《里斯本条约》下的欧盟刑法政策

O.O. Kotsubei
{"title":"《里斯本条约》下的欧盟刑法政策","authors":"O.O. Kotsubei","doi":"10.15330/apiclu.54.160-169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The new provisions introduced by the Lisbon Treaty provide flexibility and thus eliminate many questions about whether the EU can be empowered to act in any area of criminal law. However, its powers and tools raise other issues. First, the Lisbon reforms demonstrate an agreement to disagree on whether centralized action should form a major part of national legislation. Although the application of mutual recognition as a constitutional standard implies that Member States remain at the forefront of law enforcement, the Lisbon Treaty clearly allows for future decisions on the centralization of powers in EU institutions such as Europol and Eurojust. It also does not provide for unconditional criminal jurisdiction, but imposes some restrictions. Directives are also a problem as a legal instrument by which the Union can establish minimum rules. Given the significant limitations of the Directive as a tool and the potential lack of direct impact on instruments containing minimum rules, the question arises as to whether any provisions in the section on Freedom, Security and Justice can allow the creation of directly applicable criminal law in the form of regulations. acts, or whether it is possible to use these or other powers that are allegedly outside the scope of this section to circumvent the references to the directives. In addition, it should not be forgotten that the TFEU provides for exclusive, shared and supportive competences in the field of criminal law policy.","PeriodicalId":196689,"journal":{"name":"Actual problems of improving of current legislation of Ukraine","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"EU Criminal Law Policy Under The Lisbon Treaty\",\"authors\":\"O.O. Kotsubei\",\"doi\":\"10.15330/apiclu.54.160-169\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The new provisions introduced by the Lisbon Treaty provide flexibility and thus eliminate many questions about whether the EU can be empowered to act in any area of criminal law. However, its powers and tools raise other issues. First, the Lisbon reforms demonstrate an agreement to disagree on whether centralized action should form a major part of national legislation. Although the application of mutual recognition as a constitutional standard implies that Member States remain at the forefront of law enforcement, the Lisbon Treaty clearly allows for future decisions on the centralization of powers in EU institutions such as Europol and Eurojust. It also does not provide for unconditional criminal jurisdiction, but imposes some restrictions. Directives are also a problem as a legal instrument by which the Union can establish minimum rules. Given the significant limitations of the Directive as a tool and the potential lack of direct impact on instruments containing minimum rules, the question arises as to whether any provisions in the section on Freedom, Security and Justice can allow the creation of directly applicable criminal law in the form of regulations. acts, or whether it is possible to use these or other powers that are allegedly outside the scope of this section to circumvent the references to the directives. In addition, it should not be forgotten that the TFEU provides for exclusive, shared and supportive competences in the field of criminal law policy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":196689,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Actual problems of improving of current legislation of Ukraine\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Actual problems of improving of current legislation of Ukraine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15330/apiclu.54.160-169\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Actual problems of improving of current legislation of Ukraine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15330/apiclu.54.160-169","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

《里斯本条约》引入的新条款提供了灵活性,从而消除了有关欧盟是否有权在任何刑法领域采取行动的许多问题。然而,它的权力和工具引发了其他问题。首先,《里斯本条约》改革表明,各国在集中行动是否应成为国家立法的主要部分这一问题上达成了一致。尽管将相互承认作为宪法标准的适用意味着成员国仍处于执法的前沿,但《里斯本条约》明确允许未来就欧洲刑警组织和欧洲司法机构等欧盟机构的权力集中作出决定。它也没有规定无条件的刑事管辖权,但施加了一些限制。指令作为一种法律文书也是一个问题,欧盟可以据此制定最低限度的规则。鉴于该指令作为一种工具的重大局限性,以及可能对载有最低限度规则的文书缺乏直接影响,因此产生了一个问题,即关于自由、安全和正义的一节中的任何规定是否能够允许以条例的形式建立直接适用的刑法。行为,或者是否有可能使用这些或其他据称不在本节范围内的权力来规避对指令的引用。此外,不应忘记的是,刑事法律政策条约规定了在刑法政策领域的专门、共同和支助性权限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
EU Criminal Law Policy Under The Lisbon Treaty
The new provisions introduced by the Lisbon Treaty provide flexibility and thus eliminate many questions about whether the EU can be empowered to act in any area of criminal law. However, its powers and tools raise other issues. First, the Lisbon reforms demonstrate an agreement to disagree on whether centralized action should form a major part of national legislation. Although the application of mutual recognition as a constitutional standard implies that Member States remain at the forefront of law enforcement, the Lisbon Treaty clearly allows for future decisions on the centralization of powers in EU institutions such as Europol and Eurojust. It also does not provide for unconditional criminal jurisdiction, but imposes some restrictions. Directives are also a problem as a legal instrument by which the Union can establish minimum rules. Given the significant limitations of the Directive as a tool and the potential lack of direct impact on instruments containing minimum rules, the question arises as to whether any provisions in the section on Freedom, Security and Justice can allow the creation of directly applicable criminal law in the form of regulations. acts, or whether it is possible to use these or other powers that are allegedly outside the scope of this section to circumvent the references to the directives. In addition, it should not be forgotten that the TFEU provides for exclusive, shared and supportive competences in the field of criminal law policy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信