|
Size: 1451
Comment:
|
Size: 2060
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 1: | Line 1: |
| = A Commission operation will make European criminal law unstoppable = | ------ [[http://www.ipred.org/MainPage Introduction]] [[http://www.ipred.org/analysis Analysis]] [[http://www.ipred.org/howto How To]] [[http://www.ipred.org/factsheet Fact sheet]] [[http://www.ipred.org/backdoor Backdoor]] ------ |
| Line 3: | Line 3: |
| After case C 176/03 the Commission retracted pending framework decisions, stating that this route is no longer available. This is nonsense, as IPRED 2 shows. The IPRED 2 measures are not essential, it should never have become a codecision directive. |
= European criminal law by the back door = A Commission operation will make European criminal law unstoppable. A recent European Court of Justice judgment (C-176/03) opens the possibility for the European Commission and Parliament to make directives containing criminal measures together, without the member states having a veto. The Commission can only make directives with criminal measures together with the European Parliament if both the objective of the Community and the measures are essential. After case C 176/03 the Commission retracted pending framework decisions (member states have a veto), stating that this route is no longer available. This is nonsense, as [http://www.ipred.org/MainPage IPRED 2] shows. The IPRED 2 measures are not essential, IPRED 2 should never have become a codecision directive (member states do not have a veto). |
| Line 10: | Line 18: |
| their provisions were adopted on the wrong legal basis." This remains to be seen, for instance, like IPRED 2, there are some art 95 frameworks. |
their provisions were adopted on the wrong legal basis." ![1] |
| Line 13: | Line 20: |
| If these are "repaired", while the measures are not essential, precedents | This remains to be seen. If these framework decisions are "repaired", while the measures are not essential, precedents |
| Line 15: | Line 24: |
| directive, then this needs a codecision directive too. | directive, so this needs a codecision directive too. |
| Line 24: | Line 33: |
| http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0583en01.pdf | Every proposal for "regularisation" has to be scrutinised. |
| Line 26: | Line 35: |
| I did not see this point raised anywhere. IMO, we should inform the member states about this. It will make the IPRED 2 competence question more clear. And I wouldn?t like to see an unstoppable Union. |
----- ![1] http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0583en01.pdf |
http://www.ipred.org/MainPage Introduction http://www.ipred.org/analysis Analysis http://www.ipred.org/howto How To http://www.ipred.org/factsheet Fact sheet http://www.ipred.org/backdoor Backdoor
European criminal law by the back door
A Commission operation will make European criminal law unstoppable.
A recent European Court of Justice judgment (C-176/03) opens the possibility for the European Commission and Parliament to make directives containing criminal measures together, without the member states having a veto.
The Commission can only make directives with criminal measures together with the European Parliament if both the objective of the Community and the measures are essential.
After case C 176/03 the Commission retracted pending framework decisions (member states have a veto), stating that this route is no longer available. This is nonsense, as [http://www.ipred.org/MainPage IPRED 2] shows. The IPRED 2 measures are not essential, IPRED 2 should never have become a codecision directive (member states do not have a veto).
But there is more. "As a result of the Court´s judgment the framework decisions in annex are entirely or partly incorrect, since all or some of their provisions were adopted on the wrong legal basis." ![1]
This remains to be seen.
If these framework decisions are "repaired", while the measures are not essential, precedents are created. The Commission can say: we solved this with a codecision directive, so this needs a codecision directive too.
A door opened a bit by the ECJ, is kicked open by the Commission.
It was already highly questionable that a Community institution (ECJ) gave the Community the right to make criminal laws, the member states never gave it to the Community. The Commission contemplates a further assault on the sovereignty of the member states.
Every proposal for "regularisation" has to be scrutinised.
![1] http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0583en01.pdf