Formation and development of the normative function of the EU criminal law policy

Abstract

The history of the European Union’s criminal law policy suggests that EU criminal law will not reflect any specific national criminal law in the foreseeable future. The types of offenses that form the backbone of the national system of criminal law protection, namely general crimes against persons, crimes against property such as theft, fraud or destruction of property, as well as offenses against public order, etc., are unlikely to be harmonized at the EU level in the near future. However, subject and institutional powers that allow Member States to interact in the investigation, prosecution, and enforcement of sentences indicate the possibility of cooperation regarding these types of crime within the framework of criminal procedural or criminal executive policy. Instead, three key types of problems should be highlighted that have led to the implementation of EU criminal law policy measures or the approximation of substantive criminal law. First of all, this concerns the protection of the primary (general) interests of the European Union, which obviously would find it difficult to act effectively if, for example, fraud against its interests were not subject to criminal law protection. In addition, for example, counterfeiting of currency (Euro) also causes damage to a sphere of general interest at the EU level. The second group of measures concerns cross-border crime. Although sometimes cross-border criminal offenses are not related to the primary interests of the European Union, they still relate to issues where the consequences of such offenses inherently have a cross-border element, and in this regard, affect the interests of both individual states and the European Union as a whole. In addition, the modus operandi of criminal offenses may typically involve cross-border activity. If such activity is not prosecuted within the framework of criminal law policy in all legal systems of Member States, this may affect the possibility of reducing effective investigation and prosecution. In particular, the emission of pollutants inevitably entails cross-border consequences; money laundering usually initiates related transactions bypassing the borders of several states. The third category can be defined as criminal offenses with high publicity factors (they often contain cross-border elements). Obviously, they also affect the legitimate interests of the European Union, which must be protected by the efforts of criminal law policy. However, they have another distinctive feature: they significantly affect the security of the entire European Union. An example of such acts is, in particular, terrorism.