Differences between revisions 3 and 4
Revision 3 as of 2006-08-27 11:47:32
Size: 1317
Editor: AnteWessels
Revision 4 as of 2006-08-27 11:53:33
Size: 1553
Editor: AnteWessels
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 1: Line 1:
------ [[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]] ------

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.

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.

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, 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.


backdoor (last edited 2009-05-30 23:30:39 by localhost)