Revision 1 as of 2006-08-27 11:42:00
|Deletions are marked like this.||Additions are marked like this.|
|Line 5:||Line 5:|
|2 shows. The IPRED 2 measures are not essential, it should never have||2 shows. The IPRED 2 measures are not essential, IPRED 2 should never have|
|Line 24:||Line 24:|
|Every proposal for "regularisation" has to be scrutinised.
|Line 25:||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.
A Commission operation will make European criminal law unstoppable
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, IPRED 2 should never have become a codecision directive.
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.
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 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.