Published
2023-10-18
Keywords
- assets confiscation,
- extended confiscation,
- EU criminal law,
- harmonisation,
- the effectiveness-based approach,
- asset recovery,
- asset forfeiture
Abstract
The European Union is empowered to legislate in criminal matters; the European Parliament and the Council may establish minimum rules, in certain areas, concerning the definitions of criminal offences and sanctions or facilitating cross-border cooperation. However, in the field of asset confiscation, the EU authorities seem to go beyond these competences in their legislative activity. In this paper the author refers to this and other problems of EU legislation in criminal matters: covering up the insufficient competence to legislate with the argument of needing harmonisation, the lack of reliable data that would justify EU legislative activity and the problematic concept of effectiveness in EU legislation.
References
- Asp P. (2012). The Substantive Criminal Law Competence of the EU. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
- Ballegooij W. (2022). ‘Ending impunity for the violation of sanctions through criminal law.’ Eucrim 2, pp. 146–151. https://doi.org/10.30709/eucrim-2022-009
- Bondt W. de (2014). ‘Evidence based EU criminal policy making: In search of matching data.’ European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 20, pp. 23–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-013-9209-3
- Böse M. (2019). ʻArt. 83 AEUVʼ [Art. 83 TFEU]. In J. Schwarze, U. Becker, A. Hatje, and J. Schoo (eds.) EU-Kommentar [EU Commentary]. Tübingen: Nomos.
- Boucht J. (2013). ‘Extended confiscation and the proposed directive on freezing and confiscation of criminal proceeds in the EU: On striking a balance between efficiency, fairness and legal certainty.’ European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 21, pp. 127–162. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-21022024
- Boucht J. (2017). The Limits of Asset Confiscation: On the Legitimacy of Extended Appropriation of Criminal Proceeds. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
- Boucht J. (2019). ‘Asset confiscation in Europe – past, present, and future challenges.’ Journal of Financial Crime 26(2), pp. 526–548. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-04-2018-0043
- Brandão N. (2022). ‘The right of defence under Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 on the mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders.’ New Journal of European Criminal Law 13(1), pp. 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844221084334
- Commission (2011). Communisation from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Towards an EU Criminal Policy: Ensuring the effective implementation of EU policies through criminal law. Brussels, 20.9.2011, COM(2011) 573 final.
- Commission (2022). Staff Working Document. Impact Assessment Report. Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on asset recovery and confiscation. Brussels, 25.5.2022 SWD(2022) 245 final.
- Council Decision (EU) 2022/2332 of 28 November 2022 on identifying the violation of Union restrictive measures as an area of crime that meets the criteria specified in Article 83(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [Council Decision], OJ L 308, 29.11.2022, pp. 18–21.
- Cuesta J.L. de la (2022). Spanish Report on Extended Confiscation, Konfiskata.web.amu.edu.pl. Available obline: https://konfiskata.web.amu.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Country-Report-Spain-1.pdf [10.07.2023].
- Elholm T. and Colson R. (2016). ‘The symbolic purpose of EU criminal law.’ In R. Colson, S. Field (eds.) EU Criminal Justice and the Challenges of Diversity: Legal Cultures in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 48–64. Available online: https://hal.science/hal-03318583 [10.07.2023].
- European Parliament (2013). Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs: Report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime in the European Union, Com(2012)0085 –C7-0075/2012 – 2012/0036(COD), 20.5.2013.
- Explanatory memorandum to the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on asset recovery and confiscation, Brussels 25.5.2022 COM(2022) 245 final (2022).
- Forsaith J., Irving B., Nanopoulos E., and Fazekas M. (2012). Study for an Impact Assessment on a Proposal for a New Legal Framework on the Confiscation and Recovery of Criminal Assets, Prepared for the European Commission Directorate General Home Affairs. Cambridge: RAND Europe.
- Franssen V. (2017). ‘EU criminal law and effet utile: A critical examination of the Union’s use of criminal law to achieve effective enforcement.’ In J. Banach-Gutierrez and Ch. Harding (eds.) EU Criminal Law and Policy. Values, Principles and Methods. London–New York: Routledge, pp. 84–110.
- German Federal Bar Association (2012). Opinion No. 38/2012. Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer, Stellungnahme Nr. 38/2012.
- Helios J. (2014). ‘Sędziokracja w Unii Europejskiej? Uwagi w kontekście działalności interpretacyjnej Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej’ [Judiciary in the European Union? Remarks in the context of the interpretative activity of the Court of Justice of the European Union]. In A. Bator, J. Helios, and W. Jedlecka (eds.) Rządy prawa i europejska kultura prawna [Rule of law and European legal culture]. Wrocław: Prace Naukowe Wydziału Prawa, Administracji i Ekonomii Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, pp. 181–194.
- Helios J. and Jedlecka W. (2018). Wykładnia prawa Unii Europejskiej ze stanowiska teorii prawa [Interpretation of European Union law from the point of view of the theory of law]. Wrocław: Prace Naukowe Wydziału Prawa, Administracji i Ekonomii Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.
- Herlin-Karnell E. (2014a). ‘Effectiveness and constitutional limits in European criminal law.’ New Journal of European Criminal Law 5(3), pp. 267–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/203228441400500302
- Herlin-Karnell E. (2014b). ‘What principles drive (or should drive) European criminal law?.’ German Law Journal 11(10), pp. 1115–1129. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200020137
- Hochmayr G. (2012). ‘Neue kriminalsanktionen im rechtsvergleich’ [New criminal sanctions in a legal comparison]. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 124(1), pp. 64–86. https://doi.org/10.1515/zstw-2012-0003
- Hochmayr G. (2017). ʻArt. 83 AEUV.ʼ In M. Pechstein, C. Nowak, and U. Häde (eds.) Frankfurter Kommentar zu EUV, GRC und AEUV [The Frankfurt Commentary on TEU, ChFR and TFEU]. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
- Hryniewicz-Lach E. (2022). Polish Report on Extended Confiscation, Konfiskata.web.amu.edu.pl. Available online: https://konfiskata.web.amu.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Country-Report-Poland-1.pdf [10.07.2023].
- Huomo-Kettunen M. (2014). ‘EU criminal policy at crossroads between effectiveness and traditional restraints for the use of criminal law.’ New Journal of European Criminal Law 5(3), pp. 301–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/203228441400500304
- Keiler J. and Klip A. (2021). ‘The sentence is only the beginning: Hiccups in the cross-border execution of judgments in the Euregion Meuse-Rhine.’ European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 29, pp. 189–217. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-bja10016
- Keiler J. and Klip A. (2022). Dutch Country Report on Extended Confiscation, Konfiskata.web.amu.edu.pl. Available online: https://konfiskata.web.amu.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Country-Report-from-the-Netherlands.pdf [10.07.2023].
- Kilchling M. (2023). German Report on Extended Confiscation, Konfiskata.web.amu.edu.pl. Available online: https://konfiskata.web.amu.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Extended-confiscation_Germany.pdf [10.07.2023].
- Kużelewska B. (2014). ‘Unity in diversity. The language policy of the European Union.’ Studies in Logics Grammar and Rhetoric 38(51), pp. 151–165. https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2014-0037
- Ligeti K. and Simonato S. (2017). ‘Asset recovery in the EU: Towards a comprehensive enforcement model beyond confiscation? An introduction.’ In K. Ligeti and M. Simonato (eds.) Chasing Criminal Money: Challenges and Perspectives on Asset Recovery in the EU. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 1–21.
- Maduro P.M. (2008). ‘Interpreting European law: Judicial adjudication in a context of constitutional pluralism.’ European Journal of Legal Studies 1(2), pp. 137–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1134503
- Mamak K., Barczak-Oplustil A., Kwiatkowski D., Małecki M., and Zając D. (2022). ‘Should gains from criminal knowledge be forfeited?.’ Crime, Law and Social Change 77, pp. 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-021-09994-7
- Maugeri A.M. (2022). Italian Country Report on Extended Confiscation, Konfiskata.web.amu.edu.pl. Available online: https://konfiskata.web.amu.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Country-Report-Italy-.pdf [10.07.2023].
- Mazzacuva F. (2017). ‘The problematic nature of asset recovery measures: Recent developments of the Italian preventive confiscation.’ In K. Ligeti and M. Simonato (eds.) Chasing Criminal Money: Challenges and Perspectives on Asset Recovery in the EU. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 101–115.
- Melander S. (2014). ‘Effectiveness in EU criminal law and its effects on the general part of criminal law.’ New Journal of European Criminal Law 5(3), pp. 274–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/203228441400500303
- Meyer F. (2020). ‘Recognizing the unknown – the new confiscation regulation.’ European Criminal Law Review 10(2), pp. 140–170. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-190284
- Mirandola S. (2020). ‘Borderless enforcement of freezing and confiscation orders in the EU: The first regulation on mutual recognition in criminal matters.’ ERA Forum 20, pp. 405–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00581-x
- Mitsilegas V. (2016). Defining EU Competence in Substantive Criminal Law: From Securitised to Functional Criminalisation, EU Criminal Law after Lisbon: Rights, Trust and the Transformation of Justice in Europe. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
- Najwyższa Izba Kontroli [NIK] (2019). Informacja o wynikach kontroli: Odzyskiwanie mienia pochodzącego z przestępstw [Information about the results of control of asset recovery in Poland], Nik.gov.pl. Available online: https://www.nik.gov.pl/plik/id,21745,vp,24397.pdf [10.07.2023].
- Naylor R.T. (1999). ‘Wash-out: A critique of follow-the-money methods in crime control policy.’ Crime, Law and Social Change 32, pp. 1–58. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008386203362
- Nelen H. (2004). ‘Hit them where it hurts most? The proceeds-of-crime approach in the Netherlands.’ Crime, Law and Social Change 41, pp. 517–534. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CRIS.0000039570.41125.fa
- Öberg J. (2014). ‘Do we really need criminal sanctions for the enforcement of EU law?.’ New Journal of European Criminal Law 5(3), pp. 370–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/203228441400500307
- Öberg J. (2021). ‘Normative justifications of EU criminal law: European public goods and transnational interests.’ European Law Journal 27, pp. 408–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12451
- Ochnio A.H. (2018). ‘Between the medium and the minimum options to regulate mutual recognition of confiscation orders.’ New Journal of European Criminal Law 9(4), pp. 432–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/2032284418806667
- Oliveira de Silva S. (2022). ‘Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders: A headlong rush into Europe-wide harmonisation?.’ New Journal of European Criminal Law 13(2), pp. 198–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844221104916
- Padjen I.L. (2020). ‘Systematic interpretation and the re systematization of law: The problem, co requisites, a solution, use.’ International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 33, pp. 189–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-019-09672-x
- Płońska A. (2015). ‘Charakter prawny instytucji przepadku po zmianach nowelizacyjnych wprowadzonych do Kodeksu karnego ustawą z dnia 20 lutego 2015 r.’ [Legal nature of the institution of forfeiture after the amendments introduced to the Penal Code by the Act of 20 February 2015]. Nowa Kodyfikacja Prawa Karnego 37, pp. 91–100.
- Proposal for a Council Decision on adding the violation of Union restrictive measures to the areas of crime laid down in Article 83(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, COM(2022) 247 final, Brussels 25.5.2022 (2022a).
- Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime in the European Union, Brussels 12.3.2012 COM(2012) 85 final (2012).
- Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on asset recovery and confiscation, Brussels, 25.5.2022 COM(2022) 245 final (2022b).
- Proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the definition of criminal offences and penalties for the violation of Union restrictive measures, COM(2022) 684 final, Brussels, 2.12.2022 (2022c).
- Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders COM(2016) 819 final, Brussels 21.12.2016 (2016).
- Raglewski J. (2015). ‘Przepadek.’ [Forfeiture]. In W. Wróbel (ed.) Nowelizacja prawa karnego 2015. Komentarz [Amendment of the criminal law 2015. Commentary]. Kraków: Krakowski Instytut Prawa Karnego, pp. 171–176.
- Regulation 2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on the mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders (2018).
- Ringe N. (2022). The Language(s) of Politics. Multilingual Policy-Making in the European Union. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
- Robinson P.H. and Darley J.M. (2004). ‘Does criminal law deter? A behavioural science investigation.’ Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 24(2), pp. 173–205. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/24.2.173
- Robinson W. (2005). ‘How the European Commission drafts legislation in 20 language.’ Clarity 53(5), pp. 4–10.
- Robinson W. (2010). ‘Manuals for drafting European Union legislation.’ Legisprudence 4(2), pp. 129–155. https://doi.org/10.2880/5575
- Rönnau T. and Begemeier M. (2017). ‘Grund und Grenzen der Bruttoeinziehung. Zur Gestaltung der Bruttoabschöpfung anlässlich der Reform der strafrechtlichen Vermögensabschöpfung’ [Reason and limits of gross confiscation. On the design of the gross confiscation on the occasion of the reform of the criminal property confiscation]. Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht 1, pp. 1–19.
- Rui J.P. and Sieber U. (2015). ‘Non-conviction-based confiscation in Europe. Bringing the picture together.’ In J.P. Rui and U. Sieber (eds.) Non-Conviction-Based Confiscation in Europe. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, pp. 245–304.
- Sakellaraki A. (2022). ‘EU asset recovery and confiscation regime – quo vadis? A first assessment of the commission’s proposal to further harmonise the EU asset recovery and confiscation laws. A step in the right direction?.’ New Journal of European Criminal Law 13(4), pp. 478–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844221139577
- Satzger H. (2019). ʻThe harmonisation of criminal sanctions in the European Union – a new approach.’ Eucrim 2, pp. 115–120. https://doi.org/10.30709/eucrim-2019-007
- Schilling T. (2010). ‘Beyond multilingualism: On different approaches to the handling of diverging language versions of a community law.’ European Law Journal 16(1), pp. 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2009.00496.x
- Schilling T. (2011). ‘Multilingualism and multijuralism: Assets of EU legislation and adjudication?.’ German Law Journal 12(7), pp. 1460–1491. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200017399
- Schoepfer A., Carmichael S., and Leeper Piquero N. (2007). ‘Do perceptions of punishment vary between white-collar and street-crimes?.’ Journal of Criminal Justice 35(2), pp. 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.01.003
- Simonato M. (2015). ‘Directive 2014/42/EU and non-conviction based confiscation. A step forward on asset recovery?.’ New Journal of Criminal Law 6(2), pp. 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/203228441500600205
- Simonato M. (2017). ‘Confiscation and fundamental rights across criminal and non-criminal domains.’ ERA Forum 18, pp. 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-017-0485-0
- Stanton-Ife J. (2007). ‘Strict liability: Stigma and regret.’ Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 27(1), pp. 151–173.
- Suominen A. (2014). ‘Effectiveness and functionality of substantive EU criminal law.’ New Journal of European Criminal Law 5(3), pp. 388–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/203228441400500308
- Thunberg Schunke M. (2017). Extended Confiscation in Criminal Law. National, European and International Perspectives. Cambridge–Antwerp–Portland: Intersentia.
- Trinchera T. (2020). ‘Confiscation and asset recovery: Better tools to fight bribery and corruption crime.’ Criminal Law Forum 31, pp. 49–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-020-09382-1
- Ulph J. (2010). ‘Confiscation orders, human rights and penal measures.’ Law Quarterly Review 126, pp. 251–278.
- Warchoł M. (2021). Odpowiedź na interpelację nr 6115 w sprawie prewencyjnej konfiskaty majątku [Reply to Interpellation No. 6115 on Preventive Confiscation of Assets], Sejm.gov.pl. Available online: https://www.sejm.gov.pl/Sejm9.nsf/InterpelacjaTresc.xsp?key=BX6HNN [10.07.2023].
- Wieczorek I. (2020). The Legitimacy of EU Criminal Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
- Willems A. (2020). The Principle of Mutual Trust in EU Criminal Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
- Ziembiński Z. (2007). Logika praktyczna [Practical logic]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.