|
Size: 1451
Comment:
|
← Revision 11 as of 2009-05-30 23:30:39 ⇥
Size: 2061
Comment: converted to 1.6 markup
|
| 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. |
|
| Line 8: | Line 4: |
| 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." This remains to be seen, for instance, like IPRED 2, there are some art 95 frameworks. |
= European criminal law by the back door = |
| Line 13: | Line 6: |
| If these are "repaired", while the measures are not essential, precedents are created. The Commission can say: we solved this with a codecision directive, then this needs a codecision directive too. |
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. |
| Line 19: | Line 22: |
| 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 |
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 |
| Line 24: | Line 25: |
| 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 27: |
| 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 |
Introduction] Analysis] How To] Fact sheet] 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 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