scholarly journals The problematic scope of extended confiscation in comparative perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 52 ◽  
pp. 119-133
Author(s):  
Ariadna H. Ochnio
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Normative Framework ◽  
Proceeds Of Crime

The scope of extended confiscation is determined, inter alia, by the choice of triggering offences in Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union. The question arises whether EU law guarantees appropriate limits of extended confiscation considering its specificity and the growing range of application in national legal orders. The study compared the normative framework of extended confiscation adopted in the criminal law of Poland, Romania, Germany, Austria, France, Spain, Finland, the Netherlands, and England and Wales. The list of offences, relevant for the scope of extended confiscation, is to be assessed by the Commission by 4 October 2019. The conclusions of the study concern the need to introduce, at the level of EU law, adequate safeguards against the disproportionate application of extended confiscation.

Extended Confiscation of a Material Benefit in Polish Criminal Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 71 (0) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Krzysztof Szczucki
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Lower Chamber ◽  
Proceeds Of Crime ◽  
The Law ◽  
Draft Bill

On 23 March 2017 the Sejm (the lower chamber of the Polish Parliament) passed the Act on Amending the Criminal Code and Numerous Other Acts23. In the reasons appended to the draft bill it was asserted that the law intended “to introduce into Polish substantive, executive and procedural criminal law amendments with a view to enhancing the effectiveness of mechanisms employed to deprive offenders of the benefits they accrued as a result of committing a crime”. This paper sets out to present a construction of Article 45 of the Polish Criminal Code as amended and to assess the correctness of the amendment, particularly in the context of the Polish Constitution and the Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union.

Slowakische Republik (Slovak Republic) v. Achmea BV (C.J.E.U.)

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (5) ◽  
pp. 1101-1113
Author(s):  
Jawad Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effect ◽  
European Union ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Slovak Republic ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaties ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Important Decision ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Energy Charter Treaty

On March 6, 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) found in Slowakische Republik (Slovak Republic) v. Achmea B.V. that the arbitration agreement contained in the 1991 Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic (BIT) had an adverse effect on the autonomy of EU law and, thus, was incompatible with EU law. This important decision has ignited a debate on the compatibility of other arbitration agreements in both intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (intra-EU BITs) and in the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) with EU law.

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

2013 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan Boucht
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Level ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Target Area ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Proceeds Of Crime ◽  
Procedural Safeguards ◽  
The Eu

This article consists of a principled analysis of extended confiscation as a legal phenomenon according to Article 4 of 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) 85 final). The analysis aims at creating a theoretical framework by which the legitimacy of schemes on extended confiscation can be assessed, both at EU level and at national level. This model utilises three parameters of assessment: the target area of extended confiscation, procedural safeguards and fairness (proportionality). The Commission proposal is set against these parameters and a suggestion is made for how the provision in the proposal could be revised in order to better fulfil the conditions put forward.

scholarly journals CONFISCATION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION CRIMINAL LAW

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mihaela Agheniţei
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Organized Crime ◽  
Role Models ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Financial Systems ◽  
Negative Role ◽  
Proceeds Of Crime

AbstractThe confiscation of proceeds of crime has long been seen within the European Unionand beyond as an important tool in the armory of weapons to fight organized crime. Therationale for focusing on the confiscation of criminal proceeds is at least two- fold. First itaddresses concerns that enormous criminal wealth, generated most notably by various formsof trafficking offences, risks destabilizing financial systems and corrupting. As such theconfiscation of criminal assets seeks ultimately to reduce and prevent crime by making knownthat criminals will not be allowed to legitimate society. Second it attempts to undermine the“raison d'être” behind most organized crime activity, namely the maximization of profit byillicit means. As such the confiscation of criminal assets seeks ultimately to reduce andprevent crime by making known that criminals will not be allowed to enjoy their illicit wealth.By the same token, focusing on confiscation of criminal wealth can send an importantmessage by removing negative role models from local communities.

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Cases T-18/10 and C-583/11 P ‘Inuit I’), EU:T:2011:419, 6 September 2011/ EU:C:2013:625, 3 October 2013

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noreen O'Meara
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union

Essential Cases: EU Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Cases T-18/00 and C-583/11 P ‘Inuit I’), EU:T:2011:419, 6 September 2011/ EU:C:2013:625, 3 October 2013. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Noreen O’Meara.

For the Eligibility of Non-conviction Based Confiscation

De Jure ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolay Kolev ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Proceeds Of Crime

This article research some aspects on acceptance Directive 2014/42/EU on the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union with a thorough study of how positive the Union is to introducing non-convictionbased confiscation models.

24. The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: EU justice and home affairs law and policy

2020 ◽  
pp. 557-579
Author(s):  
Marios Costa ◽  
Steve Peers
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Irregular Migrants ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Eu Policies ◽  
Immigration And Asylum ◽  
Legislative Measures

This chapter examines the European Union (EU) home affairs law and policy, known in EU law as ‘the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ)’. It discusses the provisions of EU law on immigration and asylum (refugees and subsidiary protection) regulating the entry and residence of non-EU citizens, distinguishing between legal and unauthorised entry (controls at the border and expulsion and detention of irregular migrants), and the protection given to third -country nationals by a range of legislative measures. It also introduces the legal framework for the EU’s criminal justice policies, including the link between substantive criminal law and other EU policies.

3. Scope of the EU Treaty: laws and lawmaking

2020 ◽  
pp. 53-88
Author(s):  
Marios Costa ◽  
Steve Peers
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Democratic Deficit ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Law Making ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines the lawmaking powers of the European Union (EU) in the context of its Treaties. It explains that the EU has the competence to make law of various types (including secondary legislation, soft law, delegated acts and implementing acts) in a broad range of areas and that the amendments to the lawmaking procedures have affected the institutional balance, giving an increased role to the European Parliament. It discusses the changes made to improve the level of democracy at EU level, to address concerns that EU law-making has a ‘democratic deficit’ and lacks transparency and proportionality. The chapter also considers the different aspects of EU competence, describes the lawmaking process and sources of EU law and also addresses questions concerning the determination of exclusive, shared and concurrent competence, particularly in the context of subsidiarity. Furthermore, it examines the rules on the EU adopting legislation without all Member States participating (closer cooperation).

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Cases T-18/10 and C-583/11 P ‘Inuit I’), EU:T:2011:419, 6 September 2011/ EU:C:2013:625, 3 October 2013

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noreen O'Meara
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union

Essential Cases: EU Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Cases T-18/00 and C-583/11 P 'Inuit I'), EU:T:2011:419, 6 September 2011/ EU:C:2013:625, 3 October 2013. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Noreen O’Meara.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document