Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T01:35:01.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Harmonisation and Cooperation within the Third Pillar—Built in Risks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2017

Petter Asp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 4 , 2001 , pp. 15 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

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.