Dissertations / Theses on the topic 'European criminal law'

This thesis addresses the nature of European Union criminal law (ECL). It claims that ECL has evolved along two main expanding dynamics, both with a significant punitive emphasis. The first dynamic of ECL focuses on the fight against a particular type of criminality that the European Union perceives as threatening to its goals - ‘Euro-crime’ - a criminality with particular features (complex in structure and which attempts primarily against public goods) that reflects the nature of contemporary societies. This focus was brought about by rationales such as the fight against organised crime, the protection of EU interests and policies, and recently, the protection of the victim. In turn, the second dynamic of ECL reinforces the State’s capacity to investigate, prosecute and punish beyond its own national borders. It does so, not only in relation to Euro-crime, but also in relation to a broader range of criminality. This thesis will further argue that these two dynamics have contributed to a more severe penality across the European Union by increasing levels of formal criminalisation; by facilitating criminal investigation, prosecution and punishment; and by placing more pressure on more lenient States. Furthermore, it will claim that this punitive emphasis of ECL has, more recently, begun to be nuanced. This has taken place at the national level as some Member States have shown reluctance to fully accepting the enhanced punitive tone of ECL instruments. It has also taken place at EU level as the punitive emphasis of EU legal instruments was modulated and the protection of fundamental rights has taken a more central place in the ‘post Lisbon’ framework. Thus, at this later stage of ECL a dialectic between punitiveness and moderation began to surface.

The goal of the thesis is to explore how a concept of fair criminal evidence in Europe can be utilised by the EU in its further steps of integration in the area of European Criminal Law. The answer to this question presupposes that there is indeed such a concept and the exploration can be further split in two questions. Which are the characteristics of a concept on evidential fairness in Europe? Which are the applications of this concept in EU Criminal Law? As far as the characteristics of such a concept are concerned, it is argued that fairness in evidential matters in a European level comes into existence in the realm of the Council of Europe. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is presented as evidence-­‐relevant, while the context of Strasbourg’s case law is proposed as the right platform for finding the material needed for the distillation of the principles of evidential fairness. In relation to the second question, the interest moves into the European Union and the evidential matters in the context of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. More specifically, it is discussed how the findings about a fair criminal evidence concept apply to the judicial cooperation in criminal evidence in EU level. By the term ‘applying’ it is meant the testing of two different conditions; firstly, if the principles adopted are already followed in practice, and to what extent, and secondly, how they can improve and adjust the existing system. In this process the key role of mutual recognition’s character is demonstrated and particular amendments to existing and future legislative instruments such as the European Evidence Warrant and the European Investigation Order are proposed.

The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is the first and most important measure in the field of European criminal law for the purpose of implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions. The Framework Decision which introduced it was adopted on 13 June 2002 following point 35 of the Conclusions of the Tampere European Council of 15-16 October 1999 (aiming at abolishing the formal extradition procedure among the Member States of the European Union). The Warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State, which requires the arrest and surrender of a person by another Member State, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order. It is issued when the person whose return is sought is accused of an offence for which the law establishes a maximum of at least one year in prison, or when the person has already been sentenced to a prison term of at least four months. The research aims at exploring the context in which the EAW was adopted, as part of the mutual recognition agenda. This will be done through an analysis of the substantive and procedural legal aspects of its implementation. Is mutual recognition correctly implemented? While some authors hail it as a giant leap towards a new system of inter-state judicial cooperation, others view it as a danger for the traditional principles of criminal law as developed in Europe in the last centuries. The thesis will look at the functioning of the EAW in the EU criminal law area and at its implications for national sovereignty as well as individual rights, with particular reference to the radical modification of the principles of classical extradition law. An evaluation of its effectiveness and its real importance will be carried out from both an international and a European law point of view.

Тези виступу зарубіжного гостя в рамках ІІІ Міжнародного молодіжного наукового юридичного форуму.
No punishment without law. A basic principle of criminal and penal law, which is universally recognised and outlined in major human rights conventions [8, p. 1; 6, p. 226]. Article 7 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: ECHR) states that no one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed [5, article 7(1)]. Moreover,the penalty imposed must not be heavier than the one applicable at the time of the criminal offence [5, article 7(2)].

Тези виступу зарубіжного гостя в рамках ІІІ Міжнародного молодіжного наукового юридичного форуму.
No punishment without law. A basic principle of criminal and penal law, which is universally recognised and outlined in major human rights conventions [8, p. 1; 6, p. 226]. Article 7 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: ECHR) states that no one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed [5, article 7(1)]. Moreover,the penalty imposed must not be heavier than the one applicable at the time of the criminal offence [5, article 7(2)].

This thesis is a critique of the European Court of Human Rights’ case law on the right to a fair trial in criminal cases. It is the result of a focussed and extensive survey of Article 6 case law, and, unlike other work on Article6, does not analyse each component right of Article 6 one-by-one. Instead, the thesis considers ‘cross-cutting’ themes common to all, or many, of the Article 6 component rights: how the Court interprets Article 6, how the Court sees its role in Article 6 cases, how the Court approaches Article 6’s internal structure, the Court’s implied rights jurisprudence, and how the Court assesses alleged Article 6 violations. In considering how the Court assesses alleged violations of Article 6, the thesis charts the Court’s attempts to solve ‘the puzzle of Article 6’: how should violations of Article 6 be assessed in the absence of an express metaprinciple? In this regard the thesis examines notions such as the proceedings as a whole test, counterbalancing and defect-curing, the ‘never fair’ jurisprudence, and the extent to which the public interest may justify restrictions on Article 6. The thesis uses a rule of law framework to test the Article 6 case law for its ability to provide guidance to citizens, lawyers and officials. It argues that the case law is marked by considerable uncertainty, inconsistency, and incoherence, with the result that the ability of that case law to provide guidance is significantly undermined. Indeed, the thesis establishes that there is inconsistency and uncertainty within the various tools and approaches used by the Court, and that there is significant incoherence between those approaches. To the extent the thesis makes a normative argument, it constitutes a robust and targeted call for the Court to adopt in this area of law a renewed, rejuvenated approach that is more consistent, more coherent, and better explained.

Modern piracy has escalated outside the coast of Somalia and in the Gulf of Aden. In order to bring suspected pirates and alleged armed robbers to justice, the European Union has entered into a regional prosecution model with Kenya. In this study I examine if the regional prosecution model between Kenya and the European Union may have any implications on international criminal law by specifically analyzing the Kenyan jurisdiction to try piracy suspects and the right to fair trial in Kenyan criminal proceedings of piracy suspects. By using a legal method, this study offers some clarity regarding Kenya’s jurisdictional basis to prosecute piracy suspects, as well as, to what extent they respect the right to a fair trial in its criminal proceedings of alleged pirates. In addition, the legal analysis demonstrates that international criminal law may be undermined and subjected to mistrust. Furthermore, the legal analysis also offers indications on a normative development of the Security Council in relation to its role in bringing perpetrators of international crimes to justice.

The main objective of this thesis is to investigate the evolution of prison law in the light of human rights and supranational sources. Drawing on a critique of traditional penological theories according to which deprivation of liberty would also deprive inmates of their basic freedoms and rights, this work analyses the growing recognition of human rights of prisoners in the Italian and European context. As far as domestic law is concerned, this thesis builds upon the case-law of Italian constitutional Court, focusing on the development given by the latter to humanitarian and rehabilitation principles applying to criminal enforcement and sentencing. The analysis therefore reveals the full acceptance of the idea that deprivation of liberty is a punishment in itself and that no additional pains or restrictions should be inflicted upon the prisoners. As for European law, an in depth investigation is carried out focusing on the case law of the European Court of Human Right, whilst the recent measures adopted by the European Union in the field of prison law are also taken into account.

The aim of this research is investigating nullum crimen sine lege as European principle. Therefore, the analysis focuses on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) interpretation of this principle. The approach of this work is top-down. Since the research question is the role of foreseeability assessment in ‘Europeanised’ Criminal Law and its possible relevance at the European and national level, when and if necessary, the chosen approach is to look first at the European perspective, in order to analyse it in depth in its own specificities and then try to link it to the national perspective. With regards to ECHR law, the autonomous definition of law and the application of foreseeability (one of the ‘qualities’ of the law) as main parameter to assess legality, both in light of retroactivity and legal certainty, are investigated. In particular, special attention is given to the role of judge-made law in the interpretation of Art. 7 ECHR. Hence, the research focuses on the role of foreseeability, milestone of European legality, as a means to find a solution to the legality issues raising from judge-made law in criminal law. The origin, rationale and application of the concept of foreseeability in ECtHR case-law are scrutinised, trying to extract its main development paths. Subsequently, the current solutions that civil law States adopt to try solving the problem of case-law in criminal law are analysed, with reference to Italy and Germany, also with regards to the traditional rationales of nullum crimen and its theoretical foundations. Moreover, the role of foreseeability and legality in the European Union legal order is considered, as an example of an effectiveness-oriented and de-formalised legal order. In the end, future perspectives for the implementation of the principle of foreseeability are analysed, with particular regard to the Italian legal order.

The aim of this research is investigating nullum crimen sine lege as European principle. Therefore, the analysis focuses on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) interpretation of this principle. The approach of this work is top-down. Since the research question is the role of foreseeability assessment in ‘Europeanised’ Criminal Law and its possible relevance at the European and national level, when and if necessary, the chosen approach is to look first at the European perspective, in order to analyse it in depth in its own specificities and then try to link it to the national perspective. With regards to ECHR law, the autonomous definition of law and the application of foreseeability (one of the ‘qualities’ of the law) as main parameter to assess legality, both in light of retroactivity and legal certainty, are investigated. In particular, special attention is given to the role of judge-made law in the interpretation of Art. 7 ECHR. Hence, the research focuses on the role of foreseeability, milestone of European legality, as a means to find a solution to the legality issues raising from judge-made law in criminal law. The origin, rationale and application of the concept of foreseeability in ECtHR case-law are scrutinised, trying to extract its main development paths. Subsequently, the current solutions that civil law States adopt to try solving the problem of case-law in criminal law are analysed, with reference to Italy and Germany, also with regards to the traditional rationales of nullum crimen and its theoretical foundations. Moreover, the role of foreseeability and legality in the European Union legal order is considered, as an example of an effectiveness-oriented and de-formalised legal order. In the end, future perspectives for the implementation of the principle of foreseeability are analysed, with particular regard to the Italian legal order.

La libre circulation des délinquants n'a jamais été accompagnée de l'ouverture des frontières aux autorités de poursuite d'Europe. Cette situation paradoxale, partiellement résolue par une coopération judiciaire étroite entre les États membres, semble insoutenable à l’aune des phénomènes criminels actuels. La mise en place d’un nouvel acteur s’est donc imposée. Concrètement, le parquet européen, en ce qu’il aurait des pouvoirs propres transcendant ceux des États membres, disposerait d’une compétence pour diriger des enquêtes et déclencher des poursuites sur le territoire de l’Union ; ce qui relève pour le moment des seules autorités nationales. Après de multiples débats, le règlement lié à sa création, constituant le fruit d’un compromis délicat, a été finalement adopté le 12 octobre 2017. Dès lors, la mise en place d’une autorité de poursuite européenne ne relève plus d’un mythe, mais devient, en elle-même, une réalité empreinte de métamorphoses au sein de l’Union européenne. Cette dernière devrait influer tant sur les réactions des États membres que de l’Union, elle-même, qui ne pourront rester inertes face à son apparition. Cette imbrication de systèmes à la fois nationaux et européen soulèvera de nombreuses difficultés de nature à la fois organiques et fonctionnelles qu’il conviendra de décrypter afin d’en comprendre les enjeux. L’étude du statut du parquet européen imposera de circonscrire corrélativement la notion d’autorité judiciaire au sein de l’Union européenne ; l’analyse de son fonctionnement, quant à lui, exigera la détermination des normes et des organes qui régiront son action. En définitive, cette étude invitera le lecteur à se questionner, plus largement, sur l’émergence d’une véritable justice pénale de l’Union européenne
Opening Member States’ borders has led to the free movement of offenders on the territory of the European Union. Nonetheless, and despite the judicial cooperation, such borders are quite real for prosecution authorities of Member States. To solve this situation which is unsustainable in the light of the current phenomena of crime, the establishment of a new European player was necessary: the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (“EPPO”). In essence, the competence of directing investigations and prosecutions – which until then had been reserved for the national authorities – should be granted to such an independent body with powers transcending those of the Member States. After many discussions and compromises, the regulation implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the EPPO was adopted on October 12th, 2017. Therefore, the creation of a European prosecution authority has become a reality that will entail changes in the territory of the European Union, at both Member State and European level. As a result of interlinking the national and European systems, such changes will raise difficulties of organic and functional nature which should be considered. On one hand, the study of the EPPO’s status will involve de facto to define the concept of judicial authority in the European Union. On the other hand, the analysis on its functioning will require the determination of the standards and bodies that will govern its action. Finally, and more generally, the readers will be invited to think about the emergence of a genuine European criminal justice

La libre circulation des délinquants n'a jamais été accompagnée de l'ouverture des frontières aux autorités de poursuite d'Europe. Cette situation paradoxale, partiellement résolue par une coopération judiciaire étroite entre les États membres, semble insoutenable à l’aune des phénomènes criminels actuels. La mise en place d’un nouvel acteur s’est donc imposée. Concrètement, le parquet européen, en ce qu’il aurait des pouvoirs propres transcendant ceux des États membres, disposerait d’une compétence pour diriger des enquêtes et déclencher des poursuites sur le territoire de l’Union ; ce qui relève pour le moment des seules autorités nationales. Après de multiples débats, le règlement lié à sa création, constituant le fruit d’un compromis délicat, a été finalement adopté le 12 octobre 2017. Dès lors, la mise en place d’une autorité de poursuite européenne ne relève plus d’un mythe, mais devient, en elle-même, une réalité empreinte de métamorphoses au sein de l’Union européenne. Cette dernière devrait influer tant sur les réactions des États membres que de l’Union, elle-même, qui ne pourront rester inertes face à son apparition. Cette imbrication de systèmes à la fois nationaux et européen soulèvera de nombreuses difficultés de nature à la fois organiques et fonctionnelles qu’il conviendra de décrypter afin d’en comprendre les enjeux. L’étude du statut du parquet européen imposera de circonscrire corrélativement la notion d’autorité judiciaire au sein de l’Union européenne ; l’analyse de son fonctionnement, quant à lui, exigera la détermination des normes et des organes qui régiront son action. En définitive, cette étude invitera le lecteur à se questionner, plus largement, sur l’émergence d’une véritable justice pénale de l’Union européenne
Opening Member States’ borders has led to the free movement of offenders on the territory of the European Union. Nonetheless, and despite the judicial cooperation, such borders are quite real for prosecution authorities of Member States. To solve this situation which is unsustainable in the light of the current phenomena of crime, the establishment of a new European player was necessary: the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (“EPPO”). In essence, the competence of directing investigations and prosecutions – which until then had been reserved for the national authorities – should be granted to such an independent body with powers transcending those of the Member States. After many discussions and compromises, the regulation implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the EPPO was adopted on October 12th, 2017. Therefore, the creation of a European prosecution authority has become a reality that will entail changes in the territory of the European Union, at both Member State and European level. As a result of interlinking the national and European systems, such changes will raise difficulties of organic and functional nature which should be considered. On one hand, the study of the EPPO’s status will involve de facto to define the concept of judicial authority in the European Union. On the other hand, the analysis on its functioning will require the determination of the standards and bodies that will govern its action. Finally, and more generally, the readers will be invited to think about the emergence of a genuine European criminal justice

La protección de los intereses financieros de la Unión Europea a través del derecho penal ha sido un reto de difícil consecución. Con el fin de darle una solución orgánica y procedimental a esta cuestión, en el Tratado de Lisboa, los Estados miembros pactaron introducir la potestad de la Unión Europea para crear una Fiscalía Europea competente para la investigación de los delitos que afecten a los intereses financieros de la Unión. Tras más de cuatro años de negociaciones y ante la imposibilidad de alcanzar un acuerdo unánime, finalmente la Fiscalía Europea se crea en 2017 por cooperación reforzada. Se trata de un nuevo órgano de la Unión Europea con una naturaleza jurídica compleja, derivada de la singularidad de sus características estructurales, del ámbito material en el que debe funcionar, así como de los instrumentos jurídicos que le dotan de competencias. La Fiscalía Europea ostenta el ius puniendi en el proceso penal, aunque la resolución corresponderá a los órganos judiciales competentes de los Estados miembros. Este funcionamiento ad hoc comporta un régimen jurídico mixto, compuesto, tanto por normas emanadas del derecho de la Unión Europea, como de normas de naturaleza nacional. Su entrada en funcionamiento aún está por definirse, aunque no será antes de noviembre de 2020 por lo que aún quedan algunas cuestiones pendientes de concretar.
La protecció dels interessos financers de la Unió Europea a través del dret penal ha estat un repte de difícil consecució. Per tal de donar-li una solució orgànica i procedimental a aquesta qüestió, en el Tractat de Lisboa, els Estats membres van pactar introduir la potestat de la Unió Europea per crear una Fiscalia Europea competent per a la investigació dels delictes que afecten els interessos financers de la Unió. Després de més de quatre anys de negociacions i davant la impossibilitat d'assolir un acord unànime, finalment es crea la Fiscalia Europea l'any 2017 mitjançant la cooperació reforçada. Es tracta d'un nou òrgan de la Unió Europea amb una naturalesa jurídica complexa, derivada de la singularitat de les seves característiques estructurals, de l'àmbit material en el qual ha de funcionar, així com dels instruments jurídics que el doten de competències. La Fiscalia Europea ostenta l'ius puniendi en el procés penal, malgrat que la resolució correspondrà als òrgans judicials competents dels Estats membre. Aquest funcionament ad hoc comporta un règim judicial mixt, que consta tant de normes que emanen del dret de la Unió Europea com de normes de naturalesa nacional. La seva entrada en funcionament encara resta per definir, tot i que no serà abans de novembre del 2020, el que significa que encara queden algunes qüestions pendents de concretar.
The protection of the financial interests of the European Union by means of criminal law has been a hard-won challenge. In order to attain an organic and procedural solution to this issue, in the Treaty of Lisbon, the Member States agreed to introduce the power of the European Union to create a European Public Prosecutor's Office responsible for the investigation of offences that affect the financial interests of the European Union. After more than four years of negotiations and, due to the impossibility of reaching a unanimous agreement, the European Public Prosecutor's Office was eventually created by enhanced cooperation in 2017. This is a new body of the European Union with a complex legal status, derived from the singularity of its structural characteristics and from the material scope in which it is required to work, as well as from the legal instruments which grant it powers. The European Public Prosecutor's Office has the ius puniendi in criminal proceedings, even though the resolve rests with the relevant judicial bodies of the Member States. This ad hoc operation entails a combined legal system made up of regulations derived from the European Union law as well as from regulations of a national nature. Its start date is yet to be determined, although it will not be earlier than November 2020 and, therefore, some outstanding issues still remain to be defined.

Serious forms of crime have abandoned the merely national dimension and become transnational: think of terrorism, organized crime, computer crime, trafficking in human beings, just to name a few. In order to adequately fight this kind of phenomena, criminal law should do the same and not be so tied to the merely national dimension. European citizens ask for security and their request should be interpreted as expressing the need for regulatory interventions in the criminal field. Of course they deserve certainty as to the fact that appropriate sanctioning measures will be taken by all the Member States of the European Union (EU) in order to effectively deal with crime. Anyway, one should remember that criminal law must not be dissociated from the protection of fundamental rights because that would result in the denial of basic values inherent in democratic societies, first of all the rule of law. Then, the need for an axiological horizon and principles which found and limit the EU criminal system arises. So, my research question is: what are the axiological horizon and the principles which found and limit the EU criminal system? This work focuses on the precedents of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), so on a judge-made law whose development has basically been made possible thanks to the preliminary ruling procedure. No one denies that case law should remain bound to the specific case, inasmuch the extension of the ratio decidendi to other cases always is the result of selective operations. However, the presentation of the topics in this PhD thesis shows not only that the judgments of the ECJ in the criminal field are numerous, but also that they are characterized by the progressive emergence of a criminal law consciousness, a criminal law sensibility, and the will to create a system which is intrinsically consistent. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is also taken into account in light of the phenomenon called cross-fertilization. The works of Italian and European legal scholars are considered too. So, after an Introduction on the relationship between globalization, crime, and competences of the EU in criminal matters, the thesis deals with the concept of criminal law (First Chapter), the principles of legality of criminal offences and penalties (Second Chapter), offensiveness (Third Chapter), guilt (Fourth Chapter), and proportionality (Fifth Chapter) in the case law of the ECJ. In the Conclusion, an assessment of the results is provided. As problematic as it seems, the search for an axiological horizon and principles of EU criminal law has proven fruitful. In the first chapter, I found out that it is possible to identify two notions of criminal law which have been developed by the ECJ in the last twenty-five years. According to the former, criminal law is that branch of law which aims at protecting the values that are deemed fundamental by national communities. According to the latter, the criminal nature of a sanction should be asserted in light of the so-called Engel criteria as developed by the EctHR (legal classification of the offence under national law, very nature of the offence, and degree of severity of the sanction). The latter approach is now prevailing. At first sight, they do not look so different, but I think the latter should be preferred because of the different axiological horizon. The former approach relies on the values that are deemed fundamental by national communities, while the latter one implicitly relies on the European Convention on Human Rights. So, it is characterized by an inclusive dimension which may lack in the former one, since fundamental national values may not be consistent with human rights (think of the case of Hungary). The second chapter is devoted to the principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties and takes into account five major issues: the interpretative incidence of EU directives in criminal matters (the prohibition of determining or aggravating the liability in criminal law and the duty of conforming interpretation); the interpretative incidence of EU regulations and frameworks decisions (the duty of conforming interpretation); the integrating incidence of EU law (how EU law shapes the meaning of national legislation); the disapplying incidence (in case national provisions are not consistent with EU law, with in bonam partem effects); the lex mitior principle. The analysis led to the conclusion that the principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties is not dead, as someone said, but has adapted to national and international realities which have changed. The third chapter deals with the principle of offensiveness and is divided into two parts. In the first part, an analysis is provided with reference to those judgments (Amsterdam Bulb, Commission v Hellenic Republic) in which the ECJ ruled that some legal interests which belong to the EU (above all, the financial ones) should be protected by the Member States under conditions, both procedural and substantive, which are analogous to those applicable to infringements of national law of a similar nature and importance and which, in any event, make the penalty effective, proportionate and dissuasive, in light of the principle of sincere cooperation. In the second part, recent judgments concerning criminal law and immigration law (El Dridi, Achughbabian, Sagor) are considered in order to show how the ECJ has questioned national lawmakers' choices which were inconsistent with the principle of sincere cooperation. The fourth chapter is dedicated to the principle of guilt and, more specifically, to six topics: The distinction between intentionally-committed and unintentionally-committed offences, the concept of intentional offence, the concept of negligence, strict criminal liability, Ignorantia legis non excusat, and the concept of force majeure. In the fifth chapter, the case law concerning the principle of proportionality is taken into consideration by highlighting how the ECJ has solved the cases in which a clash between national regulations criminal in nature and one of the four fundamental freedoms had occurred. It is quite interesting to notice that the solution given by the Court has always aimed at finding a balance point between the values at stake by identifying some conditions under which the four fundamental freedoms may be sacrificed. In conclusion, the gradual recognition of competences in criminal matters to the European Union is the result of the emergence of the political identity of the Union, since the creation of criminal law – both at the international and national level – requires the prior identification of a system of shared fundamental values, which are expressive of an identity. Some legal scholars, in analyzing the events and reasons for the failure of the draft European Constitution, spoke of the absence of a European people characterized by common ethnicity, culture, society and language. Such reasoning has been discussed among criminal law scholars for a long time with reference to European criminal law, since the unification of criminal law presupposes the cultural unification of Europe. The point is that, without assuming a world legal commonality, one can hypothise a European legal commonality. In my opinion, it is very convincing the reasoning of those who state that the foundation of human rights must be sought not – or not only – in the human nature, but also – and most of all – in the history and culture of peoples, considering, at least at the European level, the set of ideas and principles of the tradition of the old continent, through the reference to the Christian roots of Europe and the Enlightenment. So, those values already exist. Undoubtedly, the culture of the Europeans is the culture of human rights, and the lingua franca of Europe is the language of rights as declined in the Nice Charter and the European Convention of Human Rights. As demonstrated in the thesis, the jurisprudential experience of the Court of Justice has been mature enough to get to deal with the issues of protection of fundamental rights and, most of all, the protection of those rights through criminal law. The Court did so by progressively becoming aware of the nature of that branch of law – as explained in the first chapter – which has been considered not as a simple tool of repression, but as a means through which affirm and reaffirm freedoms. I believe that can reasonably be confirmed by turning the attention to the essence of the principles of legality, offensiveness, guilt, proportionality. As a matter of fact, they represent the limits to the use of criminal methods of repression, the observance of which leads to the outcome of legitimization and re-legitimization of criminal law, both at the national and international level; they indicate the existence of criminal awareness and sensitivity of the Court; they mark the road that will lead to the final result of the emergence of a criminal law of the European Union, made up of both a general part and a special part, both inspired, supported and controlled by those principles.
Il testo è così organizzato: Introduzione: nella quale si trattano le questioni relative al riconoscimento di una competenza in materia penale in favore dell'Unione europea alla luce dei problemi posti dal fenomeno della globalizzazione. Si provvede altresì all'illustrazione della metodologia della ricerca, basata sull'analisi delle sentenze della Corte di giustizia dell'Unione europea e, ove necessario, della Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo. Capitolo I: dedicato al concetto di diritto penale come definito da parte degli avvocati generali nelle loro conclusioni e quindi adottato da parte della Corte di giustizia dell'Unione europea nelle proprie pronunce. Esso assume rilievo in quanto delimita l'orizzonte assiologico di riferimento, rappresentato, in un primo momento, dai valori fondamentali delle singole comunità statali, per essere individuato in seguito nella Convenzione europea dei diritti dell'uomo, in un'ottica di cross-fertilization fondata sul richiamo alla sentenza della Corte EDU Engel e altri c. Paesi Bassi (1976) e sulla giurisprudenza sviluppatasi successivamente. Capitolo II: nel quale è affrontato il tema del principio di legalità, considerato a partire dai diversi angoli prospettici dell'incidenza interpretativa delle fonti comunitarie / dell'Unione europea (regolamenti, direttive e decisioni quadro) sul diritto penale interno (soprattutto con riferimento al divieto di determinare o aggravare la responsabilità penale e l'obbligo di interpretazione conforme relativi alle direttive), dell'incidenza integratrice (il rapporto tra normativa interna e normativa dell'Unione quanto alla nozione di rifiuto), dell'incidenza disapplicatrice (la disapplicazione della normativa penale statale contrastante con quella europea con efficacia in bonam partem) e del principio di lex mitior, per quindi volgere l'attenzione al problematico rapporto tra legalità europea ed erosione della sovranità statale. Capitolo III: dedicato al principio di offensività, nel quale si analizzano due orientamenti giurisprudenziali. Il primo, a partire dal principio di leale cooperazione, ha condotto all'affermazione dell'obbligo per gli Stati membri di predisporre per gli interessi comunitari / dell'Unione europea una tutela analoga a quella stabilita per i corrispondenti interessi a livello statale, facendo ricorso a sanzioni effettive, proporzionate e dissuasive (sentenze Amsterdam Bulb, Commissione c. Grecia); il secondo ha invece portato a escludere che scelte di criminalizzazione operate da parte dei legislatori nazionali possano impedire la realizzazione dell'effetto utile del diritto dell'Unione europea, con un conseguente e tendenziale abbandono dello strumento di repressione penale nell'ambito del diritto dell'immigrazione (sentenze El Dridi, Achughbabian, Sagor). Capitolo IV: nel quale si tratta del principio di colpevolezza, dando conto di una giurisprudenza puntiforme che ha individuato la distinzione tra reati intenzionali e non intenzionali, definito i concetti di intenzionalità e negligenza grave, affermato e quindi superato la responsabilità penale oggettiva, cercato di valorizzare la regula iuris secondo cui ignorantia legis non excusat ed esplicitato una nozione di forza maggiore. Capitolo V: dedicato al principio di proporzionalità, nel quale si considera come la Corte di giustizia, posta dinanzi a situazioni caratterizzate da un contrasto tra la normativa penale interna, da un lato, e una delle quattro libertà fondamentali riconosciute nell'ordinamento dell'Unione europea, dall'altro, abbia valorizzato detto principio, in un senso non esclusivamente protezionistico, cercando anzi di individuare un punto di equilibrio tra valori tutelati, valori sacrificati e mezzi attraverso i quali realizzare la tutela dei primi e il sacrificio dei secondi. Conclusioni: nelle quali si sottolinea come l'Unione europea sia ormai diventata un soggetto avente natura costituzionale, dato che il processo di integrazione ha raggiunto il livello più autenticamente costituzionale, ossia la tutela dei diritti fondamentali, il quale rappresenta l'espressione più alta della sovranità e l'elemento principale di legittimazione di essa, cosa che sembra dunque militare a favore di una definitiva attribuzione di competenza penale alle istituzioni dell'Unione, almeno per quel che riguarda la protezione di beni giuridici propriamente europei.

Qu’il s’agisse de constituer une Union de droit ou d’assurer l’équité des procédures pénales transfrontières, l’Union européenne doit poursuivre un objectif d’effectivité des droits de la défense dans ces procédures. La réalité est toutefois autre ; les droits de la défense ne sont pas effectifs dans les procédures pénales transfrontières, tel que le montre notamment cette thèse à travers l’exemple des procédures entre la France et l’Espagne. Pour que soit accompli cet objectif, nous proposons un certain nombre de mesures. Premièrement, devrait être adopté un instrument normatif de l’Union européenne sur les droits de la défense dans les procédures pénales transfrontières, et, secondement, il est nécessaire de créer des structures opérationnelles européennes permettant de rétablir en pratique l’égalité des armes entre les autorités répressives et la défense
The European Union, either to constitute a Union with Rule of Law or to ensure fairness in cross-border criminal proceedings, must pursue the objective of effectiveness of defence rights in these proceedings. However, the reality is different; defence rights are not effective in cross-border criminal proceedings, as demonstrated by this thesis through the example of cross-border criminal proceedings between France and Spain. In order to accomplish this goal, we suggest various measures. First of all, a European normative instrument on defence rights in cross-border criminal proceedings should be adopted, and, secondly, it is necessary to create European operational structures to re-establish equality of arms between repressive authorities and the defendant

La thèse, subdivisée en deux parties, vise à définir quelle configuration doit caractériser le Parquet européen (PE) afin qu'il assure l'efficace répression des infractions pénales qui relèvent de sa compétence matérielle et, en même temps, qu'il assure la protection des droits fondamentaux de toute personne impliquée dans la procédure par lui-même engagée. La première partie est dédiée à l'analyse de la configuration qui doit caractériser le PE afin qu'il réprime de manière efficace les infractions pénales qui relèvent de sa compétence. Le premier titre est dédié à la définition du sens et de la portée du principe d'effectivité en droit pénal européen, tandis que dans le deuxième titre ils seront examinés le statut et l'organisation interne du PE, le relations du Parquet européen avec ses partenaires, notamment avec Eurojust et OLAF, ainsi que les infractions relevant de sa compétence matérielle. La deuxième partie porte sur l'analyse de la configuration qui doit caractériser le PE afin qu'ils soient respectés les droits fondamentaux des personnes concernées par ses enquêtes. Dans le premier titre nous analyserons le contenu et la portée des principes fondamentaux reconnus au niveau européen en matière de droit pénal européen, tant matériel que processuel. Dans le deuxième titre nous vérifions si ces droits fondamentaux ont été respectés en déterminant les pouvoirs du PE et les règles de procédure relatives aux enquêtes et aux poursuites. Ils seront en particulier évalués les modalités d’exercice des fonctions de poursuite, les conditions d’utilisation, devant les juges du fond, des éléments de preuve recueillis, le règles concernant les garanties procédurales, les modalités de contrôle juridictionnel des enquêtes et des poursuites, ainsi que les règles du régime de protection des données
The thesis, divided into two parts, offers an assessment of how the EPPO should be configured to be able to act as a real European prosecution service ensuring the effective prosecution of perpetrators of offences which fall within its material competence while complying with fundamental rights guaranteed at the EU level. The first part examines the content and the scope of the principle of effectiveness at the EU level, specifically in European criminal law. The relevance of the principle of effectiveness for choosing legal bases to be employed for harmonising substantive and procedural criminal law at EU level is analysed. Attention is paid to the structure which the EPPO needs to have to ensure the effectiveness of EU’s policies and of its own investigations. The analysis thus covers the statute of the EPPO as well as its organisation and relations with other entities acting within the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. It also covers multiple questions pertaining to delimitation of the EPPO’s material competence in the light of the principle of effectiveness. The second part analyses the content and significance of both procedural and substantive fundamental rights in criminal matters at EU level. To do so, an evaluation of the characteristics, which the EPPO needs to ensure that fundamental rights are safeguarded, is carried out. This is performed via examination of powers to be attributed to the EPPO, of the rules on initiation and conduct of investigations and admissibility of evidence as well as of the procedural guarantees for individuals involved in criminal proceedings and judicial review over decisions of the EPPO
La tesi, suddivisa in due parti, affronta la relazione problematica che sussiste tra effettività e diritti fondamentali nel diritto penale europeo. In particolare, il lavoro si propone di stabilire quale configurazione debba avere la Procura europea per garantire, al medesimo tempo, l'efficace repressione dei reati di sua competenza e la tutela dei diritti fondamentali degli individui coinvolti nel procedimento penale dalla stessa avviato, nonché per possedere un valore aggiunto rispetto agli strumenti attualmente già esistenti nello spazio di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia. Nella prima parte si esamina la natura del principio di effettività a livello europeo, mettendo in luce il contenuto e la portata che lo stesso assume in ambito penale, nonché la rilevanza dell'effettività nel determinare la base giuridica applicabile per armonizzare la disciplina penale sia sostanziale che processuale. In particolare, sarà analizzata la struttura che la Procura europea dovrebbe assumere per assicurare l'efficacia delle politiche europee e l'effettività delle indagini. L'analisi sarà, quindi, dedicata allo statuto, all'organizzazione e alle relazioni della Procura europea con gli altri organi presenti nello spazio di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia, nonché alla risoluzione delle molteplici questioni connesse alla delimitazione della competenza sostanziale della Procura europea alla luce dell'effettività. Nella seconda parte si analizza, invece, il contenuto e la portata che assumono i diritti fondamentali, sia processuali che sostanziali in materia penale a livello europeo. A tal fine, saranno esaminate le caratteristiche che l'istituenda Procura europea dovrebbe possedere per garantire l'adeguata tutela dei diritti fondamentali. In particolare, saranno esaminati i poteri attribuiti alla Procura europea, le norme relative all'avvio e allo svolgimento delle indagini dalla stessa condotte, il regime di ammissibilità delle prove raccolte, nonché le regole concernenti le garanzie procedurali poste a tutela dei soggetti coinvolti nel procedimento penale e le forme di controllo giurisdizionale avverso le decisioni adottate dalla Procura europea

La tesi è incentrata sul principio del mutuo riconoscimento in materia penale, analizzato nella peculiare dimensione da questo assunta con riguardo alla definizione dello spazio penale europeo inteso quale spazio che vede la progressiva affermazione e il consolidamento di un diritto penale europeo, e che riflette, più in generale, un significativo salto di qualità realizzato - in particolare con le ultime riforme dei Trattati - dalla costruzione europea. L analisi delle origini e delle principali tappe evolutive della cooperazione giudiziaria europea consente di cogliere i momenti di snodo fondamentali a partire dai quali l azione dell ente sovrannazionale ha progressivamente realizzato un significativo mutamento di scala : da intervento funzionale e di agevolazione alla cooperazione tra Stati a vera e propria politica europea, come definita a Lisbona, passando attraverso la consacrazione operata dal Trattato di Amsterdam dello spazio di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia quale obiettivo dell Unione. L evoluzione della cooperazione in materia penale trova il suo momento culminante nell affermazione del principio del mutuo riconoscimento, principio da tempo consolidato nell ordinamento comunitario ma pressoché rivoluzionario laddove trasposto alla sfera d azione della cooperazione giudiziaria. Sebbene il mutuo riconoscimento non sembra necessitare, ai fini del suo funzionamento, modifiche alle legislazioni penali nazionali, l analisi si propone di mettere in luce come, al contrario, il ravvicinamento delle normative penali nazionali sia una componente essenziale, al fine di instaurare e consolidare quella fiducia reciproca che, a sua volta, rappresenta un elemento imprescindibile di efficacia ed effettività del principio. Il reciproco riconoscimento e l armonizzazione delle legislazioni proposti in origine come meccanismi alternativi, separati e autonomi , sono al contrario due modelli che operano tra loro in stretta sinergia, e per tal via, raggiungono il fondamentale obiettivo costituito dalla realizzazione dell integrazione penale europea. Inquadrato il principio e la sua ratio essendi, l analisi prosegue con un indagine relativa alla mise en uvre del suddetto principio, dapprima a livello europeo attraverso l adozione di numerose decisioni-quadro poi a livello nazionale, con specifico riferimento agli ordinamenti giuridici italiano e francese. L attuazione del mutuo riconoscimento in materia penale, in uno spazio che insieme alla sicurezza, deve caratterizzarsi, altresì, per la garanzia della libertà e della giustizia, rivela un rapporto ambivalente tra il principio e i diritti fondamentali della persona. L indagine viene, quindi, concentrata dapprima sulle tensioni tra il mutuo riconoscimento e taluni principi fondamentali di matrice penalistica, primo fra tutti il principio di legalità in materia penale, come anche sulle frizioni tra tale principio e taluni diritti fondamentali di carattere procedurale. Attraverso l analisi degli ostacoli e delle tensioni rilevate nell attuazione degli strumenti di mutuo riconoscimento, si individua nell armonizzazione il percorso-chiave dell integrazione europea, quale veicolo di quel comune sentire valoriale che non può non essere alla base della costituenda identità europea, sia nelle scelte di penalizzazione che l Unione è ormai competente ad esprimere, sia nella dimensione garantistica della tutela dei diritti che deve trovare espressione in ogni manifestazione dell ordinamento sovrannazionale. Sotto altro profilo, il mutuo riconoscimento si è affermato quale significativo strumento di garanzia dei diritti fondamentali; emblematico, a tale riguardo, il riferimento al principio del ne bis in idem che, oltre ad essere una forma di riconoscimento delle decisioni giudiziarie costituisce, altresì, attuazione di un diritto fondamentale, espressamente sancito dall art. 50 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell Unione europea.

La société contemporaine, en France comme en Italie, est contrainte de se mesurer avec le problème dramatique de la gestion et de l’élimination de quantités grandissantes de déchets de plus en plus dangereux. Les différences historiques entre les traditions juridiques de ces pays, justifient une comparaison bilatérale de leurs droits des déchets, avec le droit européen en toile de fond. En effet, face à la faiblesse du droit international, les droits régionaux ne sont pas toujours à la hauteur de l’enjeu, mais, le droit européen fait figure d’exception. Il a su relever avec succès plusieurs défis de taille. La création d’un véritable langage commun des déchets, fondé sur des notions partagées, constitue une première avancée de taille, à laquelle il faut ajouter l’imposition aux États membres d’un certain nombre d’obligations d’incrimination. Cependant, beaucoup reste à faire. D’une part, le rapprochement en cours n’a pas permis d’améliorer la qualité des normes pénales. L’abus de la technique du renvoi et les concessions dangereuses au principe de précaution, dont la compatibilité avec les principes fondamentaux pose problème, témoignent d’une qualité décevante des incriminations en termes de clarté et de précision ainsi que d’un défaut de matérialité des infractions. Le principe de légalité pénale et de nécessité de la peine en souffrent. D’autre part, les critères d’imputation de la responsabilité pénale ont fait l’objet d’une harmonisation d’affichage, plus apparente que réelle. De plus, les législateurs nationaux se laissent parfois entraîner par les sirènes de l’urgence sur la voie dangereuse de la législation dérogatoire. Enfin, leurs systèmes des sanctions pénales demeurent à la fois très éloignés, peu efficaces et souvent irrationnels
France and Italy must solve the dramatic problem of preventing, managing and eliminating large quantities of incresingly dangerous waste. The historical differences between the legal traditions of these two countries justify a comparative study of their respective criminal arrangements to combat waste crime with european law in the backgroung. In order to cope the weakness of international law, European law had accept several major challenges. It created a common waste language, based on a complex of shared notions and definitions, it has harmonised the administrative law of waste and it has imposed on Member States obligations to inctiminate harmful behaviour or dangerous behaviour committed by malicious or coulpable negligence. But other challenges have to be faced. The quality of criminal law must be improved and made compatible with fundamntal principles tested by the referral technique and the precautionary principle. In particular, respect for the principles of legality and necessity of punishement must be garateed. In addition, for the time being, it has not possible to harmonise general criminal law or penalities. Moreover, the national legislator is sometimes seduced by the sirens of urgency and adopts questionables mesures to teckle the crisis of waste, as happend in Italy in recent years. All theses problems hinder the harmonisation of waste criminal law and will be solved in the years to come

L’entraide pénale se définit comme ce besoin des Etats de s’associer pour permettre la réalisation d’un objectif commun, celui de lutter plus efficacement contre le crime. A l’échelle européenne, les Etats ne vont pas se limiter à l’utilisation des mécanismes internationaux existants. Ils s’engagent dans un processus de coopération approfondi, provoquant une régionalisation de l’ensemble des normes favorisant la lutte contre la criminalité, plus spécialement la criminalité organisée. Cette évolution vers un système partenarial répond à une nécessité illustrée par le rapport déséquilibré entre la criminalité transnationale et l’ « entraide pénale classique ». Pour répondre à l’accroissement de cette criminalité et aux insuffisances des outils européens classiques, les Etats européens instaurent un socle de règles communes, protectrices des droits fondamentaux, ainsi que divers principes juridiques dont l’harmonisation et la reconnaissance mutuelle. Progressivement, la coopération pénale en Europe ne se fonde plus sur une logique d’entraide entre les Etats mais sur un objectif d’intégration pénale développé au sein de plusieurs organisations. Parmi elles, il convient de distinguer plus particulièrement le Conseil de l’Europe, la Communauté européenne devenue l’Union européenne, le Benelux et le Conseil nordique. Concomitamment, cette entraide pénale européenne apparaît désormais comme une réalité complexe due à une multiplication des espaces pénaux. L’espace pénal formé par le Conseil de l’Europe et la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (C.E.D.H.) se distingue plus particulièrement de l’espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice de l’Union européenne (E.L.S.J.) identifié par ses multiples agences (Europol, Eurojust, Frontex, etc.). Comment s’opèrent aujourd’hui les mouvements de coopération et d’intégration pénales entre les Etats européens ? N’est-il pas envisageable de repenser l’architecture pénale européenne ? La réponse à cette question passe par la redéfinition des espaces pénaux européens sous le concept d’ « Europe pénale » et la proposition de nécessaires modifications organisationnelles
Judicial cooperation in criminal matters may be defined as the need for individual States to work together to achieve a common goal in fighting crime more efficiently. On a European scale, States will not stop at the use of international mechanisms. They are committed to a deeper cooperation process which leads to the regionalization of norms and thus favors the fight against crime, and more particularly organized crime. Such a move towards a system of partnership is necessary, as may be seen in the relationship between transnational crime and “traditional cooperation in criminal matters”. To meet this need, European States must introduce a set of common rules, protective of fundamental rights, along with different legal principles, such as harmonization and mutual recognition. Progressively, cooperation in criminal matters in Europe is no longer based on the logic of mutual assistance between States, but aims at several organizations developing a policy of integration. Organizations of note, amongst the many committed to this process, are the Council of Europe, the former European Community, now European Union, the Benelux countries and the Nordic Council. Moreover, European mutual assistance in criminal matters seems to take on a complex reality from now on, due to the multiplication of criminal areas. The area formed by the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is distinct from the European area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) identified by its many agencies (Europol, Eurojust, Frontex, etc.). Taken as a whole, this is a question of being interested in a process which leads to integration in criminal matters between European States. It might be useful to take this opportunity to suggest a re-definition of the European areas in criminal matters under the heading “Criminal Europe”. The necessary organizational modifications may thus be put forward

Treaties and international organizations work together to create a global environment that protects the rights of a person and actively promotes the well-being of society. However, they do not necessarily guarantee the rights of everyone. Since women are not explicitly named in human rights documents, they are often not granted equal human rights. Therefore, it takes more than just international legal instruments to guarantee women's rights as human rights. A combination of civil society (NGOs), International organizations (IOs), and domestic government creates a perfect coalition to beat the barriers that must be overcome to fully protect women from violence.

L’autorité de la chose jugée, expression de l’exigence de stabilité des décisions juridictionnelles et de la capacité de l’Etat souverain à exercer son pouvoir juridictionnel en tranchant définitivement l’affaire lui étant soumise, est fortement liée à l’enchainement processuel dont elle constitue l’aboutissement naturel. Ces dernières années, en raison de l’influence du droit supranational, la chose jugée subit également un processus d’érosion de son caractère irréfragable. En particulier, alors que le conflit entre chose jugée et décisions de la Cour de justice de l’UE apparait comme « pathologique », les spécificités du système conventionnel de protection des droits de l’homme provoquent un conflit quasi « physiologique » avec la chose jugée de droit interne. La nature particulière de ce dernier type de conflit s’explique non seulement en raison du principe de subsidiarité et de l’épuisement des voies de recours internes qui caractérisent la saisine de la Cour EDH, mais aussi du fait de la nécessité d’une « restitution in integrum » du requérant victime d’une violation conventionnelle qui impose une obligation de réouverture de la procédure interne, en exécution de l’article 46 Conv. EDH. La thèse analyse, sous l’angle comparé du droit italien et français, les notions qui sous-tendent ce conflit, à savoir la valeur de la res iudicata et l’incidence des systèmes européens de protection des droits fondamentaux sur l’ordre processuel interne pour ensuite se pencher sur les modalités concrètes par lesquelles les deux ordres juridiques ont permis le dépassement de l’autorité de la chose jugée pour garantir l’exécution des arrêts de la Cour EDH. Dans le cadre ainsi tracé, la récente entrée en vigueur du Protocole n. 16 à la Conv. EDH, introduisant un mécanisme consultatif devant la Cour EDH, ainsi que les perspectives offertes par le Protocole n. 15 à la Conv. EDH et par la possible adhésion de l’Union au système conventionnel, viennent recentrer le rôle reconnu à la Cour EDH en tant que juridiction régulatrice d’un système européen de protection des droits fondamentaux, et favorisent le dépassement du conflit entre la chose jugée et les décisions européennes en faveur du paradigme du "dialogue" entre les juges
The effect of res judicata (also known as “a thing adjudged), an expression of the stability requirement of the jurisdictional decisions and the sovereign state’s capacity to exercise its jurisdictional power by making the final judgement on the matter, is a concept strongly connected with the criminal process which constitutes its natural result. In the last few years, as a result of solicitations of supranational origin whose domestic law is subject, res judicata also undergoes a process of erosion of its irrefutable nature. In particular, while the conflict between res judicata and decisions of the Court of Justice of European Union appears to be “pathological”, the specificities of the conventional system of human right protection provoke a virtually “physiological” conflict with the the doctrine of res judicata in domestic law. This is done considering the principle of subsidiarity and the exhaustion of domestic remedies which characterize the appeal to the European Court of Human Rights jointly with the fact that the requirement of the effective "restitutio in integrum" of the applicant victim of a recognized breach of his rights imposes an obligation to reopen the domestic proceedings, according to article 46 ECHR. The thesis analyses under the angle of Italian and French law, the concepts underlying the conflict, especially the value of res judicata and the impact of European systems of protection of fundamental rights on the internal criminal process, secondly, to examine the concrete ways in which the two legal orders have allowed the effect of res judicata to be exceeded in order to guarantee the execution of ECHR judgments. In this context, the recent entry into force of the Protocol n. 16 at EDH, introducing a consultative mechanism before the ECHR, as well as the prospects outlined by the Protocol n. 15 at ECHR and by the possible accession of the European Union to the conventional system, refocus the recognized role of the ECHR as a regulatory jurisdiction of the European protection system for fundamental rights, and promote the overcoming of the conflict between res judicata and European decisions in favor of the "dialogue" between judges

Depuis le milieu des années 1990, plus d’une dizaine d’instruments internationaux destinés à lutter contre la corruption transnationale ont été adoptés. À l’échelle mondiale, la multiplication des échanges commerciaux a rendu nécessaire la mise en place d’une coopération interétatique susceptible de répondre à l’essor de la criminalité transfrontalière. En outre, l’harmonisation des législations, par le biais d’engagements internationaux contraignants, se présentait comme le seul moyen de réduire les distorsions de concurrence. Un retournement s’est ainsi opéré : l’autorisation implicite, voire la promotion des « frais commerciaux exceptionnels », a cédé la place à la criminalisation de la corruption transnationale.À l’échelle de l’Union européenne, la réalisation du marché unique et l’ouverture des frontières justifient l’adoption de plusieurs instruments spécifiques. Toutefois, les États membres refusent d’abandonner le droit de punir — ou de ne pas punir — prérogative régalienne qui constitue l’un des attributs de la souveraineté. L’harmonisation des législations européennes a par conséquent été influencée par la problématique plus large d’un droit pénal de l’Union européenne en construction. Les dispositions destinées à lutter contre la corruption sont enfermées dans des instruments de nature intergouvernementale et sont strictement limitées afin de faire échec à l’éventualité d’une « communautarisation rampante ».Quinze ans plus tard, la mise en œuvre de la législation anticorruption demeure inégale et l’ineffectivité de la répression en Europe contraste avec les lourdes condamnations des entreprises européennes par des juridictions étrangères. La stratégie initiale, qui ne comprend aucun mécanisme de suivi afin d’assurer une pression permanente sur les États membres, montre ainsi ses limites et s’avère incapable de répondre aux enjeux actuels.La présente étude cherche à appréhender les nouvelles dynamiques anticorruption au sein de l’espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice au lendemain de la « dépilarisation » opérée par le traité de Lisbonne. Elle met en exergue l’émergence d’une lutte contre la corruption à deux vitesses. Ainsi, l’intégration de la lutte contre la corruption au niveau supranational devrait, à moyen terme, se limiter à la protection des intérêts financiers de l’UE : elle se traduit, d’une part, par l’adoption d’une directive d’harmonisation du droit pénal substantiel et, d’autre part, par la mise en place d’un procureur européen garantissant une répression effective. Au-delà de cet objectif isolé, le « paquet anticorruption » de la Commission européenne n’amorce pas la rationalisation nécessaire du cadre juridique actuel. La pierre angulaire de la nouvelle stratégie est limitée à l’adoption d’un mécanisme d’évaluation périodique afin de susciter, par le biais du droit souple, un surcroît de volonté politique de la part des États membres.Aussi, dans une démarche prospective, la présente thèse tend à démontrer que l’Union européenne constitue le niveau adéquat pour mener la lutte contre la corruption. Toutefois, son rôle moteur ne peut se réaliser, dans sa dimension tant répressive que préventive, qu’à travers l’incrimination de l’eurocrime de corruption
Since the mid 1990s, more than ten international instruments aimed at fighting foreign bribery have been adopted. Globally, the increased trade has necessitated the establishment of an interstate cooperation likely to respond to the growth of cross-border crime. Furthermore, the harmonization of legislation, through binding international commitments, was the only way to reduce distortions of competition. A turnaround has thus been made: the implicit authorization, or sometimes even the promotion, of ‘exceptional commercial costs’, has been replaced by the criminalization of bribery.At the European Union level, the single market and open borders justify the adoption of several specific instruments. However, Member States refuse to give up the right to sanction – or not to sanction – which is one of the attributes of sovereignty. The harmonization of anticorruption legislation was therefore influenced by the broader issue of a European criminal law. The provisions intended to fight corruption are enclosed in intergovernmental instruments and strictly limited in order to thwart the possibility of an unwanted ‘communautarisation’.Fifteen years later, the implementation of anti-corruption legislation remains uneven and the ineffectiveness of repression in Europe contrasts with the heavy sentences of European companies by foreign courts. The initial strategy, which includes no monitoring mechanism to ensure constant pressure on Member States, shows its limits and is unable to meet the current challenges.This study seeks to understand the new anticorruption dynamics within the area of ​​freedom, security and justice after the ‘depilarisation’ made by the Lisbon Treaty. It highlights the emergence of a two-tier approach in the fight against corruption. The integration of the fight against corruption at the supranational level should, in the medium term, be limited to the protection of the financial interests of the EU: it translates, firstly, by the adoption of a new directive aimed at harmonizing substantive criminal law and, secondly, by the establishment of a European public prosecutor ensuring effective prosecution. Beyond this single goal, the ‘anti-corruption package’ of the European Commission does not initiate the necessary rationalization of the existing legal framework. The cornerstone of the new strategy is limited to the adoption of a periodic evaluation mechanism in order to generate, through soft law, additional political will on the part of Member States.In a forward-looking approach, this thesis suggests that the European Union is the appropriate level to lead the fight against corruption. However, its central role can only be achieved through the criminalization of corruption as a eurocrime

La protection pénale du consommateur conduit à envisager une union entre le droit pénal et le droit de la consommation, laquelle n’est pas évidente. En effet, le premier est tourné vers la protection de la société alors que le second a pour objet la protection d’une personne, le consommateur. Si l’intégration de l’action de groupe tend à donner au droit de la consommation une dimension plus collective, ces deux matières conservent cependant des finalités distinctes. Malgré l’opposition, le constat est sans appel : un rapprochement existe mais, surtout, la protection pénale semble être omniprésente. Dès lors, pourquoi y-a-t-il un recours quasi-systématique au droit pénal ? Ce recours est-il légitime ? De fait, la finalité de la protection et la nature de celle-ci sont incertaines. En réalité, il apparaît que, d’une part, le but poursuivi est essentiellement la protection du marché, et que, d’autre part, les méthodes empruntées au droit pénal traduisent plus une volonté de régulation que de répression classique. Le consommateur bénéficie bien d’une protection renforcée, mais sur un double constat : d’abord, elle n’est pas directe, ensuite, elle est la conséquence d’une dénaturation sensible du droit pénal. La création de nombreuses sanctions administratives par la loi Hamon du 17 mars 2014 ne peut que conforter cette évolution, tout comme la récente recodification à droit constant opérée par l’ordonnance du 14 mars 2016 ne la contredit en rien
Criminal protection of the consumer leads to the consolidation of criminal and consumer laws. This burden on business is not obvious. Indeed, the criminal law is geared towards the protection of society whereas the purpose of the consumer law is to give redress to individuals, who, in this case, is the consumer. Regardless of whether introducing the concept of group action would give a more collective dimension, the criminal and consumer law retain distinct purposes. Despite arguments to the contrary, the findings are clear: common ground does exist but, more importantly, protection derived from the criminal law seems to be the sole solution used. We may ask why this near-systematic use of the criminal law should exist and if it is justified. Indeed, the aim of this type of protection and its nature are uncertain. Pragmatically, it would appear that the aim is mainly market protection yet the techniques borrowed from criminal law translate more into a willingness to regulate than to formally punish. The consumer does indeed benefit from enhanced protection but this comes with two costs: firstly, it is indirect thus it is a noticeable misrepresentation of the criminal law. Secondly, the creation of a plethora of administrative sanctions by the “Hamon law” of March, 17 2014 serves only to confirm this evolution.The ordinance of March 14, 2016 only reinforces this trend

L’entraide policière internationale, en raison de la multiplicité de ses sources et de ses applications, apparaît comme un phénomène pluriel difficile à appréhender. Sa mise en œuvre différenciée dans les différents espaces géographiques et les nombreuses évolutions qu’elle a connues aggravent sa complexité. L’objet de la présente étude est de proposer une grille de lecture dont l’ambition est de donner une vision plus claire et plus cohérente. En définitive, deux types d’entraide se dessinent : l’assistance et la coopération. Ce résultat est révélé par une étude notionnelle et conforté par la modélisation du régime. L’étude de la notion permet de révéler, malgré une définition unitaire, la nature duale de l’entraide policière. Cette dualité se répercute sur le régime puisque deux types distincts apparaissent : l’assistance s’apparente au régime de droit commun et la coopération prend les traits d’un régime spécial. En filigrane, il apparaît que l’entraide policière internationale emprunte à la procédure pénale et au droit international leurs caractères et leurs facteurs d’influence
Due to the several sources and its implementation, the international mutual help between the polices tends to be a concept difficult to understand. The different ways to set up the cooperation in the different part of the world and the several evolutions known, are increasing the difficulties to understand its complexity. This study wants to show and give a clearer vision of this mutual help. Basically, there are two kinds of mutual helps: the assistance and the cooperation. The result appears after a notional study and is consolidated by the establishment of a framework. Despite a commom definition, the study of the notion reveals a duality in the international mutual help between the polices. This duality has an impact on the legal framework, as two types of frameworks are appearing: the assistance relates on the common law system and the cooperation tends to be a specific framework. Finally, it appears the international mutual helps between the polices borrows from the criminal proceedings and from the international rights their caracteristics and their influences

This research investigates the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time within the Saudi Arabian criminal justice system. The European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (ECHR) has been used for comparison and as an aspirational model, and the thesis uses the English criminal justice system as an exemplar. The hypothesis of this thesis is that Saudi Arabia does not at present fully meet the aspirational norms of international human rights regarding this right, and that a study of how the right has been developed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and applied by the English courts may prove fruitful for would-be reformers in Saudi Arabia. As such, the study strives to offer a comprehensive assessment of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time in the Saudi Arabian legal system. Saudi Arabia’s recent enactment of the Law of Criminal Procedure 2013 (LCP), the Law of Procedure before Shariah Courts 2013 (LPBSC) and other reforms of the criminal justice system demonstrate its commitments to streamlining its system to meet international expectations. Despite these reforms, Saudi Arabia continues to experience troubling criminal prosecution backlogs and trial delays. The ECHR has been chosen for comparison because it complies with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UDHR), and because the ECtHR plays a key role in ensuring signatory states’ compliance with the Convention. England has been selected as an exemplar because of its strong, historic common law system and its constitutional history. The study uses comparative analysis to identify the strengths and weaknesses of Saudi Arabia’s legal system and to make recommendations for strengthening the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time so that the application of this right in Saudi Arabia satisfies international aspirational norms. The Saudi Arabian domestic legal system is not as flexible as England’s. Its system requires gradual modification that will be achievable through the implementation of the Arab Charter on Human Rights 2004 (ACHR) standards. Saudi Arabia can also make good progress in its human rights laws by establishing independent institutions to oversee the realisation of fair and expedited trials.

Délimitée par référence à la jurisprudence de la Cour Européenne des droits de l’homme, le champ pénal de l’Union européenne se révèle plus conséquent que ce que l’apposition du qualificatif « pénal », en droit de l’Union, ne le laisse penser. Envisager dans sa globalité, à l’aune des caractéristiques d’un système juridique et des modèles pénaux existant, les éléments du champ pénal de l’Union européenne peuvent alors s’agencer comme les pièces d'un puzzle qui prend progressivement forme et dont l'image générale se dessine peu à peu. Le champ pénal de l’Union européenne n’est plus qu’une compilation de normes. Il constitue désormais un système juridique : un ensemble d'éléments en interaction, évoluant dans un environnement déterminé, structuré en fonction des finalités qu’il est destiné à satisfaire, agissant sur son environnement et se transformant avec le temps sans perdre son identité. Son idéologie pénale à dominante répressive n’a rien de particulièrement original ; sa physionomie, en tant que système pénal, en revanche, reproduit l'atypisme proprement unioniste
Defined by the Europe court of human rights (ECHR), the EU extend its scope of action beyond the definition of « penal » as found in the EU law. Seen as a whole, taken the characteristics and models of already existing law systems, the different elements of the EU law scope can be put together like a jigsaw puzzle, revealing pieces after pieces the general picture. The penal scope of the EU isn’t just about regulations anymore. It acts as a legal system - a set of elements interacting with one another, evolving in set environment, structured to meet set up goals, taking action on its environment and evolving with time without losing its identity/nature. Its penal ideology and restrictive tendencies are not innovative, but its structure, on the other hand, replicate the atypical trait of the EU

L’autorité de la chose jugée, expression de l’exigence de stabilité des décisions juridictionnelles et de la capacité de l’Etat souverain à exercer son pouvoir juridictionnel en tranchant définitivement l’affaire lui étant soumise, est fortement liée à l’enchainement processuel dont elle constitue l’aboutissement naturel. Ces dernières années, en raison de l’influence du droit supranational, la chose jugée subit également un processus d’érosion de son caractère irréfragable. En particulier, alors que le conflit entre chose jugée et décisions de la Cour de justice de l’UE apparait comme « pathologique », les spécificités du système conventionnel de protection des droits de l’homme provoquent un conflit quasi « physiologique » avec la chose jugée de droit interne. La nature particulière de ce dernier type de conflit s’explique non seulement en raison du principe de subsidiarité et de l’épuisement des voies de recours internes qui caractérisent la saisine de la Cour EDH, mais aussi du fait de la nécessité d’une « restitution in integrum » du requérant victime d’une violation conventionnelle qui impose une obligation de réouverture de la procédure interne, en exécution de l’article 46 Conv. EDH. La thèse analyse, sous l’angle comparé du droit italien et français, les notions qui sous-tendent ce conflit, à savoir la valeur de la res iudicata et l’incidence des systèmes européens de protection des droits fondamentaux sur l’ordre processuel interne pour ensuite se pencher sur les modalités concrètes par lesquelles les deux ordres juridiques ont permis le dépassement de l’autorité de la chose jugée pour garantir l’exécution des arrêts de la Cour EDH. Dans le cadre ainsi tracé, la récente entrée en vigueur du Protocole n. 16 à la Conv. EDH, introduisant un mécanisme consultatif devant la Cour EDH, ainsi que les perspectives offertes par le Protocole n. 15 à la Conv. EDH et par la possible adhésion de l’Union au système conventionnel, viennent recentrer le rôle reconnu à la Cour EDH en tant que juridiction régulatrice d’un système européen de protection des droits fondamentaux, et favorisent le dépassement du conflit entre la chose jugée et les décisions européennes en faveur du paradigme du "dialogue" entre les juges
The effect of res judicata (also known as “a thing adjudged), an expression of the stability requirement of the jurisdictional decisions and the sovereign state’s capacity to exercise its jurisdictional power by making the final judgement on the matter, is a concept strongly connected with the criminal process which constitutes its natural result. In the last few years, as a result of solicitations of supranational origin whose domestic law is subject, res judicata also undergoes a process of erosion of its irrefutable nature. In particular, while the conflict between res judicata and decisions of the Court of Justice of European Union appears to be “pathological”, the specificities of the conventional system of human right protection provoke a virtually “physiological” conflict with the the doctrine of res judicata in domestic law. This is done considering the principle of subsidiarity and the exhaustion of domestic remedies which characterize the appeal to the European Court of Human Rights jointly with the fact that the requirement of the effective "restitutio in integrum" of the applicant victim of a recognized breach of his rights imposes an obligation to reopen the domestic proceedings, according to article 46 ECHR. The thesis analyses under the angle of Italian and French law, the concepts underlying the conflict, especially the value of res judicata and the impact of European systems of protection of fundamental rights on the internal criminal process, secondly, to examine the concrete ways in which the two legal orders have allowed the effect of res judicata to be exceeded in order to guarantee the execution of ECHR judgments. In this context, the recent entry into force of the Protocol n. 16 at EDH, introducing a consultative mechanism before the ECHR, as well as the prospects outlined by the Protocol n. 15 at ECHR and by the possible accession of the European Union to the conventional system, refocus the recognized role of the ECHR as a regulatory jurisdiction of the European protection system for fundamental rights, and promote the overcoming of the conflict between res judicata and European decisions in favor of the "dialogue" between judges

Les systèmes informatiques sont des éléments essentiels de l'interaction politique, sociale et économique et sont devenus fondamentaux pour le développement et l'innovation. Ces systèmes sont pourtant autant de ressources qu'ils peuvent être vecteurs de menaces pour la sécurité, les droits et les libertés des utilisateurs. En effet, les atteintes aux systèmes de traitement automatisé de données se matérialisent par des procédés infractionnels divers, réalisés par des catégories d'auteurs variées et touchant de nombreuses victimes différentes telles que les particuliers, les entreprises, ou encore les États. L'étude de la répression de ces attaques informatiques conduit à s'interroger sur la pertinence de la règlementation française les concernant au travers d'un double examen.Le premier consiste, d'une part à rapprocher, par une analyse horizontale, le droit pénal spécial de fond et de forme créé en la matière, sous l'angle du droit comparé (Belgique et Italie), et examiner, d'autre part, par une analyse verticale, leurs cohérences face aux standards européens. Dans cette perspective l'étude révèle l'existence d'un corpus législatif dense, mais également abscond en raison de sa technicité. Elle fait aussi état en matière procédurale d'une frontière fragile entre le développement de techniques efficaces mais également susceptibles de porter atteinte aux libertés individuelles. Le second examen s'attache, pour sa part, à la politique globale mise en oeuvre par les États pour prévenir et lutter contre ces atteintes informatiques. Sur ce point, la coopération entre les États est un corollaire de l'efficacité de la répression en ce domaine. Cependant, les choix réalisés pour favoriser une telle collaboration rencontrent en pratique des difficultés d'application importantes. À ces difficultés s'ajoutent celles liées à la commission d'attaques informatiques par les États eux-mêmes, puisque le cyberespace apparaît dorénavant comme un nouveau champ de conflits politiques et militaires. En ce sens, alors qu'il semblait que ces cyberattaques étatiques se réalisaient dans une zone de non-droit, il s'avère au contraire, que le droit pénal dispose d'une certaine potentialité à les réprimer
Computer systems are essential parts of political, social, and economic interaction and have become fundamental for development and innovation. However, these systems are as many resources as they can be a threat to the security, the rights and the freedoms of users. Indeed, attacks on automated data processing systems consist in various criminal processes, carried out by several categories of offenders and affecting many different victims such as individuals, companies, or even States. The study of the punishment of such offences leads us to the question of the relevance of French legislation concerning that through a double examination. The first one, on the one hand, consisting of comparing, through a horizontal analysis, the substantive and formal special criminal law, from the angle of comparative law (Belgium and Italy), and, on the other hand, in examining, through a vertical analysis, their consistency with European standards. From this point of view, the study discloses the existence of a legislative corpus which is dense but also unclear because of its technicality. The study also notes that there is a fragile border in procedural matters regarding to the development of techniques which are effective but also likely to affect individual freedoms. The second examination focuses on the overall policy implemented by States to prevent and combat these computer attacks. On this point, cooperation between States is a corollary of the effectiveness of repression in this area. However, in practice, the choices made to promote such collaboration encounter major application difficulties. Added to these difficulties are those linked to the commission of cyberattacks by the States themselves, since cyberspace now appears as a new field of political and military conflict. That being stated, while it seemed that these state cyberattacks were carried out in an area of lawlessness, it turns out, on the contrary, that criminal law has a certain potential for their repression

A Corruption is perceived as a threat of the economical and political stability worldwide therefore a lot of anti-corruption steps are taken and the priority is given to international cooperation. To minimize the potential risk of corruption it is necessary to interconnect the systems of anti-corruption fight. In my thesis, the stress is put on the link between the law regulation of European Union and law regulations of member states aiming the Czech Republic measures. The anti-corruption legal framework set by the European Union has the preventive and represive character and it gives to every member state a space for its own anti-corruption iniciative to make the whole anti-corruption system more effective. The thesis is focused on criminal law, but there is also mentioned other areas of law as well as the relevant EU organizations and authorities. In the end I give specific results and recommendations.

Sammanfattning Yttrandefriheten utgör en av grundbultarna i en demokratisk rättsstat. I svensk rätt är den grundlagsskyddade yttrandefriheten, reglerad i TF och YGL, starkt förankrad. De inskränkningar som får göras i denna bygger på noggranna överväganden. Att utpeka annan fysisk person såsom brottslig, klandervärd i sitt levnadssätt eller eljest lämna uppgift som är ägnad att utsätta denna för andras missaktning utgör förtal. Förtal är såväl ett yttrandefrihetsbrott enligt 7 kap. 4 § p. 14 TF, som ett brott mot person enligt 5 kap. 1–2 §§ BrB. Det som den svenska förtalsregleringen syftar till att skydda är den objektiva äran: anseendet, det goda namnet och ryktet hos det potentiella offret.   I svensk rätt har intagits en ståndpunkt om att juridiska personer inte är berättigade till ett rättsligt skydd vid förtal, eftersom förtalet inte anses angripa någons anseende. Införandet av ett straffrättsligt ansvar vid förtal mot juridisk person har föreslagits, men avfärdats med motiveringen att det skulle utgöra en omotiverad inskränkning i yttrandefriheten. I vissa utländska rättssystem, vilka upprätthåller en stark yttrandefrihet, åtnjuter juridiska personer dock ett rättsligt skydd mot förtal genom straffrättslig eller civilrättslig lagstiftning. Juridiska personer åtnjuter därtill flertalet grundläggande ekonomiska och personliga fri- och rättigheter inom unions- och konventionsrätten. Av nämnda fri- och rättigheter är rätten till effektiva rättsmedel av särskild betydelse. Därtill är medlemsstater i Europeiska unionen (EU) skyldiga att tillhandahålla effektiva rättsmedel till enskilda för att säkra ett effektivt domstolsskydd. Det har ännu inte prövats huruvida en särskild civilrättslig skadeståndsreglering vid förtal mot juridisk person bör införas i svensk rätt, i syfte att skapa ett effektivt rättsmedel som är mindre benäget att inskränka yttrandefriheten.   I förevarande framställning konstateras att juridiska personer åtnjuter ett kommersiellt anseende och ett rykte som kan bli föremål för kränkningar genom förtal. Skadeverkningarna av förtal är i huvudsak ekonomiska. Svensk rätt, avseende bristen på rättsmedel vid förtal mot juridisk person, är oförenlig med unions- och konventionsrätten, eftersom den riskerar att direkt kränka juridiska personers grundläggande fri- och rättigheter. I svensk rätt existerar en möjlighet att reglera förtal mot juridisk person i skadeståndslagen (1972:207). Direkta ingrepp i den grundlagsskyddade yttrandefriheten undviks därigenom. Det särskilda civilrättsliga skyddet som i förevarande framställning föreslås, bör omfatta ogrundade uppgifter som utgör anklagelser om brott vilka har begåtts inom den juridiska personens verksamhet eller i dennas namn, eller eljest ogrundade uppgifter om specifik omständighet. Det nämnda skyddet mot förtal bör kunna göras effektivt genom införandet av en särskild skadeståndsregel.

La lutte contre le terrorisme, ainsi que ses conséquences sur la sphère des droits de l'Homme, n'est pas un thème nouveau en Europe. Cependant, depuis les attentats du 11 septembre 2001 perpétrés sur le sol des Etats-Unis, «confirmés» par ceux de Madrid en 2004 et Londres en 2005, elle n'a jamais incarné une telle priorité. La majeure partie des mesures prises par l'Union européenne tombe sous le titre de la coopération en matière pénale, c’est-à-dire sousl’ex-troisième Pilier, parmi lesquelles la décision-cadre sur la lutte contre le terrorisme, la décision-cadre sur le mandat d'arrêt européen et les accords entre l'Union européenne et les Etats-Unis d'Amérique sur l'extradition et l'assistance juridique mutuelle. Sur base des mesures européennes, certains Etats, historiquement non concernés par ce phénomène, ont été pressés à adopter des mesures anti-terroristes alors que d’autres y ont vu une légitimation pour renforcer leur corpus juridique déjà existant. Quel est l'impact des mesures européennes et de celles prises par les Etats sur le délicat équilibre entre la sécurité et la liberté ? En d'autres termes, quel est le rôle de l'Etat de droit : une limitation à ces mesures ou, un principe visant au renforcement du combat contre le terrorisme?
The fight against terrorism, as well as its consequences in the field of Human Rights, is not a new theme for Europe. However, since the terrorist attacks of September the 11th 2001 in the United States of America, “confirmed” by the ones of Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005, it has never embodied such a priority. The larger part of the measures taken by the European Union falls under the heading of cooperation in criminal matters, i.e. within the scope of the former Third Pillar, among which the framework decision on combating terrorism, the framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the agreements between the European Union and the United States of America on extradition and mutual legal assistance. On basis of the European measures, some States, not historically concerned by terrorism, have been compelled to carry out counter-terrorism measures whereas, others have seen a legitimation to reinforce their existing body of law. What is the impact of the European measures and the ones taken by States on the delicate balance between security and liberty? In other words, what is the role of the Rule of Law: a limitation to those measures or, a principle aiming to the strengthening of the fight against terrorism?

La présente thèse porte sur l'affirmation d'une compétence pénale de la construction européenne. Elle vise à répondre à la question principale, comment au cours du développement du processus de l'intégration on arrive à la reconnaissance d'un pouvoir de l'ensemble communautaire dans le domaine pénal et quelles sont les dimensions concrètes dudit pouvoir.Dans la Première partie, on révèle que les deux facteurs essentiels de la reconnaissance d'une compétence de type communautaire, relative à la problématique pénale, ont d'abord conduit à un effet d'encadrement de la souveraineté pénale des Etats membres. Ce phénomène se manifeste sur deux plans: d'un côté, les principes d'application du droit communautaire et le fonctionnement propre du système de l'intégration, jouent le rôle d'un facteur puissant de l'encadrement de la souveraineté pénale des Etats. D'autre part, au cours du développement de la construction européenne, se pose la question de mettre le dispositif de l'intégration en service de la lutte contre la criminalité transfrontalière, qui résulte dans la création du Troisième pilier en tant que cadre européen spécifique en matière pénale, vu le manque de volonté à consacrer explicitement une compétence communautaire dans le domaine étudié.La Deuxième partie est ciblée sur la reconnaissance même d'un pouvoir de l'ensemble européen pour intervenir en matière pénale, en fonction des deux facteurs essentiels - l'application effective du droit de l'intégration et la nécessité de mettre le dispositif communautaire en service de la lutte contre la criminalité transfrontalière. Elle cherche également à clarifier la nature et les conditions d'exercice de cette compétence. Sur ce plan sont d'abord étudiées les deux sources d'affirmation d'une compétence pénale de l'ensemble européen et les expressions concrètes de la communautarisation du domaine pénal. Ainsi est démontré le lien dialectique entre le développement de la construction communautaire en tant qu'une nouvelle forme de régulation publique et la reconnaissance d'un pouvoir du niveau européen d'agir en matière pénale. En deuxième lieu, le cadre juridique de la compétence pénale de l'Union européenne sous l'emprise du Traité de Lisbonne est profondément analysé. Cela permet de révéler la nature de la compétence pénale du système de l'intégration et de tirer des conclusions sur l'originalité de la construction européenne en tant qu'une forme de fédération de type nouveau.De cette manière on arrive à établir, que l'affirmation d'une compétence de type communautaire en matière pénale est une émanation de la nature particulière de la construction européenne, une fonction de l'approfondissement du projet communautaire et de la consolidation du système de l'intégration en tant qu'une nouvelle organisation du pouvoir public
The present thesis focuses on the assertion of Community competence in criminal matters. It aims not only to answer the question as to how the European integration process allows room for the recognition of a power of the European system in the field of criminal law, but also to shed light on the various aspects of the above-mentioned competence.The first part of the study revolves around the problem how the two essential factors leading to the recognition of a Community competence in criminal law brought about an effect of framing criminal sovereignty as towards the Member States of the European construction. This phenomenon manifests itself in two aspects. On the one hand, the principles of the application of European law alongside the functioning of the European integration system together play a very important role in limiting the sovereignty of the Member States in the field of criminal law. On the other hand, the important matter of using the set of legal tools of the European integration to combat cross-border criminality, resulted, despite the lack of common will to make explicit conferral of competence in the field of study, in the establishment of the Third Pillar as a specific European legal framework in criminal matters.It is the recognition of power of intervention of the European integration system in criminal law matters that is analysed in the second part of the present study. This recognition is conditioned by two main factors - the effective implementation of European integration law and the need to use the integration legal tools to combat cross-border criminality. It also made a constructive attempt to clarify the nature and the conditions of the exercise of the abovementioned competence. In this aspect, the two sources of the assertion of a Community competence in criminal matters and the precise legal expressions of this process are examined in the first place. Thus, the dialectical interconnection between the development of the European legal construction as a new form of public regulation and the recognition of the power of the European community to intervene in criminal matters is demonstrated. In a second step, the legal provisions of European competence in the field of criminal law according to the Treaty of Lisbon are analysed in depth. This shows the legal understanding of European competence in the field of criminal law and allows a positive conclusion on the originality of the European integration system as a federation of an unseen kind to be drawn. In this respect, the present study establishes that the assertion of a Community-based competence in the field of criminal law is an emanation of the peculiar nature of the European construction, a function of the deepening of the European project and of the consolidation of the integration system as a new form of public power

Pour contrer la menace de la criminalité organisée qui ne se cesse de se développer en devenant l’un des plus graves enjeux au sein de l’UE, les États membres se trouvent dans l’obligation de renforcer la coopération pénale contre celle-ci. Avec le traité de Maastricht puis la création de l’ELSJ par le traité d’Amsterdam dont la lutte contre la criminalité organisée constitue le moteur essentiel, les États membres expriment leur volonté pour s’organiser les actions et s’unir contre les menaces de la criminalité organisée. Toutefois, ces deux phases ont montré l’ineffectivité de la répression ; la paralysie et beaucoup de faiblesses. Avec son entrée en vigueur en 2009, le traité de Lisbonne commence une nouvelle ère de la lutte contre la criminalité organisée au sein de l’ELSJ. Cependant, même en intégrant ses avancées, il n’amorce pas la rationalisation nécessaire du cadre juridique qu’institutionnel de l’ELSJ contre la criminalité organisée. Des fortes crises que l’UE et l’ELSJ ont connues posent des questions sur la confiance nationale dans cet espace et cette union. La présente thèse cherche à identifier le rôle actuel et futur de l’UE en matière pénale contre la criminalité organisée au sein d’un espace où la libre circulation est le principe. Le rôle attendu ne peut se réaliser réellement qu’à travers d’un système pénal autonome où l’UE a la main forte à l’appliquer dans un climat de confiance et le respect des droits fondamentaux ; des systèmes juridiques d’États membres et leur souveraineté nationale. Dans cette perspective, une modification radicale qui touche à la nature de l’UE et son rôle sera indispensable. Mais qui a la volonté de faire la révolution ?
To counter the threat of organized crime, which is constantly growing and becoming one of the most serious issues in the European Union, member states are under an obligation to strengthen penal cooperation against it. With the Maastricht Treaty, and the creation of the area of freedom, security and justice by Amsterdam Treaty, of which the fight against organized crime is the essential driving force, the Member States express their will to organize their actions and unite against the threats of organized crime. However, these phases have shown the ineffectiveness of the repression; paralysis and a lot of weaknesses. With its entry into force in 2009, Lisbon Treaty begins a new era in the fight against organized crime within the AFSJ. However, even in integrating its progress, it does not initiate the necessary rationalization of the institutional legal framework of the AFSJ against organized crime. Strong crises that the EU and the AFSJ have experienced raise questions about national confidence in this area and the EU. This thesis seeks to identify the current and future role of the European Union within a space where free movement is the principle. The expected role can only really be achieved through an autonomous criminal system where the EU has a strong ability in applying it in a climate of trust and respect for fundamental rights; legal systems of member states and their national sovereignty. In this perspective, a radical change that concerns the nature of the EU will be essential. But who has the will to make the revolution?

Налуцишин В. В. Кримінальна відповідальність за невиконання судового рішення за законодавством України та держав Європейського Союзу: дисертація на здобуття наукового ступеня кандидата юридичних наук (доктора філософії) за спеціальністю 12.00.08 – кримінальне право та кримінологія; кримінально-виконавче право (081 – Право) / Налуцишин Володимир Вікторович. – Львів: Львівський державний університет внутрішніх справ Міністерства внутрішніх справ України, 2019. - 219 с.
Дисертація присвячена кримінально-правовій характеристиці невиконанню судового рішення за законодавством України та держав Європейського Союзу. Розкрито стан дослідження кримінально-правової характеристики невиконання судового рішення за національним кримінальним кодексом. Констатується недостатнє вивчення пріоритетних питань невиконання судового рішення, що і зумовила низку практичних і теоретичних проблем, зокрема: – немає єдиної позиції щодо з’ясування об’єктивних та суб’єктивних ознак складу злочину невиконання судового рішення; – не враховано позитивного досвіду держав Європейського Союзу щодо встановлення відповідальності за невиконання судового рішення; – не розглянуто можливості запровадження заохочувальної норми, яка б звільняла за певних умов від кримінальної відповідальності за невиконання судового рішення. На основі джерел правової писемності, починаючи з часів Київської Русі, досліджено історично-правові аспекти становлення та закріплення кримінальної відповідальності за невиконання рішення суду. Розглянуто тенденцію зміни відповідальності за невиконання судового рішення на всьому етапі розвитку кримінального права на території сучасної України з урахуванням її перебування під владою інших країн. Приділено увагу органам, що здійснювали правосуддя, а також особам, які забезпечували належне виконання судового рішення. Констатовано, що перші норми про захист належного виконання судових рішень було закріплено в Литовському статуті 1529 року. За результатами дослідження окремих пам’яток права та приписів сучасного законодавства зроблено висновки про ставлення та розвиток норм, які забезпечували виконання судових рішень. Відзначено, що аналіз зазначеного історичного досвіду допомагає віднайти шляхи вирішення проблем щодо належного забезпечення виконання судових рішень у наш час. Проаналізовано юридичний склад невиконання судового рішення (об’єкт складу цього злочину, об’єктивна сторона, суб’єкт складу злочину та його суб’єктивна сторона) за національним законодавством та законодавством ряду держав-членів Європейського Союзу. Зроблено висновок, що концепція об’єкта злочину, за якою об’єктом злочину є захищені кримінальним законом суспільні відносини є більш обґрунтованою, а також проаналізовано об’єкти злочину за невиконання судового рішення відповідно до законодавства деяких держав Європейського Союзу. Також комплексно досліджено питання предмета складу злочину невиконання судового рішення в порівняльному аспекті з аналогічним злочином за кримінальними кодексами держав Європейського Союзу. Обґрунтовано позицію помилковості підходу визнання «судового рішення» предметом складу злочину, відповідальність за скоєння якого передбачено у ст. 382 КК України, оскільки через невиконання чи перешкоджання виконанню такого рішення воно (як паперовий документ) не зазнає безпосереднього злочинного впливу (що характерно для предмета злочину). Здійснено перегляд загальновизнаного поняття бланкетної диспозиції як такої, що відсилає лише до нормативно-правових актів інших галузей права (запропоновано також ввести диспозицію, яка відсилає до правозастосовних актів, які мають загальнообов’язкове значення), або ж виділено статті з диспозиціями, зміст яких залежить від таких конкретних правозастосовних актів (ст. 382 КК України та ін.) в окремий вид, поряд з відсильними та бланкетними диспозиціями. Їх можна було б назвати, наприклад, «квазібланкетними». Розглянуто різні концепції визначення поняття об’єктивної сторони злочину. Здійснено аналіз об’єктивної сторони складу злочину, передбаченого ст. 382 КК України «Невиконання судового рішення», та визначено її особливості. Досліджено об’єктивну сторону кримінальнокараних діянь за невиконання судового рішення за законодавством держав Європейського Союзу. Доведено, що об’єктивна сторона складу злочину, передбаченого ст. 382 КК України, може виражатися у: 1) невиконанні вироку, рішення, ухвали, постанови суду, що набрали чинності (невчинені особою, на яку покладено відповідний обов’язок, дій (заходів), які вона могла і повинна була вчинити відповідно до вимог законодавства та судового акта; вчинені особою, на яку покладено відповідний обов’язок певних дій, всупереч установленій законом та судовим актом забороні їх вчинення) (ч.ч. 1-3 ст. 382 КК України); 2) перешкоджанні їх виконанню (пасивній поведінці особи (дії чи бездіяльності), що полягає у створенні перешкод (перепон), спрямованих на недопущення, припинення або ускладнення виконання судового рішення (ч. ч. 1 – 3 ст. 382 КК України); 3) невиконанні службовою особою рішення ЄСПЛ, рішення КС України (ч. 4 ст. 382 КК України) та 4) недодержанні службовою особою висновку КС України (невиконанні чи недотриманні певних правил чи вимог, викладених у такому висновку) (ч. 4 ст. 382 КК України). Визначено способи скоєння злочину невиконання судового рішення, а саме – невиконання, перешкоджання та недодержання. Невиконання судового акта запропоновано розглядати як бездіяльність, яка означає незастосування особою передбачених законом і судовим актом заходів, необхідних для його виконання, за умови, якщо: а) на цю особу покладено обов’язок; б) вона має реальну можливість виконати цей судовий акт. Натомість перешкоджання виконанню судового акта виявляється в активній поведінці особи (дії) і є протидією виконанню вимог, що містяться в акті, з метою недопущення його виконання (заборона підлеглим виконувати судовий акт (щодо службової особи), підкуп або обман судового виконавця, погрози або насильство щодо нього тощо). Поняття недодержання означає невиконання чи недотримання певних правил чи вимог. У нашому випадку це буде недотримання службовою особою висновку Конституційного Суду України. Суттєвим чином доопрацьовано наукові підходи про те, що об’єктивна сторона складу злочину «Невиконання судового рішення» у будь-якій з форм (невиконання, перешкоджання, недотримання відповідних судових актів) може характеризуватися діянням як у формі дії, так і у формі бездіяльності. Акцентовано увагу, що на відміну від норми, яка передбачає відповідальність за невиконання судового рішення в Україні, в законодавстві держав Європейського Союзу урізноманітнено способи вчинення аналогічних злочинів. Установлено, що досліджувані норми в кримінальному законодавстві держав Європейського Союзу мають формальний характер. Через призму вітчизняної доктрини розглянуто визначення поняття та основні ознаки суб’єкта невиконання судового рішення за законодавством держав-учасниць Європейського Союзу. Досліджено максимальну і мінімальну вікову межу притягнення до кримінальної відповідальності за аналізований склад злочину. Аналіз юридичної літератури, судової практики дав змогу зробити висновок, що злочин, передбачений ст. 382 КК України «Невиконання судового рішення» не може бути вчинений через необережність, а тільки умисно. В свою чергу низка злочинів (окремі злочини), які передбачають відповідальність за невиконання судового рішення за законодавством держав Європейського Союзу, можуть вчинятися з умисною формою вини (ФРН, Австрія, Франція, Італія, Нідерланди, Люксембург, Бельгія, Швеція, Фінляндія, Словаччина, Болгарія, Чехія, Хорватія, Словенія, Угорщина, Польща, Румунія, Латвія, Литва, Естонія), а окремі – як з умисною, так і з необережною (Данія, Хорватія). Установлено, що деякі держави Європейського Союзу в диспозиціях своїх статей, де передбачено кримінальну відповідальність за невиконання судового рішення, закріплюють обов’язкові ознаки суб’єктивної сторони (мета, мотив) (Франція, ФРН). Проаналізовано основні питання покарання, яке передбачено за невиконання судового рішення та визначене санкціями ч. ч. 1-4 ст. 382 КК України. Констатовано, що покарання є наслідком кримінальної відповідальності особи, яка вчинила ці різновиди злочину, заходом примусу, що його застосовує лише суд, ухвалюється іменем України до особи, визнаної винною у вчиненні злочину, і полягає в передбаченому законом обмеженні прав і свобод засудженого, відповідно до ст. 124 Конституції України та згідно зі ст. 50 КК України. За результатами дослідження встановлено, що позбавлення волі та штраф є основними видами покарань за невиконання судового рішення у кримінальному законодавстві значної більшості держав-учасниць Європейського Союзу. При цьому їх установлено, як правило, або як альтернативні заходи у санкціях статей Особливої частини, або одночасно як основний і додатковий види покарань. Констатовано, що санкції за невиконання судового рішення за КК України більш сурові, ніж санкції за аналогічну норму у кримінальному законодавстві багатьох держав Європейського Союзу. При дослідженні питання суб’єкта складу аналізованого злочину акцентовано увагу на можливості (доцільності) застосування кримінальноправових заходів за діяння, передбачені ст. 382 КК України щодо юридичних осіб. Проаналізовано кваліфікуючі ознаки складу злочину, передбаченого ст. 382 КК України «Невиконання судового рішення», та визначено її особливості. Досліджено кваліфікуючі ознаки кримінально-караних діянь за невиконання судового рішення у законодавстві держав Європейського Союзу. Акцентовано увагу на тому, що, на відміну від ст. 382 КК України, жодна норма в кримінальних кодексах держав Європейського Союзу не передбачає кваліфікаційною ознакою відповідальність за невиконання рішення Європейського Союзу з прав людини. Встановлено, що кримінальні кодекси ряду держав Європейського Союзу передбачають підстави звільнення від кримінальної відповідальності за невиконання судового рішення. Враховано досвід окремих держав Європейського Союзу з досліджуваної тематики та запропоновано окремі зміни до національного законодавства з цього питання. The thesis is dedicated to the criminal-law description of non-compliance with a court decision under the legislations of Ukraine and the states of the European Union. The state of the research of criminal-law characteristic of noncompliance with a court decision under the national criminal code has been discovered. Insufficient level of study of priority issues of non-compliance with a court decision which led to a number of practical and theoretical problems has been stated, in particular: – there is no single position as to determination of the objective and subjective features of the crime of non-compliance with a court decision – the positive experience of the European Union states regarding establishment of liability for failure to comply with a court decision has not been taken into account – in addition, possibility of introducing an incentive rule that would exempt from criminal liability for non-compliance with a court decision under certain conditions has not been considered. The historical-legal aspects of formation and consolidation of criminal liability for failure to comply with a court decision in the sources of legal writing from the time of Kievan Rus to the present have been studied. The tendency of change of liability for non-compliance with a court decision at the whole stage of development of criminal law in the territory of modern Ukraine with consideration of its stay under the authority of other countries has been analyzed. Attention has been paid to the bodies which performed justice as well as to the persons who provided the proper level of compliance with a court decision. It has been stated that the first rules on protection of proper enforcement of court decisions were enshrined in the Lithuanian Statute of 1529. On the basis of study of certain monuments of law and provisions of modern legislation, there has been made a conclusion on emergence and development of norms that ensured enforcement of court decisions. It has been noted that analysis of the mentioned historical experience helps to find ways of solving problems concerning proper compliance with court decisions. Legal composition of non-compliance with a court decision (the object of the crime, the objective element, the subject of the crime and its subjective element) has been analyzed under the national legislation and legislations of a number of member states of the European Union. There has been made a conclusion that the concept of the object of the crime according to which public relations protected by criminal law are considered as the object of the crime is more substantiated. In addition, there has been analyzed the object of the crime of non-compliance with a court decision under the legislations of certain states of the European Union. Moreover, there has been carried out a complex research regarding the subject of the crime of non-compliance with a court decision in comparison with the same crime under the criminal codes of the European Union states. There has been substantiated incorrectness of the approach of recognition of a «court decision» as subject of the crime, liability for which is envisaged in article 382 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, since in case of non-compliance or obstruction of performance of such a decision, it (like a paper document) is not under the direct criminal influence (that is peculiar to a subject of the crime). There has been carried out a revision of generally accepted notion of blanket disposition, as referring only to the normative legal acts of other branches of law (and also to consider the disposition that refers to the law-enforcement acts that have a mandatory value), or allocation of articles with the dispositions content of which depends on such specific law-enforcement acts (article 382 of the CC of Ukraine, etc.) in a separate form, along with reference and blanket dispositions. They could be called, for example, «quasiblanket». Different concepts of definition of the notion of the objective element of a crime have been considered. The analysis of the objective element of the crime, provided for in article 382 of the CC of Ukraine «Failure to comply with a court decision» has been carried and its features have been determined. The objective element of the punishable acts for non-compliance with a court decision according to the legislation of the European Union states has been studied. It has been proved that the objective element of the crime provided for in article 382 of the CC of Ukraine may be expressed in: 1) non-compliane with a court sentence, decision, order which came into force (non-carried out by a person responsible for an obligation, acts (measures) which he could and should have carried out according to the requirements of the legislation and judicial order; carried out by a person appropriately responsible for this obligation, certain actions in violation of the prohibition established by a law or judicial act to perform them (paragraphs 1-3 of article 382 of the CC of Ukraine); 2) resistance to their performance (passive behavior of a person (action or inaction), consisting in creating obstacles (barriers) aimed at preventing, terminating or complicating performance of a court decision (paragraphs 1 – 3 of article 382 of the CC of Ukraine); 3) non-performance by an official of a decision of the ECHR, decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (paragraph 4 of article 382 of the CC of Ukraine) and 4) failure by an official to comply with a conclusion of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (failure to comply with certain rules or requirements set forth in such a conclusion (paragraph 4 of article 382 of the CC of Ukraine). The ways of committing a crime of non-compliance with a court decision, namely non-comply, obstruction of execution and non-observance have been determined. Non-comply with a judicial act is to be understood as inaction, which means that a person does not apply the measures required by law and a court order to enforce it, provided that: a) a duty was imposed on that person; b) it has a real opportunity to execute this legal act. Instead, obstruction of execution of a judicial act is manifested in active behavior of a person (action) and means counter to implementation of the requirements contained in the act in order to prevent its execution (prohibition of subordinates to execute a judicial act (regarding an official), bribe or deception of a bailiff, threat or violence about him, etc.). Under the notion of non-observance it should be understood as failure or non-compliance with certain rules or requirements. In our case, this will be the failure of an official to comply with a conclusion of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Somewhat revised scientific approaches about the objective element of the crime «Failure to comply with a judicial decision» in any of the forms (noncompliance, obstruction of execution, non-observamce with relevant legal acts) may be characterized as an act in the form of both actions and in the form of inactivity. Attention has been paid to the fact that, in contrast to the norm, which provides for liability for non-compliance with a court decision in Ukraine, in the legislation of the European Union states there is a variety of ways to commit similar crimes. It has been established that the analyzed norms in the criminal legislation of the states of the European Union have a formal character. Through the prism of the national doctrine, there have been considered the definition of the concept and the main features of the subject of non-compliance with a court decision under the legislations of the member states of the European Union. The maximum and minimum age limit for bringing criminal charges for the analyzed crime has been analyzed. Analysis of legal literature and court practice made it possible to conclude that the crime stipulated in article 382 of the CC of Ukraine «Failure to comply with a court decision» cannot be committed by negligence, but only intentionally. In turn, a number of crimes involving liability for non-compliance with a court decision under the laws of the European Union states can be committed with intentional guilt (Germany, Austria, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia , Slovenia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia), and a number – both intentionally and carelessly (Denmark, Croatia). It has been established that some states of the European Union, in the disposition of their articles, which provide for criminal liability for failure to comply with a court decision, establish obligatory signs of the subjective element (purpose, motive) (France, Germany). The main issues of punishment, which is provided for in case of noncompliance with a court decision and determined by the sanctions of paragraphs 1- 4 of article 382 of the CC of Ukraine have been analyzed. It has been stated that punishment is a consequence of the criminal liability of a person who committed these kinds of crime, a measure of coercion, which is applied only by a court and is adopted in the name of Ukraine to the person convicted of committing a crime, and consists in limiting the rights and freedoms of the convicted person in accordance with the article 124 of the Constitution of Ukraine and in accordance with article 50 of the CC of Ukraine. It has been established in the result of the research that imprisonment and fines are the main types of punishment for failure to comply with a court decision under the criminal law of a majority of European Union member states. At the same time, they are established, as a rule, either as alternative measures in the sanctions of the articles of the Special Part, or simultaneously as main and additional kinds of punishment. It has been stated that sanctions for failure to comply with a court decision under the CC of Ukraine are more severe than sanctions for a similar norm under the criminal law of a number of European Union states. When studying the issue of the subject of the analyzed crime, attention has beed paid to the possibility (feasibility) of the application of criminal-law measures, for committing acts provided for in article 382 of the CC of Ukraine as regards legal persons. The qualifying attributes of the crime, stipulated by article 382 of the CC of Ukraine «Failure to comply with a court decision» have been analyzed and its features have been determined. The qualifying attributes of criminal punishment for failure to comply with a court decision under the legislation of the European Union states have been studied. The emphasis has been made on the fact that, unlike article 382 of the CC of Ukraine, no provision in the criminal codes of the states of the European Union implies responsibility as a qualifying element for non-compliance with a decision of the European Court on Human Rights. It has been established that the criminal codes of a number of states of the European Union contain grounds for exemption from criminal liability for non-compliance with a court decision. The experience of certain European Union member states on the studied topics has been taken into account and some changes to the national legislation on this issue has been proposed.

Toxicomanie, viols, échanges de seringues, hygiène, psychiatrie, vieillesse carcérale : la personne détenue est considérée comme « personne à risque de par son environnement ». Le détenu usager du service public, doit néanmoins rester une personne capable de revendiquer le respect de ses droits fondamentaux. La protection de la santé est un droit pour l’Homme, liée à un devoir de l’état qui doit la lui assurer. Nul ne peut nuire à la santé d’autrui, pas même un établissement pénitentiaire.La loi du 18 janvier 1994 relative à la santé publique et à la protection sociale a posé le socle d’un nouveau cadre de soins en milieu pénitentiaire. Elle confiait au service public hospitalier, la prise en charge de la santé des détenus. Les enjeux dépassent néanmoins aujourd’hui le simple aspect médical. Ils atteignent les principes fondamentaux du droit pénal et de la procédure pénale tant au niveau national qu’européen. En effet, sous l’impulsion des évolutions internationales et européennes, notre droit s’est doté d’un statut pour les détenus, dont celui du droit à la protection de la santé, devenu un droit fondamental. Néanmoins, si cette évolution a permis une avancée considérable dans l’effectivité du droit aux soins des détenus, des difficultés demeurent et ont été révélées encore aujourd’hui par la crise sanitaire liée au Covid-19, dès lors que le droit à la protection de la santé doit être concilié avec l’impératif sécuritaire.Si les questions en lien avec la santé sont désormais inscrites dans la jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation et de la Cour européenne, l’harmonisation de ce droit avec le droit pénal doit cependant passer par une affirmation de la protection des droits du détenu. Cette protection se doit d’être double : substantielle et procédurale.Etant un droit subjectif, le droit à la protection de la santé des détenus devrait tenir compte des différences avec celui de la population libre. Il exige une discrimination positive sur le plan des garanties procédurales, notamment le droit au recours effectif. Malgré la perte d’autonomie qu’implique la détention et ses impératifs sécuritaires, le détenu qui se trouve dans une situation juridique qui s’y prête, doit pouvoir en saisir les opportunités procédurales.Les questions de la responsabilité et du comportement des soignants en cas de faute, des facteurs d’exposition à ces risques par le versant pénitentiaire ou judiciaire, ou encore de la responsabilité de l’administration pénitentiaire, font partie de ces situations juridiques. Le détenu malade ne jouit néanmoins d’aucune protection spécifique. Si les soignants du milieu pénitentiaire doivent travailler en étroite collaboration avec l’administration pénitentiaire, les juridictions devront également y être associées afin de pouvoir tenir compte de l’état médical du détenu dans toutes les décisions et ce, dans une optique d’individualisation de la peine.Cependant, le contexte particulier du temps carcéral et de l’enfermement rend complexe la mise en œuvre de ces principes substantiels et procéduraux : la crise sanitaire liée au Covid en est un parfait exemple récent
Substance abuse, rape among fellow prisoners, needle exchanges, deplorable hygiene, psychiatry, old age in prison: the prisoner is a " person at risk due to his environment". Nevertheless, prisoners, who are users of a public service, must not be deprived of the capacity to claim their fundamental human rights. The protection of health is a human right, linked to a duty of the state which must ensure it. No one can harm the health of others, not even a penitentiary etablishment.In this context, the Public Health and Social Protection law of January 18 th, 1994 was a real turnaround in custodial spheres. It gave responsibility for prisoner’s health to the public hospital service. Yet, although this law was a great step forward in the effective recognition of prisoners’ rights, the reconciliation of the imperative of security with the respect of such rights still poses problems today. The issues today go beyond the simple medical aspect. They achieve the basic principles of criminal law and procedure both at national and European level.Indeed, under the impetus of international and European developments, our law has acquired a status for prisoners, including that of the right to health protection, which has become a fundamental right. However, if this development has enabled considerable progress in the effectiveness of the right to care for detainees, difficulties remain and have been revealed even today by the health crisis linked to Covid-19, since the right to protection of health must be reconciled with the imperative of security.While health-related issues are now included in the case law of the Court of Cassation and the European Court, the harmonization of this law with criminal law must however go through an affirmation of the protection of the rights of the detainee. This protection must be twofold: substantive and procedural.Being a subjective right, the right to protection of the prisoner’s health should take into account the differences with that of the free population. It demands positive discrimination in terms of procedural guarantees, in particular the right to an effective remedy. Despite the loss of autonomy that detention entails and its security imperatives, the detainee who finds himself in a suitable legal situation must be able to seize the procedural opportunities.For issues such as the responsibility and the behavior of fault-committing health care providers, risk exposure factors related to prison and law enforcement, or to the responsibility of the prison authorities, are among these legal situations If prison health care workers are to work in close conjunction with the prison administration, the courts must also be involved so that the medical condition of the detainee can be taken into account in all their decisions and sentences can be individualized. However, the particular context of prison time and confinement makes it difficult to implement these substantive and procedural principles: the health crisis linked to Covid is a recent perfect example

Este trabalho tem como objetivo analisar a viabilidade de aplicação do instrumento de Mandado de Detenção Europeu (que foi criado em decorrência da quebra de fronteiras gerada com integração regional europeia, União Europeia) no bloco de integração regional latino-americano, MERCOSUL, tendo em vista ser um instrumento substitutivo do Instituto extradicional aplicado no âmbito criminal. Em um primeiro momento é tratado o fenômeno da globalização, da integração regional e sua repercussão no universo criminal, observando-se o surgimento de uma nova modalidade criminal, qual seja a criminalidade transnacional. Em decorrência dessa criminalidade transnacional, que abrange mais de um território nacional é estudado o desenvolvimento de uma cooperação jurídica internacional em matéria penal entre os países, com a finalidade de combater a impunidade. Assim, faz-se um paralelo sobre cooperação jurídica internacional em matéria penal nos blocos de integração regional: União Europeia e MERCOSUL. Adiante, analisa-se o mandado de detenção europeu, seu surgimento na União Europeia e o papel do principio do reconhecimento mutuo na aplicação desse instituto. Por fim, examina-se a possibilidade, enfim, de aplicação desse instituto no bloco do MERCOSUL.
This study aims to examine the application of the instrument of the European Arrest Warrant (which was created as a result of the breach of boundaries generated with European regional integration, European Union) in the block of regional integration in Latin America, MERCOSUR considering it as a substitute for the extraditional institute instrument, which is applied in international criminal justice as a cooperation instrument. At first the phenomenon of globalization, regional integration and their impact on the criminal universe is analyzed. From this the emergence of a new criminal mode, transnational criminality has been observed. Because of this transnational criminality, which covers more than one country, the development of international legal cooperation in criminal matters is studied between the countries, with the aim of combating impunity. With this, a parallel on international legal cooperation in criminal matters in the blocks for regional integration is made: the European Union and MERCOSUR. Before this, it analyzes the European Arrest Warrant, the appearance and development in the European Union and the function of the principle of mutual recognition in the implementation of this institute. Finally, it examines the possibility of implementation of this institute in the MERCOSUR bloc.

This thesis examines the principle of mutual trust in EU criminal law. Mutual trust has become a household term in the EU criminal justice vocabulary and is widely regarded to be a prerequisite for a successful application of the principle of mutual recognition. But despite its widespread use, the parameters of the concept are not clear. Since mutual trust has become one of the core objectives of the EU's criminal justice policy, and legislation is adopted to build trust, a more substantial understanding is required. This thesis has taken a three-fold approach to substantiate and conceptualise the principle of mutual trust. Firstly, a multi-disciplinary assessment of social science literature to gain a better understanding of what trust is and how it functions. Secondly, a black letter approach combined with a discourse analysis, in order to reveal the practical difficulties that have arisen in relation to (insufficient) trust. This has revealed a number of flaws in the legal framework, as well as in policy documents dealing with trust, mainly due to the strict nature of the trust presumption. Thirdly, a comparative study with the United States of America, focused on interstate cooperation within a federal structure, offers fresh insights. Several lessons and limitations have been drawn from this study that have allowed scrutinising the EU’s trust building policy and logic.The thesis argues that mutual trust, a core principle of EU criminal law, is multi-faceted: a collective notion bringing together various aspects and principles relevant to rendering mutual recognition in criminal law a success. Its constitutive elements can broadly be categorised into social, legal and political elements. The first relates to the inherent subjective character of trust, the latter to its specific application in the legal EU criminal justice context. By bringing these elements together, a principle with a meaning specific to EU criminal law appears, a term of art. Most importantly, the substance of the principle builds on the idea of a similar European legal culture: more specifically of a European criminal law. It furthermore relates to the motivation for Member States to cooperate, i.e. fighting increasing cross border crime and building an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. But whilst building on a shared legal culture, mutual trust also relates to the ideal to maintain national diversity in criminal law. On the basis of this dual notion, a comprehensive approach is proposed to tackle trust related difficulties. These relate mainly to harmonisation, most prominently of procedural safeguards; non-legal forms of trust building, aiming to enhance the provision of accurate information; and finally allowing the trust presumption to be rebutted, to create a more substantive principle of trust mindful of realities on the ground. Together, these should enable the principle of trust to operate in accordance with its two main functions, namely to facilitate the application of mutual recognition in the criminal justice sphere, while paying due regard to fundamental rights and liberties.
Doctorat en Sciences juridiques
info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

I den här uppsatsen har en konflikt mellan grundläggande EU-rättsliga värden utforskats genom en studie av den europeiska utredningsordern. Konflikten består i användandet av principerna om ömsesidigt förtroende och erkännande på straffrättens område, samtidigt som dessa principer ibland kolliderar med respekten för mänskliga rättigheter så som de definieras inom unionen. För att ge principerna om ömsesidigt förtroende och erkännande fullt genomslag skulle ett beslut om att begära en viss utredningsåtgärd från en annan stat behöva erkännas och verkställas utan någon extra prövning i den verkställande staten. För att ge mänskliga rättigheter fullt genomslag skulle å andra sidan den verkställande staten behöva göra en sådan prövning. Den här konflikten har tidigare utforskats i samband med den europeiska arresteringsordern, medan utredningsordern inte har fått samma uppmärksamhet. Det har kunnat konstateras att det finns många likheter mellan den europeiska arresteringsordern och utredningsordern, men att den senare också står inför helt egna utmaningar. Det finns nämligen stora skillnader mellan ett verkställande av ett överlämnade av en person till en annan stat, och ett verkställande av en utredningsåtgärd, så som till exempel en husrannsakan. Detta gör att den praxis som finns avseende den europeiska arresteringsordern måste behandlas med försiktighet.
In this essay a conflict between fundamental values of the European Union law has been explored through a study of the European Investigation Order. The conflict consists of the use of the principles of mutual trust and recognition within the area of criminal law, when these principles might collide with the respect for human rights as they are defined within the Union. I order to give full weight to the principles of mutual trust and recognition it would be necessary for the executing state to recognize and execute a decision of an investigative measure emanating from the issuing state without any further substantial assessment. For human rights to be adequately protected, it might however be necessary for the executing state to make that very assessment before executing the investigative measure in question. This conflict has already been explored in connection with the European Arrest Warrant, but the European Investigation Order has not yet received the same attention. There are many similarities indeed between the two, but the European Investigation Order also has completely unique challenges. One must keep in mind that there are great differences between an extradition decision and an execution of an investigative measure, as for example a search. This makes it essential to treat the Investigation Order as its own, viewing the case law regarding the Arrest Warrant with some precaution.

L’équivalence des protections des droits fondamentaux est une exigence formulée par les juridictions nationales afin de permettre de concilier les obligations constitutionnelles de mise en œuvre du droit de l’Union européenne et de protection des droits fondamentaux constitutionnels et conventionnels. En particulier, afin de répondre aux exigences d’unité et de de primauté du droit de l’Union, les juridictions nationales acceptent de suspendre le contrôle des actes étatiques mettant en œuvre le droit de l’Union européenne sur le fondement des droits fondamentaux constitutionnels et conventionnels aussi logntemps que le droit de l’Union européenne garantit une protection équivalente des droits fondamentaux. Dispositif baroque et instable, cette exigence est nécessairement précaire, des ruptures ponctuelles de l’équivalence apparaissant fréquemment. L’étude de cette exigence et de ces ruptures permet de faire apparaître la structure de l’Union européenne dans laquelle elle s’insère et à laquelle elle répond. Notamment, la nature internationale de l’Union et les mécanismes de réception du droit de l’Union européenne et du droit interne apparaissent au travers du jeu de l’équivalence. Le droit de l’Union européenne est mis en œuvre en étant soumis aux contraintes des ordres juridiques nationaux et en particulier, de leur ordre constitutionnel
Equivalence of fundamental rights protection is a requirement formulated by national courts in order to reconcile the constitutional obligations to implement European Union law with the protection of constitutional and conventional fundamental rights. In particular, in order to meet the requirements of unity and primacy of Union law, national courts agree to suspend the review of State acts implementing European Union law in the light of fundamental constitutional and conventional rights as long as European Union law guarantees equivalent protection of fundamental rights. As a baroque and unstable device, this requirement is necessarily precarious, with occasional breaks in equivalence frequently occurring. The study of this requirement and these breaks reveals the structure of the European Union in which it is embedded and to which it responds. In particular, the international nature of the Union and the mechanisms for receiving European Union and national law appear through the interplay of equivalence. European Union law is implemented by being subject to the constraints of national legal systems and, in particular, their constitutional order

La lutte contre le terrorisme, ainsi que ses conséquences sur la sphère des droits de l'Homme, n'est pas un thème nouveau en Europe. Cependant, depuis les attentats du 11 septembre 2001 perpétrés sur le sol des États-Unis, « confirmés » par ceux de Madrid en 2004 et Londres en 2005, elle n'a jamais incarné une telle priorité. La majeure partie des mesures prises par l'Union européenne tombe sous le titre de la coopération en matière pénale, c’est-à-dire sous l’ex-troisième Pilier, parmi lesquelles la décision-cadre sur la lutte contre le terrorisme, la décision-cadre sur le mandat d'arrêt européen et les accords entre l'Union européenne et les États-Unis d'Amérique sur l'extradition et l'assistance juridique mutuelle. Sur base des mesures européennes, certains États, historiquement non concernés par ce phénomène, ont été pressés à adopter des mesures anti-terroristes alors que d’autres y ont vu une légitimation pour renforcer leur corpus juridique déjà existant. Quel est l'impact des mesures européennes et de celles prises par les États sur le délicat équilibre entre la sécurité et la liberté ? En d'autres termes, quel est le rôle de l'État de droit : une limitation à ces mesures ou, un principe visant au renforcement du combat contre le terrorisme?
The fight against terrorism, as well as its consequences in the field of Human Rights, is not a new theme for Europe. However, since the terrorist attacks of September the 11th 2001 in the United States of America, “confirmed” by the ones of Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005, it has never embodied such a priority. The larger part of the measures taken by the European Union falls under the heading of cooperation in criminal matters, i.e. within the scope of the former Third Pillar, among which the framework decision on combating terrorism, the framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the agreements between the European Union and the United States of America on extradition and mutual legal assistance. On basis of the European measures, some States, not historically concerned by terrorism, have been compelled to carry out counter-terrorism measures whereas, others have seen a legitimation to reinforce their existing body of law. What is the impact of the European measures and the ones taken by States on the delicate balance between security and liberty? In other words, what is the role of the Rule of Law: a limitation to those measures or, a principle aiming to the strengthening of the fight against terrorism?

La notion de terrorisme international relève de deux critères, l’un emprunté à des actes qui constituent l’assise de l’action terroriste, l’autre tiré de circonstances particulières, qui tiennent à une relation avec une entreprise individuelle ou collective ayant pour but de troubler gravement l’ordre public par l’intimidation ou la terreur. La communauté internationale est confrontée depuis la fin de l’effondrement de l’Union soviétique à l’internationalisation d’un mouvement radical extrémiste l’organisation wahhabite Al-Qaïda. Les attaques terroristes organisées par cette mouvance menacent aujourd’hui la sécurité mondiale. Ses actes extrémistes, criminels et terroristes visent à tuer les gens sans distinction entre les enfants et les femmes, car ils ne considèrent pas comme interdits de tels actes. La scène internationale est devenue de plus en plus menacée par l’idéologie wahhabite d’origine saoudienne à laquelle appartenaient quinze des dix-neuf kamikazes de New York et Washington. Face au problème que pose le terrorisme, les Etats ont réagi, mais chacun à sa manière, en prenant des mesures nécessaires en fonction de leur propre système juridique. Leurs objectifs sont de renforcer la répression, de faciliter le travail des enquêteurs et de rendre les jugements plus rapides. Le plus souvent, de nouvelles lois pénales ou de nouveaux textes ont été adoptés par les Parlements dans plusieurs Etats pour lutter contre ce phénomène international. Les réponses juridiques des droits nationaux restent jusqu’à présent les véritables instruments de lutte contre les actions terroristes. Elles sont l’occasion d’approfondir les réflexions sur les motivations profondes des terroristes, leurs méthodes et leurs objectifs. Elles permettent de réprimer le financement des mouvements terroristes et le blanchiment d’argent, en se basant sur les directives internationales du GAFI et du Comité Contre le terrorisme (CCT). Mots clefs en français : Lutte antiterroriste, légitime défense, agression armée, coopération européenne, menace terroriste, approches et lacunes juridiques
The notion of international terrorism is based on two criteria: one borrowed from actions that constitute the foundation of terrorist acts, the other drawn from particular circumstances coming from a relationship with an individual or collective organization whose objective is to seriously damage public security by intimidation or terror. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the international community is confronted by a radical extremist organization wahhabite Al-Qaïda. The terrorist attacks organized by this movement threaten global security today. These extremist criminal terrorist acts target civilians without distinction - women and children included - because they do not consider such acts as forbidden. The international scene has become more and more threatened today by wahhabite ideology whose Saudi origins included fifteen of the nineteen suicide-bombers responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. Faced with the problem posed by terrorism, the international community reacted, each in their own way, by taking necessary measures that conform to their own legal system. Their objectives are to reinforce repression, facilitate the work of investigators and speed up court decisions. New penal laws or new texts have been introduced by several countries in order to confront this international phenomenon. The legal responses of national laws remain until today veritable instruments of confrontation against terrorist acts. These laws serve to deepen the understanding of terrorist motivations, their methods and their goals. By basing these laws on the international directives of the GAFI (Groupe d'Action financière) and the Committee Against Terrorism (CCT), they also serve to combat the financing of terrorist movements as well as money laundering. Keywords : anti-terrorist struggle, international law, European cooperation, extremist criminal terrorist acts

This thesis explores how the material reality of Germany's women's prisons has been largely determined by their ideological foundations, and by the historical developments that have produced these ideologies. The German women's prison system is complex and imperfect, yet in many ways very progressive. It is the result of the last sixty years of tumultuous German history, and has been uniquely shaped by the capitalist and communist histories of the once-divided state. In its current state, it seems to have incorporated elements of a supposedly “rational” or individualistic conception of humanity as well as one that is relational and interdependent, thus promoting independence while still fostering and supporting care-based familial and social support systems. In this way, it reflects the remarkable development of Germany since the end of the horrific Second World War, providing a window into ideologies of gender, crime, and incarceration as they evolved and eventually merged. Germany serves as an excellent case study of the ways in which prisons are a product of their countries' histories, and is a model for understanding how prisons around the world must be analyzed in the context of their nations' past. Any attempt to compare prison systems across international borders must be centered around the unique contextual development of each country and its prisons.

Au-delà de l’instabilité qui la caractérise, la mise en état des affaires pénales s’illustre par sa métamorphose. A mesure de la multiplication des modes de traitement de la délinquance et de l’enrichissement des possibilités d’investigation en enquête de police, celle qui ne devait être qu’un préalable à l’ouverture d’une information judiciaire s’impose comme le cadre ordinaire dans un système qui n’avait pas été pensé pour elle. En résultent un recul des droits de la défense et du juge auxquels ni une vision d’ensemble de la procédure, ni les dernières réformes, pour une large partie inspirées des droits européens, n’ont pleinement pallié. Mettre les implications de la montée en puissance de l’enquête de police à l’épreuve des droits européens fait ressortir différents motifs d’inquiétude sur la pleine compatibilité du système actuel avec les standards supranationaux. Ils viennent ainsi au soutien d’aménagements promus tant par la doctrine que par des praticiens pour remédier au déséquilibre constaté. Si la mise en conformité du droit interne doit servir de guide aux ajustements préconisés, ces derniers doivent néanmoins être examinés à la lumière de leur simplications sur le système vu dans son ensemble. Le souci de cohérence encouragerait à promouvoir des solutions plus mesurées, combinant à un renforcement relatif des droits durant l’enquête de police, une articulation des cadres procéduraux d’investigation centrée sur le renforcement du contrôle du juge. La perspective de l’intégration d’un Parquet européen, dont la création a été formellement actée le 12 octobre 2017, et qui se caractérise par sa perméabilité avec les ordres juridiques nationaux, rend ces propositions précaires. Les ajustements que son intégration supposera soulèveront à court ou moyen terme, la question d’une recomposition de la mise en état des affaires pénales, favorable à la restauration de son équilibre et de sa cohérence
Beyond the inconstancy which defines the pre-trial phase of proceedings, it is characterised by its metamorphosis. Because of the multiplication of ways of dealing with delinquency and the increasing possibilities of police inquiry, the pre-trial phase of proceedings, which should have been just a precondition to the preliminary judicial investigation, turns out to be the common framework, in a system not built for it. It leads to the decline of the rights of defence and of the judge. Neither a global perspective of the procedure nor the last reforms, for the most part inspired by European laws, fully overcame it. Confronting the consequences of police inquiry increasing with European rights, highlights several concerns on the full compatibility of the current system with the supranational standards. They support accommodations, encouraged by the searchers as well as the professionals, to solve observed imbalances. If the compliance of French law must guide the recommended adjustments, they should be reviewed in the light of their impacts on the global system, where inquiry and information still coexist. The will of consistency may encourage to promote more measured solutions, combining a moderate strengthening of the rights during police inquiries to an articulation of the investigation proceedings frameworks, focused on a reinforced control of the judge. The perspective of the integration of an European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which creation was formally acknowledged October 12th 2017, characterised by its openness to other national legal systems, makes these propositions uncertain. At short or medium term, adjustments ensued by its integration will lead to rethink the pre-trial phase of proceedings, to ensure its balance and consistency

La tesi dottorale indaga l'articolato sistema di interferenze che la normativa dell'Unione europea esercita sul diritto penale interno, di cui il settore ambientale è parso emblematico. Dal punto di vista sistematico, la tesi può idealmente essere suddivisa in due parti. La prima di queste è dedicata al più generale interrogativo circa l’atteggiarsi del dialogo tra ordinamento interno e sovranazionale alla luce delle novità determinatesi con la riforma dei Trattati del 2009 (e segnatamente; l'eliminazione della divisione in pilastri dell'Unione, la previsione di una competenza penale indiretta dell'Unione, l'attribuzione di valore giuridicamente vincolante alla Carta dei diritti fondamentali e la prevista adesione alla CEDU) in una prospettiva critica “costituzionalmente orientata”. La seconda è più specificamente rivolta alla materia ambientale, quale banco di verifica del funzionamento della nuova potestà punitiva sovranazionale, nonché della competenza redazionale del legislatore comunitario.
The enquiry aims to explore the relationships between European Legislation and National Criminal Law. The thesis is composed of two parts: the first one relates to questions pertaining to the National Criminal Law in light of the innovations of the Lisbon Treaty (i.e. the abolition of the three-pillar structure of the EU, the EU Criminal Law Competence, the Charter of Fundamental Rights that was given binding legal effect equal to the Treaties, the legal basis for the accession of the Union to the European Convention on Human Rights). The analysis is done assuming a constitutional-oriented approach. The second part relates to Environmental Law as a test case for the EU Criminal Competences.