Nature of EU criminal law
general principles of ECL interplays with âgeneral partâ of criminal law (e.g. elements of crime, jurisdiction, modes of liability)
normative foundations EU criminal law (has fundamental nature, proximity to EU values, legal standard with real normative effects)
judicially asserted and/or treaty based
sectoral EU law principles (effectiveness, effective and dissuasive penalties, harmonization)
constitutional traditions (legality)
so, a bit fragmented but in jurisprudence referred to as âgenerally accepted rule/principle of EC lawâ , "basic principle of law"; âfundamental principleâ
List of principles
Specific to EU
Equality/equivalence of EU citizens
Non-discrimination (in between EU specific and domestic origin)
Sincere cooperation
Effectiveness
Mutual recognition
Harmonization/Assimilation
Primacy
Principles of domestic origin (but in EU crim law)
Legality (certainty & non retroactivity)
Ne bis in idem
Importance of principles
Gap-Filling = not clear criteria, principle can be helpful to be invoked, where the primary and secondary legislation do not provide clear or any answer
Court identified lacuna and then tries to identify general principle to fill lacuna
Interpretative aid = to clarify EU or MS legal norms
object and purpose
Benchmarks & constraints = reviewing validity/applicability of EU or MS law
requiring negative actions (e.g. disapplying EU law) or positive measures (penalties)
Protective dimension
Status of General Principles
Equivalent to EU primary legislation, or superior (especially when used as normative benchmarks)
Principles among themselves -> some are more important in case of conflict between principles (lex specialis = subject by subject)
legality > direct effect
ne bis in idem > proportionate penalties
Principle specific to a specific area of law, prevails over general principles of law (e.g. legality in CL over effectiveness)
Sources of principles
Treaties (TEU, CFR)
sincere cooperation (4 TEU) proportionality (5(1)+(4) TEU) equality of citizens (9 TEU)
legality, proportionality (49 CFR)
non-discrimination (21(1) CFR)
Fundamental Rights
ECHR (6(3) TEU; ECtHR case law
CFR before it became primary instrument
Constitutional traditions common to MS
52(4) CFR
Principle of Legality
Important in criminal law
Legal certainty (lex certa) + non-retroactivity (praevia)
Sources
Art 49(1) CFR
nullum crimen (cannot be punished for something not criminalized)
nulla poena (not a heavier penalty than imposed at time of offense)
lex mitior (if penalty lighter subsequent to commission crime then that penalty applies)
Justification court (this is why it is a general principle)
Art 2 TEU = rule of law â legality is a component of that
Art 7 ECHR
non-retroactivity common to legal orders MS
Implications from CJEU case law
non-implemented EU law cannot serve as basis for CR
regulations envisaging domestic measures cannot give rise to or aggravate CR (parameters of crim and penalisation need to be spelled out clearly)
Directives/FDs cannot lead to dis-application of MS laws which preclude or mitigate CR
Limits to indirect effect & D/FD-conforming interpretation
Conforming interpretations of procedural law are not prohibited
Principle of Legality â substantive law
Kolpinghuis Nijmegen + Pretoredi Salo
âa directive cannot itself...have the effect of determining or aggravating the liability in criminal law of personsâ
Berlusconi
directives may not be relied on to create criminal law obligations, but also not be used to set aside national law which would preclude criminal law obligations
Criminal proceedings against X
regulation cannot give rise to CR absent of implementing national law
Principle of Legality â procedural law
Pupino
certainty and non-retroactivity prevent harmonious interpretation FD from CR being determined or aggravated, indepenndently of an implementing law BUT interpreting evidentiary rules in line with FD is not legality breach
Advocaten voor de wereld
lack of requirement to verify double criminality of offences in Art 2(2) FD EAW no legality breach (mutual trust)
Ne Bis in Idem
"not twice in the sameâ â cannot be punished twice for the same conduct
CISA Art 54
CFR Art 50
FD EAW Art 3(2) = mandatory ground for refusal
IDEM (conduct)
defined by CJEU in van Esbroeck, van Straaten, and Kraaijenbrink that it is âa set of concrete circumstancesâŠinextricably linked together in time, space and subject matterâ where the âinextricable linkâ does not need to be identical (e.g. in the case of importing/exporting drugs quantity doesnt need to be identical) and link does not depend solely on defendant's intentions
ENFORCEMENT requirement
penalty imposed, in the process of being imposed, enforced, or can no longer be enforced
CJEU Spasic = execution requirement general validity for NBII in AFSJ
BIS
"case finally disposed ofâ = decision must be FINAL, barring further prosecution
NBII applies
Gozutok & Brugge
van Straaten
Gasparini
NBII not barring
Miraglia: closed proceedings w/o assessment conduct
Turansk: police suspended proceedings/expiry lim period
Kossowski: prosecutor terminated proceedings w/o investigatioon
TEST â does MS law definitely bar prosecution? has the case been properly investigated?
Pretore di Salo 1987
dead fish
Provisions of directive that are sufficiently precise can apply to individuals (to use against state) , but cannot be used by state on individuals
General Principle (direct effect -> directives which are sufficiently clear precise can give rise to rights of individuals to invoke against states, even if not transposed or impartially or incorrectly transposed) but the contrary is not true; states cannot rely on unimplemented directives to invoke obligations against individuals
Cannot rely on directives even if sufficiently clear, against individuals, to aggravate criminal liability)'
= PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY IS A LIMIT TO DIRECT EFFECT OF DIRECTIVES'
Can only rely on NATIONAL law in criminal proceedings against nationals when they determine or aggravate liability of individuals
But then..berlusconi?
Kolpinghuis Nijmegen (1987)
direct effect and to clarify direct effect is also limited
confirmed that the directives cannot be retroactively applied & cannot aggravate liability
also clarified what the relationship between princ of legality and direct effect of directives is (â indirect effect is also limited by principle of legality)
In principle, state shave obligation to interpret national law as far as possible in interpreting EU law, also if not implemented, but NOT if it breaches principle of legality
At the time of commission offence, NL was still transposing the directives (still in compliance w EU law, not violated obligation, still had time) but the court said this made no difference -> still cannot rely on national law to aggravate criminal liability
Berlusconi 2005
â Not only may a directive not be relied on to create crim law obligations, a directive may also not be used to set aside national law which would preclude crim law obligations
Context:
false tax info
applicable penal code (in this case, Italian civil code) was in line with directive at the time of the commission of the offence â once proceedings ongoing, code changed, so now false acoounting was subject to STRICTER limitation periods but subject to lesser penalties, treated as lesser offence â not in line anymore with directive
Specific council directive that requires MS to criminalize offences and impose penalties
Question: is Italian legislation in compliance with directive? And if it wasnt, is there an obligation to dis-apply national provisions that are not in compliance with EU obligations?
Court: obligation to dis-apply, but obligation cannot be imposed if leads to a breach of legality
Breach of legality identified by court = principle of application of more lenient penalties (civil law systems) â if current law that is applicable at the time would lead to more favorable treatment of defendant, then we apply this, even if not in force anymore
This case you ALLOW RETROACTIVE application
However, if previous legislation results in harsher penalties, then breach of legality because against lex meteor (milder penalty applies)
Impunity, then newer EU law would be applied, because cannot rely on directive to justify application of former laws if former laws result in impunity
Maria Pupino 2005
1) Clarifies indirect effect of FD and 2) how substantive law is distinguished from procedural law with regards to principle of legality
Context
Framework decision: minors can testify under special procedure
Not available in Italy (only in sexual mistreatment) but that wasnât the case here. Under Italian law, minors could not testify, but FD did allow minors to testify
Question: whether Italian national courts were allowed to extend special procedure of council FD to minors under 5 for non-sexual offences, even though not foreseen under national law?
Violation of Legality? â subject to proceedings for which special rule is applied in unforeseen circumstance
Indirect effect to FD â does it violate principle of legality?
Part 1 ruling on indirect effect FD: yes -> FD have indirect effect (so not direct effect like directives) but in this case can interpret national laws in light of the FD
FD do not have direct effect. They have indirect effect. Indirect effect means that court is allowed/obliged to use this decision in interpreting own laws (even if EU law is not implemented appropriately or adequately)
Part 2 ruling on indirect effect FD: legality? -> not a problem,
limits of direct effect are then the same as directives so need to consider legality
Can person foresee?
Court said in the case of criminal procedure (interpreting evidentiary rules in line with FD), not so much a problem w the principle of legality â no legality
In line w Taricco II?
Advocaten voor de Wereld 2007
List to verify double criminality for EAW extradition
needs to be equivalent criminal offence
32 categories of crimes in EAW list â these are not subject to analysis of double criminality
Question: is it a breach of legality to surrender (no analysis of double criminality) if the crime is not criminalized in one of the MS because the list is not fully harmonized yet?
Court:
it concerns procedure and not substantive law â legality threshold of mechanism of criminal procedure is not that high, but also
FD was never meant to harmonize definitions of offences it is for national jurisdictions to define them more clearly to confirm with legality
â Instrument itself did not need to define, that was left to MS, as long as issuing MS they had definitions that comply with principle of legality, then there is NO BREACH
Executing MS has to TRUST that the other state is complying with the principle of legality
Effective enforcement of EU law â
Effective, proportionate, dissuasive penalties (principle of effectiveness)
Indirect and direct effect
GözĂŒtok and BrĂŒgge 2003
ne bis in idem â pecuniary settlement (NBII applies to final judgements, regardless of whether classified as administrative or criminal sanctions)
Question: can person X be subject to prosecution/extradition in another state, if they have received a pecuniary settlement in another MS (if that settlement is classified as administrative under national law)?
No, because âfinally dealt withâ so not criminal proceedings
Bear in mind whether case has been finally disposed of, and what does that mean
Court: it is any case where there has been assessment of 1) merits and 2) persons has been acquitted or tried & convicted â so case has been finally disposed of
Doensnt matter if intervention national court, as long as under nat law the authorities involved were empowered to assess the merits of the case
Obligation was imposed upon individual, even if pecuniary obligation -> so in this case there was clearly an assessment of the case and an assessment that led to the pecuniary settlement
*Any decision that under NATIONAL law would BAR prosecution -> also counts for ne bis in idem between MS so on a EU level
Provions to turn to when applying
Art 54 Shengen Convention (CISA)
Free movement of people (because it would inhibit this out of fear they would be tried for same acts again)
Art 50 CFR (fundamental rihjt, prohibition against double jeopardy)
Ă kerberg Fransson 2013
Ne bis in idem â imposition of a tax penalty
Dependent on national legislation â criminal or civil/administrative character
If purely administrative, NOT ne bis in idem
â BUT NBII â when administrative proceedings against this person could BAR prosecution IF (administrative) proceedings ledd to penalty that was CRIMINAL in nature
If 2 proceedings -> first administrative but led to criminal penalty, that bars the prosecution under crim proceedings = NBII
Engel criteria ECHR (PARA 35 Fransson case) also confirmed by Bonda CJEU (?)
Legal classification under national law of the offence
True nature of the penalties (punitive or not)
Harshness or severity of the penalty
Summary of cases CJEU â Principle of Legality
Di Salo â identify principle of legality as a limit to the direct effect of directives
Kolpenhuis nijmegen â direct effect and to clarify direct effect is also limited
Pupino â turn to first to identify indirect effect of FD and second to distinguish between sub and proc law with regards to application of principle of legality and its limitation to the conforming interpretation
Berlusconi â case that applies the principle of lex meteor to the realm of EU crim law, case that clarifies that the obligation of states to dis-apply national provisions not confirming to EU law cannot lead to situations that determine or aggravate the criminal responsibility of an individual