Harmonisering och ömsesidigt erkännande på straffrättens område. En analys av det straffrättsliga EU-samarbetets konsekvenser för straffrättens målsättningar
(2010) JURM01 20101Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Sammanfattning
Inom EU har ett samarbete på straffrättens område etablerats som kan beskrivas som allt mer intensifierat. Sedan Tammerforsslutsatserna från år 1999 pågår detta mot bakgrund av EU:s målsättning om att erbjuda sina medborgare ett område med frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa. Det straffrättsliga samarbetet sker enligt två strategier; ömsesidigt erkännande av rättsliga beslut respektive harmonisering av medlemsstaternas straffrättsliga lagstiftning. Dessa två strategier kan beskrivas som ideologiskt motsatta. Den första innebär att medlemsstater ska erkänna och verkställa rättsliga beslut härstammande från andra medlemsstater, i princip utan ingående kontroller. Principen vilar på en acceptans av medlemsstaternas straffrättssystem... (More) - Sammanfattning
Inom EU har ett samarbete på straffrättens område etablerats som kan beskrivas som allt mer intensifierat. Sedan Tammerforsslutsatserna från år 1999 pågår detta mot bakgrund av EU:s målsättning om att erbjuda sina medborgare ett område med frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa. Det straffrättsliga samarbetet sker enligt två strategier; ömsesidigt erkännande av rättsliga beslut respektive harmonisering av medlemsstaternas straffrättsliga lagstiftning. Dessa två strategier kan beskrivas som ideologiskt motsatta. Den första innebär att medlemsstater ska erkänna och verkställa rättsliga beslut härstammande från andra medlemsstater, i princip utan ingående kontroller. Principen vilar på en acceptans av medlemsstaternas straffrättssystem trots rådande heterogenitet, skillnader i medlemsstaternas lagstiftning ska inte hindra ett samarbete. Harmoniseringsstrategin innebär att medlemsstaternas strafflagstiftning ska tillnärmas så att homogen reglering uppstår inom EU.
Ett samarbete utformat enligt dessa strategier kan medföra betydande konsekvenser för straffrätten. Den traditionella uppfattningen är att straffrätten består av ett nationellt system med de tre nivåerna kriminaliseringsnivån, domsnivån och verkställighetsnivån. På dessa nivåer pågår skilda verksamheter med skilda syften. Detta system måste vara sammanhållet för att straffrättens målsättningar om att bekämpa brott och att skydda individen mot maktmissbruk ska kunna uppfyllas. Med ett samarbete i enlighet med de två strategierna sker en viss omfördelning av straffsystemets verksamheter på så sätt att de inte stannar inom den nationella staten. Detta kan äventyra uppfyllandet av straffrättens målsättningar. Uppsatsens övergripande frågeställning – om huruvida ett straffrättsligt samarbete i enlighet med strategin enligt principen ömsesidigt erkännande respektive harmonisering är lämpligt med hänsyn till upprätthållandet av straffrättens målsättningar – tar sikte på denna problematik.
I uppsatsen undersöks således samarbetets konsekvenser för straffrättssystemet och vad detta kan innebära för straffrättens syften. Viktiga slutsatser som kan dras av utredningen är att samarbetet, såsom strategierna tillämpas i dag, medför svårigheter för upprätthållande av straffrättens syften vilket ytterst bottnar i skillnader i medlemsstaternas straffrättssystem. Vidare är samarbetet framför allt inriktat på uppfyllande av syftet om brottsbekämpning. Sett mot bakgrund av EU:s målsättning om ett område med frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa förefaller harmonisering vara den bäst lämpade strategin för uppfyllande av straffrättens samtliga målsättningar, särskilt i kombination med principen om ömsesidigt erkännande. Med bristande harmonisering riskerar lika brott leda till olika straff, vilket – utifrån straffrättens syften sett – inte kan anses acceptabelt. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Summary
Within the EU, cooperation in criminal matters has been established and the cooperation could be described as increasingly intensified. Since the Tampere Conclusions of 1999 the cooperation is on its way in the light of the EU’s aim to offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice. The cooperation in criminal matters has developed mainly throughout two strategies: mutual recognition of judicial decisions and harmonisation of national criminal law. These two strategies can be described as ideologically contradictory. Cooperation under the principle of mutual recognition means that Member States should recognise and enforce legal decisions from other Member States with a minimum of formalities. The principle rests on... (More) - Summary
Within the EU, cooperation in criminal matters has been established and the cooperation could be described as increasingly intensified. Since the Tampere Conclusions of 1999 the cooperation is on its way in the light of the EU’s aim to offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice. The cooperation in criminal matters has developed mainly throughout two strategies: mutual recognition of judicial decisions and harmonisation of national criminal law. These two strategies can be described as ideologically contradictory. Cooperation under the principle of mutual recognition means that Member States should recognise and enforce legal decisions from other Member States with a minimum of formalities. The principle rests on an acceptance between the Member States of each other’s criminal justice systems despite the prevailing heterogeneity between them; differences in national legislation should not prevent cooperation. The harmonisation strategy on the other hand means that the Member States’ criminal laws should be approximated so that homogeneous regulation occurs within the EU.
Cooperation in accordance with these two strategies can have significant implications for the criminal law. The traditional view is that the criminal law consists of a national criminal justice system with three levels; level of criminalisation, level of adjudication of guilt and punishment and the level of administration of punishment. At each level a certain kind of power is exercised and each level has different aims. The criminal justice system must be coherent in order for the purposes of the criminal law, to fight crime and to protect the individual against abuse of power, to be maintained. However, through cooperation under the two strategies the criminal justice system is affected so that it does not retain its sole national character. This can undermine the implementation of the purposes of the criminal law. The main question in the thesis – whether a judicial cooperation in accordance with the strategy under the principle of mutual recognition and harmonisation is appropriate to the enforcement of criminal law objectives – outlines and discusses this problem.
The thesis thus examines the implications of the cooperation in criminal matters for the criminal justice system and the implications this may have for the underlying purposes of the criminal law. An important conclusion to be drawn from the study is that the cooperation, such as its strategies are applied today, implies difficulties in maintaining the purposes of the criminal law, which ultimately emanates from differences in the Member States´ criminal justice systems. Also, the cooperation focuses primarily on satisfying the purpose of crime prevention. Viewed in the light of the aim of an area of freedom, security and justice, harmonisation seems to be the most appropriate strategy, especially in combination with the principle of mutual recognition. A lack of harmonisation may lead to that the same offense leads to different sentences, which – based on the purposes of criminal law – cannot be considered acceptable. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/1669669
- author
- Petersson Kornelius, Emelie LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Harmonisation and mutual recognition in criminal matters
- course
- JURM01 20101
- year
- 2010
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- ömsesidigt erkännande, harmonisering, Straffrättsligt EU-samarbete, EU-straffrätt, Straffrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 1669669
- date added to LUP
- 2010-09-10 10:48:29
- date last changed
- 2010-09-24 09:51:20
@misc{1669669,
abstract = {{Summary
Within the EU, cooperation in criminal matters has been established and the cooperation could be described as increasingly intensified. Since the Tampere Conclusions of 1999 the cooperation is on its way in the light of the EU’s aim to offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice. The cooperation in criminal matters has developed mainly throughout two strategies: mutual recognition of judicial decisions and harmonisation of national criminal law. These two strategies can be described as ideologically contradictory. Cooperation under the principle of mutual recognition means that Member States should recognise and enforce legal decisions from other Member States with a minimum of formalities. The principle rests on an acceptance between the Member States of each other’s criminal justice systems despite the prevailing heterogeneity between them; differences in national legislation should not prevent cooperation. The harmonisation strategy on the other hand means that the Member States’ criminal laws should be approximated so that homogeneous regulation occurs within the EU.
Cooperation in accordance with these two strategies can have significant implications for the criminal law. The traditional view is that the criminal law consists of a national criminal justice system with three levels; level of criminalisation, level of adjudication of guilt and punishment and the level of administration of punishment. At each level a certain kind of power is exercised and each level has different aims. The criminal justice system must be coherent in order for the purposes of the criminal law, to fight crime and to protect the individual against abuse of power, to be maintained. However, through cooperation under the two strategies the criminal justice system is affected so that it does not retain its sole national character. This can undermine the implementation of the purposes of the criminal law. The main question in the thesis – whether a judicial cooperation in accordance with the strategy under the principle of mutual recognition and harmonisation is appropriate to the enforcement of criminal law objectives – outlines and discusses this problem.
The thesis thus examines the implications of the cooperation in criminal matters for the criminal justice system and the implications this may have for the underlying purposes of the criminal law. An important conclusion to be drawn from the study is that the cooperation, such as its strategies are applied today, implies difficulties in maintaining the purposes of the criminal law, which ultimately emanates from differences in the Member States´ criminal justice systems. Also, the cooperation focuses primarily on satisfying the purpose of crime prevention. Viewed in the light of the aim of an area of freedom, security and justice, harmonisation seems to be the most appropriate strategy, especially in combination with the principle of mutual recognition. A lack of harmonisation may lead to that the same offense leads to different sentences, which – based on the purposes of criminal law – cannot be considered acceptable.}},
author = {{Petersson Kornelius, Emelie}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Harmonisering och ömsesidigt erkännande på straffrättens område. En analys av det straffrättsliga EU-samarbetets konsekvenser för straffrättens målsättningar}},
year = {{2010}},
}