Annika Suominen

The Past, Present and the Future of Eurojust

The objective of this article is to shed some light on the current situation of co-operation in criminal matters in the EU, especially with regard to Eurojust. With the Lisbon Treaty, the area of freedom, security and justice is about to change. The co-operation in criminal matters will consequently also be subject to modifications. Due to the tension between effective crime control and preserving state sovereignty in co-operation in criminal matters, the establishment of a European prosecutors office has in the past encountered objections. The past of the establishment of Eurojust is analysed and the present functioning of the unit is examined. The possible establishment of a European public prosecutors office on the back of Eurojust is analysed in the light of the past developments and its future in co-operation in criminal matters is evaluated.

State responsibility when transferring non-consenting prisoners to further their social rehabilitation Lessons learnt from the asylum case law

With the adoption of the 2008 Framework Decision, the EU has awarded ‘the furthering of social rehabilitation’ a new position in the context of the transfer of prisoners. The novelty consists of it being the guiding principle for the “unconsented” transfer of prisoners. Unconsented transfer of prisoners to their home state is now possible if the sending state has satisfied itself that such transfer furthers the social rehabilitation of the prisoners involved. This research looks into the legal and practical functioning of transfers conducted for the furtherance of the social rehabilitation. Drawing upon case law in relation to similar transfer mechanisms in asylum cases, it is established that Member States that use the 2008 Framework Decision and transfer non-consenting prisoners are vulnerable to state responsibility claims not only in relation to Art. 3 ECHR violations, but possibly also in relation to the social rehabilitation programmes available in the receiving state. In practice it is not possible to adequately substantiate that a transfer would further social rehabilitation and therefore it is not possible to avoid state responsibility. Therefore, it is argued that in order to avoid a deadlock, the proper functioning of the Framework Decision on the transfer of prisoners requires flanking measures specifically targeting the social rehabilitation of prisoners.

Limits of mutual recognition in cooperation in criminal matters within the EU–especially in light of recent judgments of both European Courts

This article analyses the limits of the principle of mutual recognition in cooperation in criminal matters. To start with, some characteristics of mutual recognition are analysed, which are the multilevel character of the principle, its functions and the degree to which it is realised. The limits are then analysed, and these are divided into three main groups; limits based on EU rules and principles, limits based on the character of cooperation in criminal matters and the limits based on fundamental rights. The case law of the CJEU is discussed in this context, especially where this impacts on the limits. The limits are then examined in relation to four levels; the EU legislative level, the EU application level, the national legislative level and the national application level, as the limits function differently depending on which level they actualise. What the limits mean are then examined after that, followed by some concluding remarks.

Comparing Special Procedural Rules for the Prosecution of Politicians: A Blessing or a Curse?

This brief article is based on this projects national reports, and it focuses more specifically on special courts and procedures for the prosecution of politicians. Although the topic as such perhaps seems rather broad, focus is on special courts designed to handle the criminal liability of politicians when these are acting in their position.

Criminal Liability of Political Decision-Makers in Norway

For solving this case from a Norwegian point of view the offences in chapter 19 of the Norwegian Criminal Code, entitled Protection of official authority and trust to this, are relevant. Relevant provisions are misuse of public office, pursuant to section 173 of the Criminal Code, misconduct, according to section 171 of the Criminal Code as well as gross negligent misconduct, pursuant to section 172 of the Criminal Code. These offences may to some extent need to be stretched to be applicable in the case. The fact that M under part 1 pursues personal interests is not as such criminalized but is considered part of political decision-making in general.

Effectiveness and Functionality of Substantive EU Criminal Law

This article analyses the effectiveness and functionality of substantive EU criminal law legislation. With the Lisbon Treaty criminal law has been included as a general branch of EU law. Effective enforcement of EU law is a general principle. As a starting point it is also easy to agree on the fact that EU criminal law should be effective. But what does this really mean? Can criminal law be used just as any other measure, or does criminal law still have a specific nature, where some specific principles apply and restrict the use of criminal law instruments? These are the core questions of this article. Firstly, both effectiveness and functionality in relation to substantive EU criminal law harmonisation are defined. Secondly, the question on how to measure effectiveness in substantive EU criminal law is discussed. Thirdly, the limits for using effectiveness as an argument for new criminal law legislation are analysed. Some concluding remarks are done in the final chapter.