No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2017
During the past nine years, co-operation in criminal matters within the European Union has developed in a rather fascinating way. Before the Maastricht Treaty, which entered into force in 1993, there was not much co-operation in this area at all.
During the time before Maastricht, the focus was on the creation of the internal market, on the rules on competition etc. and criminal law did not fall within the scope of the Treaties. Thus, although Community law had (and has) some implications for national criminal law and despite the fact that some conventions were agreed upon within the European Political Co-operation one cannot really say that criminal law questions were formally on the agenda before Maastricht.
1 For example, a convention on double jeopardy has been in existence since 1987 (Convention between the Member States of the European Communities on double jeopardy, Brussels 25 May 1987), as well as a convention on the enforcement of foreign criminal sentences since 1991 (Convention between the Member States of the European Communities on the enforcement of foreign criminal sentences, Brussels 13 November 1991).
2 See, e.g. Convention on simplified extradition procedure between the Member States of the European Union (OJ 1995 C 78/1) and Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (OJ 1995 C 316/48).
3 See for example, the framework decision on increasing protection by criminal penalties and other sanctions against counterfeiting in connection with the introduction of the euro (OJ 2001 L 140/1).
4 See e.g. Hassemer, W. ‘Diskussionsbeitrag’ in Sieber, U. (ed.) Europäische Einigung und Europäisches Strafrecht, Beiträge zum Gründungssymposium der Vereinigung für Europäisches Strafrecht e. V. (Köln, Carl Heymanns Verlag KG, 1993) 126 ffGoogle Scholar.
5 As an example, one could mention that the number of cheque frauds in Sweden was reduced by about 80% when the public bank guarantee was abolished and it became mandatory to show an identity card when using cheques.