# EUR-Lex - 52011DC0573 - EN

*|*

# 52011DC0573

**COMMUNICATION 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 /* COM/2011/0573 final */**

			*

			*

Towards
an EU Criminal Policy: Ensuring the effective implementation of EU policies
through criminal law

This Communication aims to present a
framework for the further development of an EU Criminal Policy under the Lisbon
Treaty. The EU now has an explicit legal basis for the adoption of criminal law
directives to ensure the effective implementation of EU policies which have
been subject to harmonisation measures. An EU Criminal Policy should have as
overall goal to foster citizens' confidence in the fact that they live in a
Europe of freedom, security and justice, that EU law protecting their interests
is fully implemented and enforced and that at the same time the EU will act in
full respect of subsidiarity and proportionality and other basic Treaty principles.

A concern for EU citizens

EU citizens consider crime an important
problem facing the Union. When asked to identify the issues on which the
European institutions should focus action in the coming years to strengthen the
European Union, citizens rank the fight against crime in the top four of areas
of action.[1]
The EU has been taking measures in the area of criminal law for more than a
decade in order to better fight crime that has become increasingly
international and ever more sophisticated. These measures have achieved some
degree of approximation of definitions and sanction levels for certain
particularly serious offences, such as terrorism, trafficking in human beings,
drug trafficking, and fraud affecting the EU financial interests.[2] For lack of an explicit legal
basis in this respect prior to the Lisbon Treaty[3],
only very few measures have been taken for the purpose of strenghtening the
enforcement of EU policies.[4]
This Communication will focus on this aspect of EU criminal law.

The added
value of EU criminal law

Certainly, criminal law is a sensitive
policy field where differences amongst the national systems remain substantial,
for example regarding sanction types and levels as well as the classification
of certain conduct as an administrative or criminal offence. However, the EU
can tackle gaps and shortcomings wherever EU action adds value. In view of the
cross-border dimension of many crimes, the adoption of EU criminal law measures
can help ensuring that criminals can neither hide behind borders nor abuse
differences between national legal systems for criminal purposes.

Strengthening
mutual trust

Common minimum
rules in certain crime areas are also essential to enhance the mutual trust between
Member States and the national judiciaries. This high level of trust is
indispensable for smooth cooperation among the judiciary in different Member
States. The principle of mutual recognition of judicial measures, which is the
cornerstone of judicial cooperation in criminal matters[5], can only work effectively on
this basis.

Ensuring
effective enforcement

Criminal law can play an important role to
ensure the implementation of European Union policies. These policies depend on
effective implementation by Member States. The Union alone cannot make sure that
its rules, ranging from environmental protection and conservation of fisheries
resources to road safety, financial services regulation, data protection and
the protection of the financial interests of the EU, have the desired effect
for the citizen.

Member States are obliged to ensure that
Union policies are implemented and can usually decide themselves on the means
of enforcement. In this respect, controls and inspections play a crucial role. In
cases where the enforcement choices in the Member States do not yield the
desired result and levels of enforcement remain uneven, the Union itself may
set common rules on how to ensure implementation, including, if necessary, the
requirement for criminal sanctions for breaches of EU law.

Coherence and consistency

While EU criminal law measures can play an
important role as a complement to the national criminal law systems, it is
clear that criminal law reflects the basic values, customs and choices of any
given society. The Lisbon Treaty accepts this diversity.[6] For this reason, it is
particularly important to ensure that EU legislation on criminal law, in order
to have a real added value, is consistent and coherent.[7]

A new
legal framework

The legal
framework under the Lisbon Treaty provides fresh opportunities to develop EU
criminal law legislation. The legal framework notably allows the EU
institutions and Member

States to work
together on a clear basis towards a coherent and consistent EU criminal law
which at the same time effectively protects the rights of suspected and accused
persons and victims and promotes the quality of justice. Prior to the Lisbon
Treaty, the legal framework applicable to most criminal law legislation[8] had a number of shortcomings.
These included mainly the requirement for unanimous approval of all Member
States, consultation only of the European Parliament and the absence of the
possibility of infringement proceedings before the European Court of Justice to
ensure the correct implementation by Member States.

The new legal
set-up gives a strong role to the European Parliament through the co-decision
process and full judicial control to the European Court of Justice. The Council
can adopt a proposal if a qualified majority of Member States supports it. In
addition, the Lisbon Treaty strengthens the role of national parliaments
substantially. They can give their views on draft legislation and have an
important voice in monitoring the respect of the principle of subsidiarity. In
the field of criminal law, this role of national parliaments is stronger than
in the context of other EU policies.[9]

Criminal law measures comprise
intrusive rules, which can result in deprivation of liberty. This is why the
Charter of Fundamental Rights – made legally binding by the Lisbon Treaty[10] – provides important limits
for EU action in this field. The Charter,
being the compass of all EU
policies, provides for a
binding core of rules that protects citizens.

When legislating on substantive criminal
law or criminal procedure, Member States can pull the so-called “emergency
brake”, if they consider that proposed legislation touches upon fundamental
aspects of their national criminal justice system: in this case the proposal is
referred to the European Council.

Denmark is not
participating in newly adopted measures on substantive criminal law, while the
United Kingdom and Ireland only participate in the adoption and application of specific
instruments after a decision to "opt in".[11]

Why the EU should act – the added value
of EU criminal law legislation

The Lisbon Treaty grants the EU competence both in the field of
criminal procedure and substantive criminal law. While it is not the role of
the EU to replace national criminal codes, EU criminal law legislation can,
however, add, within the limits of EU competence, important value to the
existing national criminal law systems.

·
EU criminal law fosters the confidence of
citizens in using their right to free movement and to buy goods or services
from providers from other Member States through a more effective fight against
crime and the adoption of minimum standards for procedural rights in criminal
proceedings as well as for victims of crime.

·
Today, many serious crimes, including violations
of harmonised EU legislation, occur across borders. There is thus an incentive
and possibility for criminals to choose the Member State with the most lenient sanctioning
system in certain crime areas unless a degree of approximation of the national
laws prevents the existence of such "safe havens".

·
Common rules strengthen mutual trust among the
judiciaries and law enforcement authorities of the Member States. This facilitates
the mutual recognition of judicial measures as national authorities feel more
comfortable recognising decisions taken in another Member State if the
definitions of the underlying criminal offences are compatible and there is a
minimum approximation of sanction level. Common rules also facilitate
cooperation with regard to the use of special investigative measures in
cross-border cases.

·
EU criminal law helps to prevent and sanction serious
offences against EU law in important policy areas, such as the protection of
the environment or illegal employment.

1.
Scope for EU criminal law

The EU can adopt under Article 83 of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) directives with minimum
rules on EU criminal law for different crimes.

First of all, measures can be adopted under
Article 83(1) TFEU concerning a list of explicitly listed ten offences (the
so-called “Euro crimes”) which refers to terrorism, trafficking in human
beings, sexual exploitation of women and children, illicit drug traficking,
illicit arms trafficking, money laundering, corruption, counterfeiting of means
of payment, computer crime and organised crime.[12] These
are crimes that merit, by definition, an EU approach due to their particularly
serious nature and their cross-border dimension, according to the Treaty
itself. Most of the crime areas are already covered by pre-Lisbon legislation,
which has been or is in the process of being updated. Additional “Euro crimes” can
only be defined by the Council acting unanimously, with the consent of the
European Parliament.

Secondly, Article 83(2) TFEU allows the
European Parliament and the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, to
establish "minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal
offences and sanctions if the approximation of criminal laws and regulations of
the Member States proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of a
Union policy in an area which has been subject to a harmonisation
measure". This clause does not list specific crimes, but makes the
fulfillment of certain legal criteria a precondition for the adoption of
criminal law measures at EU level. It is therefore notably in respect of
Article 83(2) TFEU where an EU criminal policy is particularly warranted; and
where this Communication intends to provide specific guidance. Most
importantly, it is in this field where the EU institutions need to make policy
choices whether to use or not to use criminal law (instead of other measures,
such as administrative sanctions) as an enforcement tool; and to determine
which EU policies require the use of criminal law as an additional enforcement
tool.

Example: The EU's rules on financial market
behaviour are a case in point where criminal law could be a useful additional
tool to ensure effective enforcement. As the financial crisis has shown,
financial market rules are not always respected and applied sufficiently. This
can seriously undermine confidence in the financial sector. Greater convergence
between legal regimes in the Member States, including in criminal law, can help
to prevent the risk of improper functioning of financial markets and assist the
development of a level playing field within the internal market.[13]

Apart from that, Article 325 (4) of the
Treaty provides for the specific possibility to take measures in the field of
the prevention of and fight against fraud affecting the financial interests
of the Union, a field where some pre-Lisbon legislation already exists.[14] It is an area of great importance for EU taxpayers, who are funding
the EU budget and who legitimately expect effective measures against illegal
activities targeting EU public money, e.g. in the context of the EU's
agricultural and regional funds or development aid.[15]

2.
Which principles should guide EU criminal law
legislation?

As in national law, EU criminal law
legislation must be carefully considered. Criminal law, whether national or
European, consists of rules with a significant impact on individuals. For this
reason, and because criminal law must always remain a measure of last resort,
new legislation requires the respect of fundamental legal principles.

2.1.
General principles to respect

The general subsidiarity requirement for EU legislation must
be given special attention with regard to criminal law. This means that the EU
can only legislate if the goal cannot be reached more effectively by measures
at national or regional and local level but rather due to the scale or effects
of the proposed measure can be better achieved at Union level.

In addition, fundamental rights, as
guaranteed in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and in the European
Convention on the Protection on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, must be respected
in any policy field of the Union. Criminal law measures are fundamental rights-sensitive.
They unavoidably interfere with individual rights, be it those of the suspect,
of the victim or of witnesses. Ultimately, they can result in deprivation of
liberty and therefore require particular attention by the legislator.

2.2.
A two-step approach in criminal law
legislation

The EU legislator should follow two steps
when taking the decision on criminal law measures aimed at ensuring the
effective implementation of EU policies which are the subject of hamonising
measures.

2.2.1.
Step 1: The decision on whether to adopt
criminal law measures at all

· Necessity and Proportionality – Criminal law as a means of last
resort ("ultima ratio")

Criminal investigations and sanctions may
have a significant impact on citizens' rights and include a stigmatising
effect. Therefore, criminal law must always remain a measure of last resort.
This is reflected in the general principle of proportionality (as embodied in
the Treaty on European Union[16]
and, specifically for criminal penalties, in the EU Charter of Fundamental
Rights[17]).
For criminal law measures supporting the enforcement of EU policies,[18] the Treaty explicitly requires
a test of whether criminal law measures are "essential" to achieve
the goal of an effective policy implementation.

Therefore, the legislator needs to analyse
whether measures other than criminal law measures, e.g. sanction regimes of
administrative or civil nature, could not sufficiently ensure the policy
implementation and whether criminal law could address the problems more
effectively. This will require a thorough analysis in the Impact Assessments
preceding any legislative proposal, including for instance and depending on the
specificities of the policy area concerned, an assessment of whether Member
States’ sanction regimes achieve the desired result and difficulties faced by
national authorities implementing EU law on the ground.

2.2.2.
Step 2: Principles guiding the decision on what
kind of criminal law measures to adopt

Should Step 1 demonstrate the need for
criminal law, the next question is which concrete measures to take.

· Minimum rules

EU legislation regarding the definition
of criminal offences and sanctions is limited to "minimum
rules" under Article 83 of the Treaty. This limitation rules
out a full harmonisation. At the same time, the principle of legal certainty
requires that the conduct to be considered criminal must be defined clearly.

However, an EU directive on criminal law
does not have any direct effect on a citizen; it will have to be implemented in
national law first. Therefore, the requirements for legal certainty are not the
same as for national criminal law legislation. The key is the clarity for the
national legislator about the results to be achieved in implementing EU
legislation.

Regarding sanctions, "minimum
rules" can be requirements of certain sanction types (e.g. fines,
imprisonment, disqualification), levels or the EU-wide definition of what are
to be considered aggravating or mitigating circumstances. In each case, the EU
instrument may only set out which sanctions have to be made "at
least" available to the judges in each Member State.

· Necessity and proportionality

The condition of "necessity" set
out above also applies on the level of deciding which criminal law measures to
include in a particular legislative instrument. The "necessity test"
becomes the more important the more detailed the envisaged rules are with
regard to the type and level of sanctions to be required from Member States. The
explicit requirement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights[19] that "the severity of the
penalty must not be disproportionate to the criminal offence" applies.

· Clear factual evidence

To establish the necessity for minimum
rules on criminal law, the EU institutions need to be able to rely on clear
factual evidence about the nature or effects of the crime in question and about
a diverging legal situation in all Member States which could jeopardise the
effective enforcement of an EU policy subject to harmonisation. This is why the
EU needs to have at its disposal statistical data from the national authorities
that allow it to assess the factual situation. As part of its follow up action,
the Commission will develop plans to collect further statistical data and
evidence to deal with the areas covered by Article 325 (4) and Article 83 (2).

· Tailoring the sanctions to the crime

The development of criminal law
legislation, notably to underpin the effectiveness of EU policies requires also
careful consideration of, for example, the following issues:

–
whether to include types of sanctions other than
imprisonment and fines to ensure a maximum level of effectiveness,
proportionality and dissuasiveness, as well as the need for additional
measures, such as confiscation; and

–
whether to impose criminal or non-criminal
liability on legal persons, in particular with regard to crime areas where
legal entities play a particularly important role as perpetrators.

What is the possible content of EU
minimum rules on criminal law?

The definition of the offences, i.e. the description of
conduct considered to be criminal, always covers the conduct of the main
perpetrator but also in most cases ancillary conduct such as instigating,
aiding and abetting. In some cases, the attempt to commit the offence is also
covered.

All EU criminal law instruments include in the definition
intentional conduct, but in some cases also seriously negligent conduct. Some
instruments further define what should be considered as "aggravating"
or "mitigating" circumstances for the determination of the sanction
in a particular case.

Generally, EU legislation covers offences committed by natural
persons as well as by legal persons such as companies or associations.
The latter can be important in many areas, e.g. concerning responsibility for
oil spills. However, in existing legislation, Member States have always been
left with the choice concerning the type of liability of legal persons for the
commission of criminal offences, as the concept of criminal liability of legal
persons does not exist in all national legal orders.

Furthermore, EU legislation can cover rules on jurisdiction, as
well as other aspects that are considered part of the definition as necessary
elements for the effective application of the legal provision.

Regarding sanctions, EU criminal law can require Member States to
take effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal sanctions for a
specific conduct. Effectiveness requires that the sanction is
suitable to achieve the desired goal, i.e. observance of the rules; proportionality
requires that the sanction must be commensurate with the gravity of the conduct
and its effects and must not exceed what is necessary to achieve the aim; and dissuasiveness
requires that the sanctions constitute an adequate deterrent for potential future
perpetrators.

Sometimes, EU criminal law determines more specifically, which types
and/or levels of sanctions are to be made applicable. Provisions concerning
confiscation can also be included. It is not the primary goal of an EU-wide
approximation to increase the respective sanction levels applicable in the
Member States but rather to reduce the degree of variation between the national
systems and to ensure that the requirements of "effective, proportionate
and dissuasive" sanctions are indeed met in all Member States.

3.
which are the EU policy areas where EU criminal law
might be needed?

Criminal law measures can be considered as
an element to ensure the effective enforcement of EU policies, as recognized by
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. EU policies cover a broad
variety of subjects, where common rules have been developed over the last
decades for the well-being of citizens. These policy areas range from the
customs union and internal market rules to the protection of the environment.

In all these policy areas, Member States
are obliged to ensure that breaches of EU law are to be sanctioned with
effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties. Member States can in general
choose the nature of the sanction which does not have to be criminal but could
also be administrative.

Where the discretion of Member States in
implementing EU law does not lead to the desired effective enforcement, it may
be necessary to regulate, by means of minumum rules, at EU level which
sanctions Member States have to foresee in their national legislation.
Approximating sanction levels will in particular be a consideration if an
analysis of the current sanction legislation of administrative or criminal
nature reveals significant differences amongst the Member States and if those
differences lead to an inconsistent application of EU rules.

If EU action is required, the EU legislator
needs to decide whether criminal sanctions are necessary or whether common
administrative sanctions are sufficient. This will depend on a case-by-case
assessment of the specific enforcement problems in a policy area along the
guiding principles set out above.

There are a number of policy areas which
have been harmonised and where it has been established that criminal law
measures at EU level are required. This concerns notably measures to fight
serious damaging practices and illegal profits in some economic sectors in
order to protect activities of legitimate businesses and safeguard the interest
of taxpayers:

· the financial sector, e.g. concerning
market manipulation or insider trading;[20]

· the fight against fraud affecting the
financial interests of the European Union, to ensure that taxpayers’ money is
protected to an equivalent degree across the Union. In a recent Communication,
the Commission set out a range of tools that should be considered to strengthen
this protection,[21]
including criminal procedure, common definitions of offences and rules on
jurisdiction.

· the protection of the euro against counterfeiting through criminal
law in order to strengthen the public's trust in
the security of means of payment.

The Commission will further reflect on ways how criminal law could
contribute to the economic recovery by helping tackle the illegal economy and financial
criminality.

In other harmonised policy areas, the
potential role of criminal law as a necessary tool to ensure effective
enforcement could also be explored further. Indicative examples could be:

· road transport, concerning, e.g.,
serious infringements of EU social, technical, safety and market rules for
professional transports;[22]

· data protection, for cases of serious
breaches of existing EU rules;[23]

· customs rules concerning the
approximation of customs offences and penalties;[24]

· environmental protection, if the
existing criminal law legislation in this area[25] requires further strengthening
in the future in order to prevent and sanction environmental damage;

· fisheries policy, where the EU
has adopted a "zero tolerance" campaign against illegal, unreported
and unregulated fishing;

· internal market policies to fight
serious illegal practices such as counterfeiting and corruption or undeclared
conflict of interests in the context of public procurement.

These are areas which will require further
assessment whether and in which areas minimum rules on the definition of
criminal offences and sanctions may prove to be essential in order to ensure
the effective implementation of EU legislation.

This analysis should take into account the
following considerations:

The seriousness and character
of the breach of law must be taken into account. For certain unlawful acts
considered particularly grave, an administrative sanction may not be a
sufficiently strong response. On the same line, criminal law sanctions may be
chosen when it is considered important to stress strong disapproval in
order to ensure deterrence. The entering of convictions in criminal records can
have a particular deterrent character. At the same time, criminal
proceedings provide often for stronger protection of the rights of the
accused, reflecting the seriousness of the charge. The efficiency of the
sanction system must be considered, as well as the extent to which and the
reasons why existing sanctions do not achieve the desired enforcement level. The type of sanction that is considered to be the most appropriate
to reach the global objective of being effective, proportionate and
dissuasive should be chosen. An administrative sanction
can often be decided and executed without delay, and lengthy and resource
demanding procedures can thereby be avoided. Administrative sanctions may for
this reason be considered in areas where, for example the offence is not
particularly severe or occurs in large numbers as well
as in areas where administrative sanctions and procedures are suitable and
effective for other reasons (e.g. complex economic assessments). In many cases, administrative law also provides for a broader
range of possible sanctions, from fines and suspension of licenses to exclusion
from entitlement to public benefits, which can be tailored to the specific
situation. In many cases, administrative
sanctions may therefore be sufficient or even more effective than criminal
sanctions.

4.
Conclusion

Even though the new legal framework
introduced by the Lisbon Treaty does not fundamentally alter the possible scope
of EU criminal law, it considerably enhances the possibility to progress with
the development of a coherent EU Criminal Policy which is based on
considerations both of effective enforcement and a solid protection of
fundamental rights. This communication represents a first step in the Commission's
efforts to put in place a coherent and consistent EU Criminal Policy by setting
out how the EU should use criminal law to ensure the effective implementation
of EU policies. It needs to be designed focusing on the needs of EU citizens
and the requirements of an EU area of freedom, security and justice, while
fully respecting subsidiarity and the last-resort-character of criminal law.

For this purpose, the Commission will
draft, in close cooperation with Parliament and Council,
sample language. This should guide the EU legislator whenever drafting criminal
law provisions setting minimum rules on offences and sanctions. This would
contribute to ensure consistency, increase legal certainty and facilitate
implementation of EU law. The Commission will also set up an expert group to
assist the Commission in gathering factual evidence and in launching further
discussions about important legal issues with a view to ensuring an efficient
implementation of EU legislation into the national criminal law systems of Member
States. This includes for example:

-           the relationship between
criminal and non-criminal sanction systems; and

-           the interpretation of criminal
law notions regularly used in EU legislation, such as the notion of
"effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions", "minor
cases" or "aiding and abetting".

Based on a
thorough evaluation of existing EU criminal law measures and continuous
consultation of Member States and independent experts, the Commission will
continue to develop the EU criminal policy over the coming years.

Our vision for a coherent and consistent EU Criminal Policy by 2020:

- EU criminal law can be an important tool to better fight crime as
a response to the concerns of citizens and to ensure the effective
implementation of EU policies. .

- In fields of EU policy where there is an identified enforcement
deficit, the Commission will assess the need for new criminal law measures
based on an evaluation of the enforcement practice and in full respect of fundamental
Treaty principles such as subsidiarity and proportionality. This concerns
notably the protection of the functioning of the financial markets, the protection
of the financial interests of the EU, the protection of the euro against
counterfeiting, serious infringements of road transport rules, serious breaches
of data protection rules, customs offences, environmental protection, fisheries
policy and internal market policies to fight illegal practices such as counterfeiting
and corruption or undeclared conflict of interests in the context of public
procurement.

- There should be a common understanding on the guiding principles
underlying EU criminal law legislation, such as the interpretation of basic
legal concepts used in EU criminal law; and how criminal law sanctions can
provide most added value at EU level.

- Criminal law measures should be firmly grounded in strong EU-wide
standards for procedural rights and victims' rights in line with the EU Charter
of Fundamental Rights.

[1]               See Eurobarometer 75, Spring 2011. The top four areas
where EU action should focus are: economic and monetary policy, immigration
policy, health policy and the fight against crime.

[2]               Framework Decision on combating terrorism
(2002/475/JHA), OJ L 164/3 of 22.6.2002; Framework Decision laying down minimum
provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the
field of illicit drug trafficking (2004/757/JHA) of 11.11.2004; Directive on
preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims
and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA OJ L 101/1 of 15.4.2011; Convention
on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests, OJ L 316/49
of 27.11.1995.

[3]               See, however, judgments of the European Court of
Justice in Cases C-176/03 and C-440/05.

[4]               Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the
environment through criminal law, OJ L 328/28 of 6.12.2008; Directive
2009/123/EC amending Directive 2005/35/EC on ship-source pollution and on the
introduction of penalties for infringements, OJ L 280/52 of 27.10.2009; and
Directive 2009/52 providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures
against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals, OJ L 168/24 of
30.6.2009; Council Framework Decision of 29 May 2000 on increasing protection
by criminal penalties and other sanctions against counterfeiting in connection
with the introduction of the euro, OJ L 140/1 of 14.6.2000.

[5]               See Article 82 (1) TFEU.

[6]               See Article 67 (1) TFEU: "The Union should
constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for
fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member
States".

[7]               On the need for more coherence in the development of
EU criminal law, see, as an example, the Manifesto on the EU Criminal Policy of
2009 (http://www.crimpol.eu), drafted by an
academic group of 14 criminal law professors from ten Member States of the
European Union.

[8]               Under the former EC Treaty while the usual instrument
for criminal law legislation were Framework Decisions under the so-called
"third pillar", some directives with criminal law measures have
already been adopted: in order to ensure the enforcement of rules concerning
the protection of the environment, against ship-source pollution and illegal
employment (Directives 2008/99, 2009/123 and 2009/52), based on the
jurisprudence of the Court of Justice (C-176/03). Approximation of sanction
types and levels was only possible in Framework Decisions (C-440/5).

[9]               See Protocol No. 1 on "the role of national
parliaments in the European Union" and No. 2 on "the application of
the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality", in particular Article
7 (2).

[10]             See Communication from the Commission on a Strategy for
the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the
European Union – COM (2010) 573 of 19.10. 2010.

[11]             See Protocols No. 21 and 22.

[12]             See the Framework Decisions and Directive cited above,
in footnote 3. Several of those Framework Decisions will be reassessed in the
light of the Lisbon Treaty in the coming years, including Framework Decision 2000/383,
as amended by Framework Decision 2001/888, in 2012.

[13]             See 'Communication on reinforcing
sanctioning regimes in the financial sector', COM (2010) 716 of 8.12. 2010.

[14]             See Convention of 1995 on the protection of financial
interests of the EU and its protocols, and Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No
2988/95 of 18.12.1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial
interests concerning administrative sanctions, OJ L 312/1 of 23.12.1995.

[15]             See 'Communication on
the protection of the financial interests of the European Union by criminal law
and by administrative investigations – An integrated policy to safeguard
taxpayers' money', COM (2011) 293, of 26.5. 2011.

[16]             Article 5 (4) TEU.

[17]             Article 49 (3) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

[18]             Article 83 (2) TFEU.

[19]             Article 49 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

[20]             See 'Communication on reinforcing
sanctioning regimes in the financial sector', COM (2010) 716 final of 8.12. 2010,
p.14.

[21]             See 'Communication on
the protection of the financial interests of the European Union by criminal law
and by administrative investigations – An integrated policy to safeguard
taxpayers' money', COM (2011) 293, of 26.5.2011, p. 10.

[22]             Commission Staff Working Paper
SEC (2011) 391 of 28.3.2011, accompanying the White Paper 'Roadmap to a Single
European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient
transport system', COM (2011) 144 of 28.3. 2011, paragraph 176.

[23]             See the Communication 'A
comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union', COM
(2010) 609 of 4.11. 2010, p. 9.

[24]             See Communication 'Delivering
an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens – Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme', COM (2010) 171 of
20.4.2010, p. 22.

[25]             See Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the
environment through criminal law, OJ L 328/28 of 6.12.2008; and Directive
2009/123/EC on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for
infringements, OJ L 280/52 of 27.10.2009.