Table Of Content

Comparative, European & International Criminal Justice 2 Legitimizing European Criminal Law Justiﬁ cation and Restrictions Merita Kettunen Comparative, European and International Criminal Justice Volume 2 Editor-in-Chief Roberto E. Kostoris, University of Padua, Padua, Italy Series Editors Mirjan Damaška, Yale University, New Haven, USA Juan Luis Gómez Colomer, Jaume I University, Castellón de la Plana, Spain Giulio Illuminati, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy John Jackson, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Bruce Smith, University of Denver, Denver, USA Mark A. Zöller, University of Trier, Trier, Germany Advisory Editors Lorena Bachmaier Winter, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain Marta Bargis, University of Eastern Piedmont Amedeo Avogadro, Vercelli, Italy Silvia Barona Vilar, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain Mireille Delmas-Marty, Collège de France, Paris, France Emilio Dolcini, University of Milan, Milan, Italy Piotr Hofmański, International Criminal Court, The Hague, The Netherlands Maria Kaiafa-Gbandi, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece André Klip, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands Raimo Lahti, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland Renzo Orlandi, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy Francesco Palazzo, University of Florence, Florence, Italy Viorel Pașca, West University of Timișoara, Timișoara, Romania Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, France Ulrich Sieber, Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Freiburg, Germany John A. E. Vervaele, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands Anne Weyembergh, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium James Q. Whitman, Yale University, New Haven, USA Raúl Zaffaroni, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, San José, Costa Rica Associate Editors Michele Caianiello, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy Marcello Daniele, University of Padua, Padua, Italy Michele Papa, University of Florence, Florence, Italy Pier Paolo Paulesu, University of Padua, Padua, Italy This book series focuses on criminal justice from multiple perspectives. In particular, it addresses three main areas: – Comparative issues, including historical ones, in order to highlight the common roots of criminal justice in common and civil law systems, both past and present. – European issues, in order to raise awareness of the link between national and transnational levels, in the perspective of the European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights law, in the area of criminal justice, namely focusing on the protection of fundamental rights and on judicial and police cooperation. – International issues, namely those related to the functioning of the International Criminal Court and of the other international criminal tribunals, but also in regard to international human rights courts. The book series addresses the phenomenon of criminal justice with a particular, but not exclusive, focus on procedural aspects, from a multidisciplinary perspective – an essential approach in today’s globalized world. It provides academic readers with authoritative and timely debates on the emerg- ing issues of criminal justice, and also offers judges and lawyers useful indications and suggestions. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/16095 Merita Kettunen Legitimizing European Criminal Law Justification and Restrictions Merita Kettunen Helsinki, Finland ISSN 2524-4558 ISSN 2524-4566 (electronic) Comparative, European and International Criminal Justice ISBN 978-3-030-16173-6 ISBN 978-3-030-16174-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16174-3 © Springer International Publishing Switzerland and G. Giappichelli Editore 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Preface European criminal law consists of EU criminal law and influences stemming from the ECHR regime. The legitimacy of this European criminal law has not really been theoretically examined by criminal law researchers. Many of the previous studies on European criminal law start from the dynamic rationale of general EU law rather than from the thinking which reflects the discipline of criminal law. This work aims to fill this space. The work provides a criminal law-oriented normative view on how the use of European criminal law, and in particular the use of EU criminal law, could be legitimized from the perspective of criminal law doctrine. In other words, the work aims to show how, under which criteria, the use of criminal law as it stands, and the enactment of criminal legislation in particular, can be seen as legitimate. Thus, the aim of this work is not to argue for the legitimacy of criminal law in general. This research suggests that European criminal legislation ought to respect and follow certain European criminalization principles. The research adopts a constitutional approach since the limits for the use of European criminal law, the European criminalization principles, are derived from European constitutional norms. Constitutional elements are also increasingly important to criminal law, especially in its European transnational context. The main research question is how the use of European criminal law can be justi- fied. The research starts by illustrating the differences of traditional and European criminal law. It then reflects on differences between general EU law and EU criminal law to illustrate the special character of European criminal law. The research claims that even though the European states have lessened their autonomy by engag- ing in cooperation in the field of criminal law, this cooperation actually increases their sovereignty because it enables the Member States to react better to cross- border crime which affects their interests. The use of European criminal law needs to respect the normative paradigm which it was designed to follow. In the EU context, this normative paradigm is expressed in the safeguard mechanisms included in the substantive criminal competence provision enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Article 83 TFEU) and in the European principles of criminalization that can be v vi Preface derived from this Article. The European Convention on Human Rights regime also provides a value basis for criminal law enacted at both EU and national levels. This research focuses on the use of substantive criminal law as it stands at the level of criminalization (enactment of criminal legislation). It is also possible to draw some general conclusions on the acceptability of European criminal law. The legal basis for the legislative act and its ratio legis affect the teleological interpretation of the Union’s substantive criminal legislation. For this reason, the choice of legal basis is not merely a technical legal issue. The question of legal basis is in fact a normative issue and an issue of criminal policy. The choice of legal basis determines the type of instruments that can be used to enact EU criminal legislation, namely whether the legislation is given in the form of a regulation or a directive. This determines how EU criminal law affects national law and its application. The legal basis affects how much flexibility there is for the Member States in the imple- mentation of that instrument into the national criminal justice system. The research shows that the European criminalization principles ought to guide the choice of legal basis when legislative proposals include criminal law content. Recent changes in how the Court of Justice of the European Union interprets the Treaties support this argument. The Court has changed its doctrine to allow the travaux préparatoires to the EU Treaties as evidence. In these cases, the travaux are used in order to establish the ratio legis of the Treaty provisions. The Court refers to the travaux only when textual interpretation is not sufficient and when the travaux can add value to the interpretation by establishing the ratio legis. The Court has only made static references to the travaux, meaning that the Court has relied on them only when the reference does not entail constitution-building through dynamic Treaty interpretation. Criminal law measures are highly intrusive for those individuals on whom they are imposed. In this individual rights-sensitive sense, criminal law is a highly politi- cal field of law, which needs to be enacted in a democratic process. Since criminal law is also a highly sovereignty-sensitive area of law, criminal legislative mechanisms at the transnational level should be fundamental rights sensitive and respect the core contents of national criminal justice systems and thus also state sovereignty. The principle of legality demands that criminal legislation is interpreted strictly. The principle of ultima ratio requires that criminal legislation is used sparsely. From this criminal law perspective, the travaux préparatoires of the Treaties ought not to be utilized to support dynamic interpretations of the Union’s substantive criminal law competence if this would increase the scope of the Union’s substantive criminal law competence or change its nature. The travaux prépara- toires of the Union’s substantive criminal law competence in addition to the Court’s new interpretation method support this kind of restrictive interpretation. The writing process of this book has been multilayered. This book is based on my doctoral dissertation (titled ‘Legitimizing the use of transnational criminal law—The European framework’) that I defended in 2015 in the Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki. I want to thank professor Neil Walker and professor Thomas Elholm for their comments on the doctoral thesis during its pre-examina- Preface vii tion. I would also like to thank my thesis supervisor Sakari Melander, professor Kimmo Nuotio and professor Dan Frände for their support and comments; professor emeritus Raimo Lahti for his continuing encouragement; and my colleagues at the University of Helsinki for their support. Most of all I want to remember and thank my family and friends for their support during this process. Helsinki, Finland Merita Kettunen Contents 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Objective and Structure of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Preview of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3 Theoretical Framework and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.3.1 Constitutional Pluralism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.3.2 A Normative Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1.3.3 Rules of Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 2 The Nature of Traditional Criminal Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 2.1 Criminal Law as an Expression of State Power and Sovereignty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 2.2 Justifying the Use of Criminal Law as an Institution: The General Justifying Aim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 2.2.1 Looking Ahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 2.2.2 More than Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 2.3 Justifying the Use of Punishment in Individual Cases . . . . . . . . . . . 62 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 3 Features of European Criminal Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 3.1 Dimensions of European Criminal Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 3.2 History of European Criminal Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 3.3 Basic Values of European Criminal Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 3.3.1 Protection of Human Dignity as a Precondition for European Criminal Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 3.3.2 Pluralistic Democracy as a Precondition for European Criminal Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 3.3.3 ECHR Regime and Criminal Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 3.4 Difference Between National Criminal Law and European Criminal Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 3.5 Difference Between General EU Law and EU Criminal Law . . . . . 117 ix x Contents 3.5.1 Vertical Direct Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 3.5.2 Primacy of EU Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 3.5.3 Indirect Effect/Conforming Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 3.6 C riminal Law Decision-Making in the EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 3.7 Legal Basis Determines the Union’s Competence to Enact Substantive Criminal Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 3.7.1 Rules on the Choice of Legal Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 3.7.2 Implicit Substantive Criminal Law Competence Pre- Lisbon and Its Meaning Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 3.7.3 Travaux Préparatoires Advocate That Article 83 TFEU Was Intended to Exhaust Union’s Substantive Criminal Law Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 3.7.4 Nature of the Substantive Criminal Law Competence of Article 83 TFEU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 4 Theoretical Ideals for European Constitutional Structures and Criminal Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 4.1 Heterarchical Constitutional Structures of the ECHR Regime . . . . 151 4.1.1 Heterarchical Constitutional Structures Pertaining Between National Legal Orders and the ECHR Regime . . . . . . . . . . 151 4.1.2 Heterarchical Constitutional Structures Pertaining Between the ECHR Regime and the EU Legal Order . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 4.2 Heterarchical Constitutional Structures of the EU Law. . . . . . . . . . 159 4.2.1 Primacy of EU Law, Member States as the Masters of the Treaties, Principle of Sincere Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 4.2.2 Criminal Law Specific Heterarchical Constitutional Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 4.3 Heterarchical Constitutional Pluralism in the European Legal Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 4.4 European Criminalization Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 4.4.1 Subsidiarity and Proportionality: The Transnational Dimension of Ultima Ratio Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 4.4.2 Respect for Fundamental Aspects of National Criminal Justice Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 4.4.3 The Principle of Legality: Transnational Dimension . . . . . . 176 4.4.4 Respect of Fundamental Rights: Transnational Dimension . . . 182 4.4.5 Protected Interests: Transnational Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . 188 4.4.6 European Criminalization Principles Can Be Derived from Article 83 TFEU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194