spain App no 11798/85 (ECtHR, 23 April 1992), para 46.
120.
Affaire Erbakan c. Turquie Requête no 59405/00 (ECtHR, 6 July 2006), para 56.
121.
Post (2000), pp. 185, 190–192.
122.
Affaire Erbakan c. Turquie Requête no 59405/00 (ECtHR, 6 July 2006), para 56.
123.
Factsheet – Hate speech, European Court of Human Rights, Press Unit, June 2012.
124.
Affaire Erbakan c. Turquie Requête no 59405/00 (ECtHR, 6 July 2006), para 56.
125.
Delgado (1982), pp. 133, 135–136.
126.
Catá Backer (2007–2008), p. 57. See also Glensy (2011), pp. 65, 10, 68.
127.
Möllers (2009), pp. 416, 432.
128.
Glensy (2011), pp. 65, 82; Greenawalt (1989), pp. 119, 153; Wright (2006), pp. 527, 529.
129.
Gorzelik and Others v. Poland App no 44158/98 (ECtHR, 17 February 2004), paras 89–90.
130.
Macklem (2006) 4, p. 488. See also Loewenstein (1937a), p. 417; Loewenstein (1937b), p. 638.
131.
Loewenstein (1937a), pp. 423–424, 430–431.
132.
Macklem (2006), p. 488.
133.
Similar reasoning that hate speech and promotion of violence are a threats to democracy is also used in the United States, see Tsesis (2009), pp. 497, 502–503.
134.
Wright (2006), pp. 527, 557.
135.
Jean-Paul Costa (2008).
136.
Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey App no 41340/98 (ECtHR, 13 February 2003), paras 88–90.
137.
Ibid., para 98.
138.
Jean-Paul Costa (2008).
139.
Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey App no 10226/03 (ECtHR, 8 July 2008), para 109.
140.
Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) App no 74025/01 (ECtHR, 6 October 2005), para 61.
141.
Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey App no 10226/03 (ECtHR, 8 July 2008), para 73.
142.
Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey App no 10226/03 (ECtHR, 8 July 2008), para 125. The applicants complained that since the political parties had to receive at least 10% of the given votes in order to get into Parliament, the Turkish electoral system breached Article 3 of the first Protocol. As a result of the threshold, 45% of the voters were not represented at the Parliament. The Court found that the 10% threshold system of the Turkish electoral system had legitimate aim of avoiding excessive parliamentary fragmentation and strengthening governmental stability. The Court found that any specific maximum percentage limit for the possible thresholds cannot be abstractly set.
143.
Ireland v. The United Kingdom App no 5310/71 (ECtHR, 18 January 1978), para 167.
144.
Kidutuksen kriminalisointi, Oikeusministeriön työtyhmämietintöjä 2008:1, 38.
145.
See for example Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia App no 48787/99 (ECtHR, 8 July 2004), para 424; Selmouni v. France App no 25803/94 (ECtHR, 28 July 1999), para 95.
146.
Pellonpää (2012), p. 348.
147.
Aksoy v. Turkey App no 21987/93 (ECtHR, 18 December 1996), paras 14, 59–64.
148.
United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (26 June 1987), UNTS Vol. 1465, I-24841.
149.
Selmouni v. France App no 25803/94 (ECtHR, 28 July 1999), para 97.
150.
Ibid., para 101. See also Kidutuksen kriminalisointi, Oikeusministeriön työtyhmämietintöjä (2008), pp. 1, 23.
151.
Selmouni v. France App no 25803/94 (ECtHR, 28 July 1999), para 177. See also Kidutuksen kriminalisointi, Oikeusministeriön työtyhmämietintöjä (2008), pp. 23–24.
152.
Kidutuksen kriminalisointi, Oikeusministeriön työtyhmämietintöjä (2008), pp. 1, 23.
153.
A. v. The United Kingdom App no 25599/94 (ECtHR, 23 September 1998), paras 14, 20–24.
154.
Aydin v. Turkey App no 23178/94 (ECtHR, 25 September 1997), para 86; Maslova and Nalbandov v. Russia App no 839/02 (ECtHR, 24 January 2008), para 106.
155.
Menesheva v. Russia App no 59261/00 (ECtHR, 9 March 2006), paras 14, 58–63. See also Gäfgen v. Germany App no 22978/05 (ECtHR, 1 June 2010), paras 94–101, in which the applicant had claimed he had been threatened with sexual and physical abuse during his interrogation. The Court however did not found his claims concerning the threats of sexual abuse being proved without reasonable doubt. The other aspects of the conduct during his interrogation was however seen to fall under inhuman treatment (Article 3 ECHR).
156.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 7, Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) Article 3, ICTR-96-4-T The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu (ICTR 2 September 1998).
157.
ICTR-96-4-T The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu (ICTR 2 September 1998), para 688. See also Jokila (2010), pp. 65–66.
158.
IT-96-23-T & IT-96-23/1-T Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic (ICTY 22 February 2001), para 464. See also Jokila (2010), p. 66.
159.
M.C. v Bulgaria App no 39272/98 (ECtHR, 4 December 2003), paras 102–107.
160.
Pitea (2005), p. 447.
161.
M.C. v Bulgaria App no 39272/98 (ECtHR, 4 December 2003), paras 3, 11–31, 44–46, 51–64, 74, 101; Recommendation Rec (2002)5 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the protection of women against violence, para 35.
162.
Case of Douglas W. Schwenk v. James Hartford; Steve Sinclair; Robert Mitchell No. 97-35870 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 204 F.3d, paras 17–18. See also Wright (2006), pp. 527, 533.
163.
General Recommendation 19 (29 January 1992) of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, para 24.
164.
M.C. v Bulgaria App no 39272/98 (ECtHR, 4 December 2003), para 108.
165.
S.W. v. the United Kingdom App no 20166/92 (ECtHR, 22 November 1995), para 44; C.R. v. the United Kingdom App no 20190/92 (ECtHR, 22 November 1995), para 42.
166.
M.C. v Bulgaria App no 39272/98 (ECtHR, 4 December 2003), paras 153–155.
167.
Brauch (2005), pp. 113, 128; de la Rasilla del Moral (2006), pp. 611, 617.
168.
See also Greer (2000), pp. 26–27.
169.
Greer (2010), pp. 1, 4.
170.
Davis (2007), p. 116.
171.
Pitea (2005), pp. 447, 456.
172.
Decision as to the admissibility of Application no. 14659/02 by John Wilkinson against the United Kingdom (ECHR, 28 February 2006) 20–21.
173.
Cesare Pitea (2005), p. 447.
174.
Jacobs et al. (2010), pp. 309–310.
175.
Golder v. the United Kingdom App no 4451/70 (ECtHR, 21 February 1975), para 44.
176.
Sakari Melander (2011), pp. 239, 256.
177.
X and Y v. the Netherlands App no. 8978/80 (ECtHR, 26 March 1985), para 27.
178.
Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria App no. 43577/98 and 43579/98 (ECtHR, 26 February 2004), para 157, where the ECtHR stated that “compliance with the State’s positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention requires that the domestic legal system must demonstrate its capacity to enforce criminal law against those who unlawfully took the life of another, irrespective of the victim’s racial or ethnic origin”; Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia App no 46598/06 (ECtHR, 15 January 2009), para 49, where the ECtHR states that “… a primary duty on the State to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter …”; Opuz v. Turkey App no 33401/02 (ECtHR, 9 June 2009), para 128.
179.
Siliadin v. France App no 73316/01 (ECtHR, 26 July 2005); C.N. v. the United Kingdom App no 4239/08 (ECtHR, 13 November 2012), paras 81–82, where the ECtHR found that investigation of the applicant’s complaints concerning domestic servitude was “ineffective due to the absence of specific legislation criminalising such treatment” constituting a violation of Article 4 ECHR; C.N. and V. v. France App no. 67724/09 (ECtHR, 11 October 2012), para 104, the ECtHR stating that the contracting parties have a “positive obligation to penalise and effectively prosecute actions in breach of Article 4”.
180.
Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia App no. 25965/04 (ECtHR, 7 January 2010), para 285, where the ECtHR referred to case of Siliadin and found that the ECtHR has confirmed that Article 4 ECHR entails “a specific positive obligation on member States to penalise and prosecute effectively any act aimed at maintaining a person in a situation of slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour” and that “in order to comply with this obligation, member States are required to put in place a legislative and administrative framework to prohibit and punish trafficking”.
181.
Melander (2011), pp. 239, 257–258.
182.
Asp (2010), pp. 229, 232–234.
183.
M.C. v Bulgaria App no 39272/98 (ECtHR, 4 December 2003), paras 156–159, 162–163, 166.
184.
Pellonpää (2012), p. 345.
185.
Siliadin v. France App no 73316/01 (ECtHR, 26 July 2005), paras 109, 126.
186.
Ibid., paras 129, 111–112.
187.
Ibid., paras 116–117, 124.
188.
Ibid., para 112.
189.
C.N. v. the United Kingdom App no 4239/08 (ECtHR, 13 November 2012), paras 81–82.
190.
C.N. and V. v. France App no. 67724/09 (ECtHR, 11 October 2012), para 104.
191.
Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia App no. 25965/04 (ECtHR, 7 January 2010), para 285.
192.
C.N. v. the United Kingdom App no 4239/08 (ECtHR, 13 November 2012), paras 81–82.
193.
C.N. and V. v. France App no. 67724/09 (ECtHR, 11 October 2012), para 104.
194.
Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia App no. 25965/04 (ECtHR, 7 January 2010), para 285.
195.
Similarly, see, Stoyanova (2014), pp. 407, 431.
196.
Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia App no 46598/06 (ECtHR, 15 January 2009), para 49; Opuz v. Turkey App no 33401/02 (ECtHR, 9 June 2009), para 128.
197.
Rogers (2003), pp. 690, 695.
198.
X and Y v. the Netherlands App no. 8978/80 (ECtHR, 26 March 1985), para 27.
199.
Stoyanova (2014), pp. 407, 414.
200.
X and Y v. the Netherlands App no. 8978/80 (ECtHR, 26 March 1985), para 27.
201.
Dahl (1998), pp. 36–38.
202.
Dahl (1998), pp. 62–65, 69–77.
203.
Barton and Johns (2013), p. 12.
204.
Jean-Paul Costa (2008).
205.
Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayat v. Belgium App no 9267/81 (ECtHR, 2 March 1987), paras 47, 52, 54.
206.
Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey App no 10226/03 (ECtHR, 8 July 2008), para 109.
207.
Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) App no 74025/01 (ECtHR, 6 October 2005), para 61.
208.
Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey App no 10226/03 (ECtHR, 8 July 2008), para 73.
209.
Ibid., para 125.
210.
See, e.g., Snacken and Dumortier (2012), p. 8.
211.
Lappi-Seppälä (2012), pp. 55–58.
212.
Lijphart (1999), pp. 1–3.
213.
Tonry (2007), pp. 18–19.
214.
Lijphart (1999), pp. 297, 298, 301.
215.
Lijphart (1999).
216.
Lappi-Seppälä (2012), p. 57.
217.
Lijphart (1999), Tonry (2007), p. 9.
218.
Lijphart (1999).
219.
Tonry (2007), p. 32; Bell (1992), p. 77.
220.
Tonry (2007), p. 34.
221.
Barton and Johns (2013), p. 13.
222.
Bell (1992), p. 66.
223.
Tonry (2007), p. 32.
224.
Ibid., p. 34.
225.
Lappi-Seppälä (2012), p. 56.
226.
Barton and Johns (2013), p. 12.
227.
Snacken (2012), p. 250.
228.
Canovan (1999), pp. 2, 9, 17.
229.
Snacken (2012), p. 250.
230.
Pratt (2007), p. 12.
231.
Pratt (2007).
232.
Gelb (2008), Balvig et al. (2015), pp. 342, 350–355.
233.
Roberts and Doob (1989), pp. 491, 500.
234.
Gelb (2009), p. 288; Gelb (2008); Roberts and Doob (1989), pp. 491, 501.
235.
Roberts and Doob (1989), pp. 491, 509–511; Gelb (2009), p. 288; Gelb (2008).
236.
Roberts (2003), pp. 483, 493.
237.
Hough and Roberts (1999), pp. 11, 19; Roberts and Doob (1989), pp. 491, 502–504.
238.
Peter D Hart Research Associates, Inc. for The Open Society Institute (2002), p. 3.
239.
Hough and Roberts (1999), pp. 11, 19; Roberts and Doob (1989), pp. 491, 502–504.
240.
Canovan (1999), pp. 2, 4–5.
241.
Snacken (2012), p. 248.
242.
Ibid., p. 249.
243.
Salas (2010), pp. 12–18, 40.
244.
Pettit (1999), p. 8.
245.
Snacken (2012), pp. 250–257.
246.
Joshua Micah Marshall (2000).
247.
Kafkaris v. Cyprus App no 21906/04 (ECtHR, 12 February 2008), paras 3, 12, 13, 30, 42, 85.
248.
Ibid., para 82.
249.
Ibid., para 99; Archour v. France App no 67335/01 (ECtHR, 29 March 2006), para 51.
250.
Kafkaris v. Cyprus App no 21906/04 (ECtHR, 12 February 2008), paras 126, 151.
251.
Case of Achour v. France App no 67335/01 (ECHR, 29 March 2006), para 44.
252.
Sejdovic v. Italy App no 56581/00 (ECtHR, 1 March 2006), para 120; Broniowski v. Poland App no 31443/96 (ECtHR, 22 June 2004), paras 188–194 and 34–35.
253.
European Court of Human Rights, Factsheet – Pilot Judgments (July 2013) www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Pilot_judgments_ENG.pdf, accessed 25 June 2018.
254.
European Court of Human Rights, The Pilot Judgment Procedure—Information note issued by the Registrar, www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Pilot_judgment_procedure_ENG.pdf, accessed 25 June 2018.
255.
Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Recommendation No R (96) 8 on crime policy in Europe in a time of change, 5 September 1996; Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Explanatory memorandum to Recommendation Rec(1996) 8.
256.
Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Recommendation No R (96) 8 on crime policy in Europe in a time of change, 5 September 1996; Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Explanatory memorandum to Recommendation Rec(1996) 8.
257.
X and Y v. the Netherlands App no. 8978/80 (ECtHR, 26 March 1985), para 27; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria App no. 43577/98 and 43579/98 (ECtHR, 26 February 2004), para 157; Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia App no 46598/06 (ECtHR, 15 January 2009), para 49; Opuz v. Turkey App no 33401/02 (ECtHR, 9 June 2009), para 128; Siliadin v. France App no 73316/01 (ECtHR, 26 July 2005); C.N. v. the United Kingdom App no 4239/08 (ECtHR, 13 November 2012), paras 81–82; C.N. and V. v. France App no. 67724/09 (ECtHR, 11 October 2012), para 104; Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia App no. 25965/04 (ECtHR, 7 January 2010), para 285; Tulkens (2011), p. 577.
258.
M.C. v Bulgaria App no 39272/98 (ECtHR, 4 December 2003), para 186.
259.
Jareborg (2002), p. 98.
260.
Ibid., pp. 92, 94–95.
261.
Dumortier et al. (2012), pp. 117–120.
262.
See for example Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v. Romania App no 33348/96 (ECtHR, 17 December 2004), paras 37, 48, 50, 112, 115–119; Mariapori v. Finland App no 37751/07 (ECtHR, 6 July 2010), para 67.
263.
For example Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1506(2001) Freedom of expression and information in the media in Europe, paras 1, 5, 12. See also Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1535(2007) Threats to the lives and freedom of expression of journalists, paras 3, 6. See also Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1577(2007) Towards decriminalization of defamation, paras 1, 4–7, 11–14, 17. On the chilling effect, for example Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v. Romania App no 33348/96 (ECtHR, 17 December 2004), para 119.
264.
K.A. and A.D. v. Belgium App no 42758/98 and 455558/99 (ECtHR, 17 February 2005).
265.
Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom App no 7525/76 (ECtHR, 22 October 1981), para 60; Norris v. Ireland App no 10581/83 (ECtHR, 26 October 1988), paras 38, 46; A.D.T. v. the United Kingdom App no 35765/97 (ECtHR, 31 July 2000), para 38.
266.
X and Y v. the Netherlands App no. 8978/80 (ECtHR, 26 March 1985), para 27; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria App no. 43577/98 and 43579/98 (ECtHR, 26 February 2004), para 157; Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia App no 46598/06 (ECtHR, 15 January 2009), para 49; Opuz v. Turkey App no 33401/02 (ECtHR, 9 June 2009), para 128; Siliadin v. France App no 73316/01 (ECtHR, 26 July 2005); C.N. v. the United Kingdom App no 4239/08 (ECtHR, 13 November 2012), paras 81–82; C.N. and V. v. France App no. 67724/09 (ECtHR, 11 October 2012), para 104; Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia App no. 25965/04 (ECtHR, 7 January 2010), para 285.
267.
Tulkens (2012), p. 156.
268.
See, for example, M.C. v Bulgaria App no 39272/98 (ECtHR, 4 December 2003); X and Y v. the Netherlands App no. 8978/80 (ECtHR, 26 March 1985), para 27; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria App no. 43577/98 and 43579/98 (ECtHR, 26 February 2004), para 157; Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia App no 46598/06 (ECtHR, 15 January 2009), para 49; Opuz v. Turkey App no 33401/02 (ECtHR, 9 June 2009), para 128; Siliadin v. France App no 73316/01 (ECtHR, 26 July 2005); C.N. v. the United Kingdom App no 4239/08 (ECtHR, 13 November 2012), paras 81–82; C.N. and V. v. France App no. 67724/09 (ECtHR, 11 October 2012), para 104; Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia App no. 25965/04 (ECtHR, 7 January 2010), para 285.
269.
Öneryildiz v. Turkey App no 48939/99 (ECtHR, 30 November 2004), paras 94–96.
270.
Vo v. France App no 53924/00 (ECtHR, 8 July 2004), para 90; Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy App no 32967/96 (ECtHR, 17 January 2002), para 51.
271.
See, for example, Opuz v. Turkey App no 33401/02 (ECtHR, 9 June 2009), para 128.
272.
X and Y v. the Netherlands App no. 8978/80 (ECtHR, 26 March 1985), para 27.
273.
Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia App no 46598/06 (ECtHR, 15 January 2009), para 49; Öneryildiz v. Turkey App no 48939/99 (ECtHR, 30 November 2004), para 96.
274.
M.C. v Bulgaria App no 39272/98 (ECtHR, 4 December 2003), para 186.
275.
See for example Dumortier et al. (2012), p. 126.
276.
Sous la direction de Mireille Delmas-Marty (1997).
277.
Article III-274 of the Constitutional Treaty.
278.
Mitsilegas (2009), p. 231.
279.
Article 86(4) TFEU.
280.
Ligeti (2013), p. 75.
281.
Martín et al. (2013), pp. 784–787.
282.
SWD(2013) 274 final, Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment Accompanying the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Brussels, 17 July 2013, 32–33.
283.
Ligeti and Simonato (2013), pp. 7, 13–14.
284.
SWD(2013) 274 final, Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment Accompanying the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Brussels, 17 July 2013, 34.
285.
Article 6, COM(2013) 534 final, A proposal for a Council’s Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Brussels, 17 July 2013.
286.
SWD(2013) 274 final, Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment Accompanying the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Brussels, 17 July 2013, 33. See also Ligeti and Simonato (2013), pp. 7, 15–16.
287.
SWD(2013) 274 final, Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment Accompanying the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Brussels, 17 July 2013, 50.
288.
SWD(2013) 274 final, Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment Accompanying the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Brussels, 17 July 2013, 33. See also Ligeti and Simonato (2013), pp. 7, 13–14.
289.
Ligeti and Simonato (2013), pp. 7, 13–14.
290.
Council document 16993/14, Proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office – Report on the State of Play, Brussels, 18 December 2014), Article 8.
291.
P7_TA-PROV(2014)0234, European Parliament resolution of 12 March 2014 on the proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (COM(2013)0534 – 2013/0255(APP)), paras 7, 21.
292.
SWD(2013) 274 final, Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment Accompanying the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Brussels, 17 July 2013, 33 and 45.
293.
European Commission, Press release, ‘Commission welcomes decision of 20 Member States to establish the European Public Prosecutor’s Office’, Brussels, 8 June 2017.
294.
Council of the European Union, Interinstitutional File 2013/0255 (APP), 5766/17 LIMITE, Brussels, 31 January 2017.
295.
Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) [2017] OJ L 283, 31.10.2017, pp. 1–71.
296.
Beck (2002), pp. 39, 48–49.
297.
Article 35 TEU, OJEU C 321E, 29 December 2006.
298.
Mitsilegas (2009), pp. 18–19.
299.
For example the directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law (Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law (Text with EEA relevance) [2008] OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, pp. 28–37) and the directive on the ship-source pollution (Directive 2009/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 amending Directive 2005/35/EC on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements (Text with EEA relevance) [2009] OJ L 280, 27.10.2009, pp. 52–55).
300.
Commission, SWD(2014) 109 final, Commission staff working document, Preliminary list of the former third pillar acquis, Brussels, 14 March 2014, www.statewatch.org/news/2014/mar/eu-com-draft-third-pillar-acquis-swd-109-2014.pdf, accessed 25 June 2018, p. 1.
301.
SWD(2014) 109 final, Commission staff working document, Preliminary list of the former third pillar acquis, Brussels, 14 March 2014, www.statewatch.org/news/2014/mar/eu-com-draft-third-pillar-acquis-swd-109-2014.pdf, accessed 25 June 2018, 1.
302.
Case C-34/73 Fratelli Variola S.p.A. v Amministrazione italiana delle Finanze [1973] ECR 00981, para 10.
303.
Case C-41/74 Yvonne van Duyn v Home Office [1974] ECR p. 1337, paras 7, 12.
304.
Case C-26/62 NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration [1963] ECR 00001.
305.
Case C-41/74 Yvonne van Duyn v Home Office [1974] ECR p. 1337, para 12.
306.
Case C-148/78 Criminal proceedings against Tullio Ratti [1979] ECR p. 1629, para 1 (summary).
307.
As opposed to horizontal direct effect that is a consequence between individuals. See, for example, http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/decisionmaking_process/l14547_en.htm, accessed 25 June 2018.
308.
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.
309.
Case C-148/78 Criminal proceedings against Tullio Ratti [1979] ECR p. 1629, paras 21–22.
310.
Ibid., para 4; Melander (2010), p. 86.
311.
Melander (2010), p. 87.
312.
In academic literature often referred as the principle of supremacy.
313.
Case C-6/64 Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L. [1964] ECR p. 1195.
314.
Case C-157/86 Mary Murphy and others v An Bord Telecom Eireann [1988] ECR p. 673, para 11.
315.
Case C-105/03 Criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino [2005] ECR p. I-5285, paras 43, 47.
316.
Melander (2010), p. 91.
317.
Case C-157/86 Mary Murphy and others v An Bord Telecom Eireann [1988] ECR p. 673, para 11.
318.
Raitio (2006), pp. 199–201.
319.
Case C-105/03 Criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino [2005] ECR p. I-5285, paras 44–45; 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.
320.
Melander (2010), p. 92.
321.
Weyembergh (2013), p. 22. However, on the criminal procedural side, the Directive 2011/99/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the European protection order [2011] OJ L 338, 21.12.2011, pp. 2–18 was initiated by the Member States.
322.
Lewis (2016), pp. 142–153.
323.
Commission’s internet site http://ec.europa.eu/about/ds_en.htm, accessed 25 June 2018.
324.
Commission decision of 21 February 2012 on setting up the expert group on EU criminal policy (OJEU 23.2.2012, C 53).
325.
Commission’s internet site -> register of Expert Groups and Other Similar Entities http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2760, accessed 25 June 2018.
326.
Ibid.
327.
The Expert group on EU criminal policy, Meeting 19 June 2012, available in internet http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2760, accessed 25 June 2018.
328.
The Expert group on EU criminal policy, Meeting 16 October 2013, available in internet http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2760, accessed 25 June 2018.
329.
The Expert group on EU criminal policy, Meetings 23 January 2013 and 16 October 2013, available in internet http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2760, accessed 25 June 2018.
330.
The Expert group on EU criminal policy, Meeting 12 March 2014, available in internet http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2760, accessed 25 June 2018.
331.
The Expert Group on EU criminal policy, Meeting 29 September 2016, available in internet http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2760, accessed 25 June 2018.
332.
The Expert Group on EU criminal policy, Meeting 23 March 2017, available in internet http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2760, accessed 25 June 2018.
333.
Commission, Communication from the president (2010), available in internet http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/president/news/documents/pdf/c2010_1100_en.pdf, accessed 25 June 2018, 8.
334.
William Robinson, ‘Drafting EU legislation’ (European Parliament) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2012/462442/IPOL-JURI_NT(2012)462442_EN.pdf, accessed 25 June 2018.
335.
European Parliament, Report on an EU approach on criminal law, A7-0144/2012, 24 April 2012, 9; Vervaele (2013), p. 65.
336.
European Parliament, Report on an EU approach on criminal law, A7-0144/2012, 24 April 2012, 9.
337.
http://eu2013.ie/ireland-and-the-presidency/abouttheeu/theeuexplained/councilworkingparties/, accessed 25 June 2018; European Parliament, Report on an EU approach on criminal law, A7-0144/2012, 24 April 2012, 9.
338.
http://eu2013.ie/ireland-and-the-presidency/abouttheeu/theeuexplained/councilworkingparties/, accessed 25 June 2018; See also, Melander (2010), p. 61.
339.
Article 16(7) TEU; Council’s internet site http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/preparatory-bodies/coreper-ii/, accessed 25 June 2018.
340.
Melander (2010), pp. 63–64.
341.
A reply from Päivi Leino-Sandberg (counsellor of legislation in the Ministry of Justice, Finland) on 18 September 2014 to my e-mail concerning the matter.
342.
Päivi Leino (2014), p. 4.
343.
Jensen (2016), p. 63.
344.
Ibid., pp. 54–59.
345.
Jensen (2016), pp. 55–59.
346.
Cini (2016), pp. 66–76.
347.
Ibid., p. 75.
348.
Fletcher et al. (2008), pp. 21–23. On the concept of spill-over, see Lindberg (1963), p. 10.
349.
Lindberg (1963), pp. 10–11.
350.
Fletcher et al. (2008), p. 28.
351.
Tuori (2010).
352.
See, for example, Mitsilegas (2009), Satzger (2012), Asp (2012); Miettinen (2013b), p. 194; Miettinen (2015); Öberg (2014), Huomo-Kettunen (2014), p. 23.
353.
See, the so-called environmental crimes Case C-176/03 Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union [2005] ECR p. I-7879 and the so-called ship-source pollution Case C-440/05 Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union [2007] ECR p. I-9097.
354.
Rosas and Armati (2010), pp. 17–26.
355.
Frände (2013), pp. 78–92, 82; Huomo-Kettunen (2014), p. 23.
356.
For example Case C-300/89 Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities [1991] ECR p. I-2867, para 10 and Case C-209/97 Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union [1999] ECR p. I-8067, para 13.
357.
Case C-91/05 Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union [2008] ECR p. I-3651, para 106.
358.
Case C-411/06 Commission of the European Communities v European Parliament and Council of the European Union [2008] ECR p. I-7585, para 47.
359.
For example in cases Case C-300/89 Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities [1991] ECR p. I-2867, paras 18–21; Case C-490/10 European Parliament v Council of the European Union [2012], para 47.
360.
For example Case C-411/06 Commission of the European Communities v European Parliament and Council of the European Union [2008] ECR p. I-7585, paras 45–46.
361.
Case C-490/10 European Parliament v Council of the European Union [2012], para 68.
362.
For example Opinion of Advocate General Mazák in Case C-440/05 Commission v Council, delivered on 28 June 2007, paras 71–72; Melander (2013), pp. 42, 47.
363.
Some observations presented in this chapter and in Sect. 3.7.4 are first published in Huomo-Kettunen (2014).
364.
Case C-176/03 Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union [2005] ECR p. I-7879.
365.
Case C-176/03 Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union [2005] ECR p. I-7879, paras 41–42, 47–48.
366.
Reservedness in criminal law cooperation has often been linked to conceptions of the state sovereignty and to repressive nature of criminal law measures in the core of that sovereignty. See for example Salminen (2010), pp. 159–163.
367.
Case C-440/05 Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union [2007] ECR p. I-9097, paras 52–53.
368.
Case C-440/05 Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union [2007] ECR p. I-9097, paras 58–74.
369.
The so-called environmental crimes Case C-176/03 Commission v Council [2005] ECR I- 7907 and the so-called ship-source pollution Case C-440/05 Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union [2007] ECR p. I-9097.
370.
Asp (2012), p. 127.
371.
For example, see the drafts of Article III-172 in following documents; The European Convention CONV 850/03, Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, Brussels 18 June 2003, p. 139; Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, CIG 4/1/03, IGC 2003—Editorial and legal comments on the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe—Basic Document, Brussels 6 October 2003, p. 326.
372.
The European Convention, CONV 426/02, WG X 14, Final report of Working Group X “Freedom, Security and Justice”, Brussels, 2.12.2002, pp. 9–10.
373.
Mitsilegas (2009), pp. 108–109.
374.
Melander (2012), pp. 509, 521.
375.
Piris (2010), pp. 181–187.
376.
Miettinen (2013b), pp. 194, 203–204.
377.
Opinion of the Council’s Legal Service, 15309/12, paras 12–14.
378.
Miettinen (2013b), p. 194.
379.
On the case law where the Court has used the travaux préparatoires of the treaties in interpreting the Treaties, see Case C-61/03 Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [2005] ECR p. I-2477, para 25; Case C-370/12 Thomas Pringle v Governement of Ireland, Ireland and The Attorney General [2012], paras 135–136; Case C-583/11 P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union [2013], paras 50, 59, 69; Case C-62/14 Gauweiler and others v Deutscher Bundestag [2015], paras 93–100; Case C-286/14 European Parliament v European Commission [2016]. On the Court’s use of travaux préparatoires of the secondary legislation, see Arnull (2006), pp. 614–615; Miettinen (2013c), pp. 99, 106.
380.
Miettinen (2013b), pp. 194, 200.
381.
CONV 426/02, WG X 14, Final report of Working Group X “Freedom, Security and Justice”, Brussels, 2.12.2002, p. 9.
382.
Peczenik (1989), pp. 352 and 348.
383.
Craig (2001), pp. 125, 126–127; Raz (1998), pp. 153–154.
384.
CONV 426/02, WG X 14, Final report of Working Group X “Freedom, Security and Justice”, Brussels, 2.12.2002, p. 9; Samuli Miettinen, ‘Implied Ancillary Criminal Law Competence after Lisbon’ (2013) 3(2) European Criminal Law Review 194, 201.
385.
CONV 614/03, Brussels, 14 March 2003, p. 26.
386.
CONV 821/03, Brussels, 27 June 2003, p. 161; Miettinen (2013b), pp. 194, 204.
387.
See, for example, Government’s proposal (Finland) concerning the approval of the Lisbon Treaty, HE 23/2008 vp, Hallituksen esitys Eduskunnalle Euroopan unionista tehdyn sopimuksen ja Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen muuttamisesta tehdyn Lissabonin sopimuksen hyväksymisestä ja laiksi sen lainsäädännön alaan kuuluvien määräysten voimaansaattamisesta, 181 II.
388.
CONV 426/02, WG X 14, Final report of Working Group X “Freedom, Security and Justice”, Brussels, 2.12.2002, p. 9.
389.
Schütze (2009), pp. 525, 527.
390.
Ibid., pp. 525, 532.
391.
Ibid., pp. 525, 527.
392.
Cooper (2006), p. 281.
393.
Schütze (2009), pp. 525, 530.
394.
CONV 727/03, Draft sections of Part Three with comments, Brussels, 27 May 2003, p. 32.
395.
Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on market abuse (market abuse regulation) and repealing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directives 2003/124/EC, 2003/125/EC and 2004/72/EC Text with EEA relevance [2014] OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, pp. 1–61; COM(2011) 651 final, European Commission, proposal for a Regulation on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse), Brussels, 20 October 2011, pp. 1–5.
396.
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; COM(2011) 654 final, European Commission, proposal for a Directive on criminal sanctions for insider dealing and market manipulation, Brussels, 20 October 2011; COM(2012) 420 final, European Commission, Amended proposal for a Directive on criminal sanctions for insider dealing and market manipulation, Brussels, 25 July 2012.
397.
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 menas of criminal law OJ L 198, 28.7.2017, pp. 29–41.
398.
Asp (2012), pp. 125–126.
399.
Ibid., p. 125.
400.
For example, in France, the penalty scales simply state the maximum penalties but remain silent on the threshold of the minimum penalties (French Penal Code, english translation available in internet www.legifrance.gouv.fr/Traductions/en-English/Legifrance-translations, accessed 25 June 2018).
401.
CIG 47/03, IGC 2003, Declarations annexed to the Final Acts of the intergovernmental conferences which adopted the EC and EU Treaties and the Treaties and Acts which amended them, Brussels 10 November 2003, pp. 5, 109.
402.
Miettinen (2013b), pp. 194, 205.
403.
Anne Weyembergh (in collaboration with Serge de Biolley) (2013), p. 15.
404.
COM(2012) 363 final, proposal for a directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law, Brussels, 11 July 2012, Article 8.
405.
COM(2013) 42 final, Proposal for a Directive on the protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA, Article 5(4).
406.
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, Article 5; Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament nad of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by menas of criminal law OJ L 198, 28.7.2017, pp. 29–41, Article 7.
407.
Judit Altena-Davidsen, ‘Mandatory minimum sentences coming in through the back door?’ (Leiden Law Blog http://leidenlawblog.nl/articles/mandatory-minimum-sentences-coming-in-through-the-back-door, accessed 25 June 2018.
408.
Directives enacted under Union’s criminal law legal basis after Lisbon Treaty entered into force do not contain requirements of minimum levels of minimum penalties. These directives are 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; 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; 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; 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; 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; 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; Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament nad 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; 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. 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 OJ L 127, 29.4.2014, pp. 39–50, is based on Articles 82(2) and 83(1) TFEU but naturally does not contain provisions of minimum levels of minimum penalties.
409.
This is seen as the “mainstream interpretation” of the term ‘minimum rules’, Anne Weyembergh (in collaboration with Serge de Biolley) (2013), p. 14. On the meaning of minimum rules, see for example Asp (2012), pp. 110–127; Klip (2016), pp. 178–185.
410.
Klip (2016), p. 182.
411.
Protocol 21.
412.
For insights concerning the consequences of Brexit, see Weyembergh (2017), pp. 284–299.
413.
Protocol 22.

References

Alexy R (1986) A theory of constitutional rights. OUP, reprinted 2010
Google Scholar
Appleton C, Grover B (2007) The pros and cons of life without parole. Br J Criminol 47
Article Google Scholar
Arnull A (2006) The European Union and its Court of Justice, 2nd edn. OUP
Google Scholar
Asp P (2010) Sex och Samtycke. Iustus Förlag
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
Balvig F, Gunnlaugsson H, Jerre K, Tham H, Kinnunen A (2015) The public sense of justice in Scandinavia: a study of attitudes towards punishments. Eur J Criminol 12(3)
Article Google Scholar
Barton A, Johns N (2013) The policy-making process in the criminal justice system. Routledge
Google Scholar
Beck U (2002) The terrorist threat: world risk society revisited. Theory Cult Soc 19(4)
Article Google Scholar
Bell J (1992) Populism and elitism: politics in the age of equality. Regnery Gateway
Google Scholar
Bendor AL, Sachs M (2011) The constitutional status of human dignity in Germany and Israel. Isr Law Rev 44
Article Google Scholar
Beyleveld D, Brownsword R (2001) Human dignity in bioethics and biolaw. OUP
Google Scholar
Bingham T (2011) The rule of law. Penguin Books, first published by Allen Lane, 2010
Google Scholar
Börzel TA, Panke D (2016) Europeanization. In: Cini M, Borragán NP-S (eds) European Union politics, 5th edn. OUP
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
Canovan M (1999) Trust the people! Populism and the two faces of democracy. Polit Stud 47(1)
Article Google Scholar
Catá Backer L (2007–2008) God(s) over constitutions: international and religious transnational constitutionalism in the 21st century. Miss Coll Law Rev 27
Google Scholar
Cini M (2016) Intergovernmentialism. In: Cini M, Borragán NP-S (eds) European Union politics, 5th edn. OUP
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 (2001) Constitutions, constitutionalism, and the European Union. Eur Law J 7(2)
Article Google Scholar
Craig P, de Búrca G (2011) EU law: text, cases, and materials, 5th edn. OUP
Google Scholar
Craig P, de Búrca G (2015) EU law: text, cases, and materials, 6th edn. OUP
Google Scholar
Dahl RA (1998) On democracy. Yale University Press
Google Scholar
Dan-Cohen M (2011) A concept of dignity. Isr Law Rev 44(1–2)
Article Google Scholar
Davis H (2007) Human rights law: directions. OUP
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
Delgado R (1982) Words that wound: a tort action for racial insults, epithets, and name-calling. Harv Civil Rights-Civil Lib Law Rev 17
Google Scholar
Dumortier E, Gutwirth S, Snacken S, De Hert P (2012) The rise of the penal state: what can human rights do about it? In: Snacken S, Dumortier E (eds) Resisting punitiveness in Europe? Welfare, human rights and democracy. Routledge
Google Scholar
Dworkin R (1977) Taking rights seriously. Harvard University Press
Google Scholar
Fletcher M, Lööf R, Gilmore B (2008) EU criminal law and justice. Edward Elgar Publishing
Google Scholar
Foster C (2011) Human dignity in bioethics and law. Hart Publishing
Google Scholar
Franck TM (1992) The emerging right to democratic governance. Am J Int Law 86(1)
Article Google Scholar
Frände D (2013) EU och finsk kriminalpolitik. In: Hinkkanen V, Mäkipää L (eds) Suomalainen kriminaalipolitiikka – Näkökulmia teoriaan ja käytäntöön. Tapio Lappi-Seppälän juhlakirja. University of Helsinki
Google Scholar
Gelb K (2009) Myths and misconceptions: public opinion versus public judgment about sentencing. Fed Sentencing Rep 21(4)
Article Google Scholar
Glensy RD (2011) The right to dignity. Columbia Hum Rights Law Rev 43
Google Scholar
Greenawalt K (1989) Free speech justifications. Columbia Law Rev 89(1)
Article Google Scholar
Greer S (2010) The interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights: universal principle or margin of appreciation? UCL Hum Rights Rev 3
Google Scholar
Hassemer W (1989) Symbolinen rikosoikeus ja oikeushyvien suojelu. Oikeus 18(5)
Google Scholar
Heun W (2011) The constitution of Germany: a contextual analysis. Hart Publishing
Google Scholar
Hörnle T, Kremnitzer M (2011) Human dignity as a protected interest in criminal law. Isr Law Rev 44
Article Google Scholar
Hough M, Roberts JV (1999) Sentencing in Britain: public knowledge and public opinion. Punishment Soc 1(1)
Google Scholar
Huomo-Kettunen M (2014) Kolmas tie – Euroopan unionin aineellisen rikosoikeuden toimivallan palasia SEUT 83 artiklan ulkopuolella? Lakimies 112(1)
Google Scholar
Jacobs FG, White RCA, Ovey C (2010) The European Convention on Human Rights. OUP
Google Scholar
Jareborg N (2002) Scraps of penal theory. Iustus Förlag
Google Scholar
Jensen CS (2016) Neo-functionalism. In: Cini M, Borragán NP-S (eds) European Union politics, 5th edn. Oxford, OUP
Google Scholar
Jokila H (2010) Tahdonvastainen suostumus ja liiallisen luottamuksen hinta. Suomalaisen lakimiesyhdistyksen julkaisuja
Google Scholar
Kahan DM (1996) What do alternative sanctions mean? Univ Chic Law Rev 63(2)
Article Google Scholar
Kahan DM, Posner EA (1999) Shaming white-collar criminals: a proposal for reform of the federal sentencing guidelines. J Law Econ 42(1)
Article Google Scholar
Klip A (2016) European criminal law: an integrative approach, 3rd edn. Intersentia
Google Scholar
Lappi-Seppälä T (2012) Explaining national differences in the use of imprisonment. In: Snacken S, Dumortier E (eds) Resisting punitiveness in Europe? Welfare, human rights and democracy. Routledge
Google Scholar
Lewis J (2016) The Council of the Euroepan Union and the European Council. In: Cini M, Borragán NP-S (eds) European Union politics, 5th edn. OUP
Google Scholar
Ligeti K (2013) Approximation of substantive criminal law and the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. 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
Ligeti K, Simonato M (2013) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office: towards a truly European prosecution service? New J Eur Crim Law 4(1–2)
Article Google Scholar
Lijphart A (1999) Patterns of democracy: government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. Yale University Press
Google Scholar
Lindberg LN (1963) The political dynamics of European economic integration. Stanford University Press
Google Scholar
Loewenstein K (1937a) Militant democracy and fundamental rights I. Am Polit Sci Rev XXXI(3)
Google Scholar
Loewenstein K (1937b) Militant democracy and fundamental rights I. Am Polit Sci Rev XXXI(4)
Google Scholar
Macklem P (2006) Militant democracy, legal pluralism, and the paradox of self-determination. Int J Const Law 4(3)
Article Google Scholar
Marguery T (2013) European Union fundamental rights and member states action in EU criminal law. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 20(2)
Article Google Scholar
Marks S (2011) What has become of the emerging right to democratic governance. Eur J Int Law 22(2)
Article Google Scholar
Martín AN, Wade M, de Morales MM (2013) Federal criminal law and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. In: Ligeti K (ed) Toward a prosecutor for the European Union, volume 1: a comparative analysis. Hart Publishing
Google Scholar
Matikkala J (2012) Onko ilmaisurikoksia koskeva sääntelymme kohdallaan? In: Hyttinen T et al (eds) Rikoksesta rangaistukseen – Juhlajulkaisu Pekka Viljanen 1952 – 26/8 – 2012. Turun yliopiston oikeustieteellisen tiedekunnan julkaisuja
Google Scholar
McCrudden C (2008) Human dignity and judicial interpretation of human rights. Eur J Int Law 19(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 (2011) Europeiseringen av straffrätten och den nationella strafflagstiftningens “suveränitet”. Tidskrift utgiven av Juridiska föreningen i Finland 147(3)
Google Scholar
Melander S (2012) EU ja talousrikosoikeus. Defensor Legis 93(4)
Google Scholar
Melander S (2013) Ultima ratio in European criminal law. Oñati Socio-Leg Ser 3(1)
Article Google Scholar
Miettinen S (2013a) Criminal law and policy in the European Union. Routledge
Google Scholar
Miettinen S (2013b) Implied ancillary criminal law competence after Lisbon. Eur Crim Law Rev 3(2)
Article Google Scholar
Miettinen S (2013c) Onward transfer under the European Arrest Warrant: is the EU moving towards the free movement of prisoners? New J Eur Crim Law 4(1–2)
Article Google Scholar
Miettinen S (2015) The Europeanization of criminal law: competence and its control in the Lisbon era. University of Helsinki
Google Scholar
Mirsky Y (2005) Human rights, democracy, and the inescapability of politics; or, human dignity thick and thin. Isr Law Rev 38(1–2)
Article Google Scholar
Mitsilegas V (2009) EU criminal law. Hart Publishing
Google Scholar
Mitsilegas V, Monar J, Rees W (2003) The European Union and internal security: guardian of the people? Palgrave Macmillan
Google Scholar
Möllers C (2009) Democracy and human dignity: limits of a moralized conception of rights in German constitutional law. Isr Law Rev 42
Article Google Scholar
Nieminen L (2005) Ihmisarvon loukkaamattomuus perus- ja ihmisoikeussuojan lähtökohtana. Lakimies 103(1)
Google Scholar
Nowell-Smith H (2012) Behind the scenes in the negotiation of the EU criminal justice legislation. New J Eur Crim Law 3(3–4)
Google Scholar
Öberg J (2014) Limits to EU powers: a case study on individual criminal sanctions for the enforcement of EU law. European University Institute
Google Scholar
Ojanen T (2013) The Europeanization of Finnish law: observations on the transformations of the Finnish scene of constitutionalism. In: Nuotio K, Melander S, Huomo-Kettunen M (eds) Introduction to the Finnish law and legal culture. University of Helsinki, Forum Iuris
Google Scholar
Peczenik A (1989) On law and reason. Kluwer Academic Publishers
Google Scholar
Pellonpää M (2012) Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimus. Talentum
Google Scholar
Pettit P (1999) Republicanism: a theory of freedom and government. OUP, reprinted 2002
Google Scholar
Piris J-C (2010) The Lisbon Treaty: a legal and political analysis. CUP
Google Scholar
Pitea C (2005) Rape as a human rights violation and a criminal offence: the European court’s judgment in M.C. v. Bulgaria. J Int Crim Justice 3(2)
Article Google Scholar
Post RC (2000) Democratic constitutionalism and cultural heterogeneity. Aust J Leg Philos 25(2)
Google Scholar
Post RC (2011) Participatory democracy and free speech. Va Law Rev 97(3)
Google Scholar
Pratt J (2007) Penal populism. Routledge
Google Scholar
Raitio J (2006) Eurooppaoikeus ja sisämarkkinat. Talentum
Google Scholar
Raz J (1998) On the authority and interpretation of constitutions: some preliminaries. In: Alexander L (ed) Constitutionalism. CUP
Google Scholar
Roach K (2011) The primacy of liberty and proportionality, not human dignity, when subjecting criminal law to constitutional control. Isr Law Rev 44
Article Google Scholar
Roberts JV (2003) Public opinion and mandatory sentencing: a review of international findings. Crim Justice Behav 30(4)
Article Google Scholar
Roberts JV, Doob AN (1989) Sentencing and public opinion: taking false shadows for true substances. Osgood Hall Law J 27(3)
Google Scholar
Rogers JW (2003) Applying the doctrine of positive obligations in the European Convention of Human Rights to domestic substantive criminal law in domestic proceedings. Crim Law Rev
Google Scholar
Rosas A, Armati L (2010) EU constitutional law: an introduction. Hart Publishing
Google Scholar
Salas D (2010) La volonté de punir – Essai sur le populisme pénal. Libraire Arthème Fayard/Pluriel, first published Hachette Littératures 2005
Google Scholar
Salminen J (2010) Yksityisten oikeudellisen suojelun mahdollisuudet ja rajat Euroopan unionin kolmannen pilarin alla. In: Nuotio K, Malkki L (eds) Vapauden, turvallisuuden ja oikeuden Eurooppa. University of Helsinki, Forum Iuris
Google Scholar
Satzger H (2012) International and European criminal law. C.H.Beck
Google Scholar
Scheinin M (1998) Ihmisarvon loukkaamattomuus valtiosääntöperiaatteena. In: Van Aershot P, Ilveskivi P, Piispanen K (eds) Juhlakirja Kaarlo Tuori 50 vuotta. Helsingin yliopiston julkisoikeuden laitos
Google Scholar
Schütze R (2009) Subsidiarity after Lisbon: reinforcing the safeguards of federalism? Camb Law J 68(3)
Article Google Scholar
Snacken S (2012) Conclusion: why and how to resist punitiveness in Europe. In: Snacken S, Dumortier E (eds) Resisting punitiveness in Europe? Welfare, human rights and democracy. Routledge
Google Scholar
Snacken S, Dumortier E (2012) Resisting punitiveness in Europe? An introduction. In: Snacken S, Dumortier E (eds) Resisting punitiveness in Europe? Welfare, human rights and democracy. Routledge
Google Scholar
Sous la direction de Mireille Delmas-Marty (1997) Corpus Juris. ECONOMICA
Google Scholar
Stoyanova V (2014) Article 4 of the ECHR and the obligation of criminalising slavery, servitude, forced labour and human trafficking. Camb J Int Comp Law 3(2)
Article Google Scholar
Tonry M (2007) Determinants of penal policies. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime, punishment, and politics in comparative perspective crime and justice – a review of research, vol 36. The University of Chicago Press
Google Scholar
Tsesis A (2009) Dignity and speech: the regulation of hate speech in a democracy. Wake Forest Law Rev 44
Google Scholar
Tulkens F (2011) The paradoxical relationship between criminal law and human rights. J Int Crim Justice 9
Article Google Scholar
Tulkens F (2012) Human rights as the good and the bad conscience of criminal law. In: Snacken S, Dumortier E (eds) Resisting punitiveness in Europe? Welfare, human rights and democracy. Routledge
Google Scholar
Tuori K (1983a) Valtionhallinnon sivuelinorganisaatiosta 1. Suomalaisen lakimiesyhdistyksen julkaisuja
Google Scholar
Tuori K (1983b) Valtionhallinnon sivuelinorganisaatiosta 2. Suomalaisen lakimiesyhdistyksen julkaisuja
Google Scholar
Tuori K (2000) Kriittinen oikeuspositivismi. WSLT
Google Scholar
Tuori K (2010) The many constitutions of Europe. In: Tuori K, Sankari S (eds) The many constitutions of Europe. Ashgate
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 (2013) 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 (2017) Consequences of Brexit for European Union criminal law. New J Eur Crim Law 8(3)
Article Google Scholar
Wright GR (2006) Dignity and conflicts of constitutional values: the case of free speech and equal protection. San Diego Law Rev 43
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). Features of European Criminal Law. 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_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16174-3_3
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