Third Report from the Commission based on Article 11 of the 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 {SEC(2007)1158}
Date: 2007-09-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic offence, euro, euro area, fight against crime, framework decision, industrial counterfeiting

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 17.9.2007 
COM(2007) 524 final 

THIRD REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

based on Article 11 of the 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 

{SEC(2007)1158} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
THIRD REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

based on Article 11 of the 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 

1. 

OBJECTIVE OF THE FRAMEWORK DECISION 

In  order  to  guarantee  tighter  and  harmonised  criminal  protection  for  the  euro 
throughout  the  European  Union,  the  Council  adopted  on  29  May  2000  Framework 
Decision  2000/383/JHA1  on  increasing  protection  by  criminal  penalties  and  other 
sanctions  against  counterfeiting  in  connection  with  the  introduction  of  the  euro, 
which was amended by Framework Decision 2001/888/JHA on 6 December 20012 in 
order  to  introduce  for  the  purpose  of  recognising  repeat  offences  a  provision 
concerning  the  mutual  recognition  of  convictions  handed  down  in  another  Member 
State. 

Following  the  ratification  of  the  Geneva  Convention  of  1929  on  counterfeiting3  a 
degree of standardisation of  Member  State legislation had already taken place. The 
specific  aim  of  the  Framework  Decision  on  the  euro  is  to  supplement  the  charges 
provided  for  in  the  Member  States  under  the  1929  Convention  by  identifying 
practices  which  are  to  be  regarded  as  punishable  in  addition  to  the  actual  act  of 
counterfeiting. 

2. 

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT  

Under  Article  11(2)  of  the  Framework  Decision  the  Commission  adopted  on 
13 December 2001 a report on its implementation which set out in detail the various 
transposal requirements and the way in which each Member State had complied with 
those requirements4. In its conclusions on the report, the Council recognised that the 
Framework  Decision  had  largely  served  its  purpose.  It  nevertheless  called  on  the 
Commission to draw up a second report containing the additional information still to 
be provided by Member States. On 3 September 2003 the Commission adopted the 
second report5. At its meeting on 25 and 26 October 2004, the Council took note of 
this second report and, in view of the enlargement of the European Union, called on 

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

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, 14.6.2000, 
p. 1). 
Council  Framework  Decision  of  6  December  2001  amending  Framework  Decision  2000/383/JHA  on 
increasing protection by criminal penalties and other sanctions against counterfeiting in connection with 
the introduction of the euro (OJ L 329, 14.12.2001, p. 3). 
According to Article 23 of the 1929 Convention, ratification of the Convention by a State implies that 
its legislation and its administrative organisation are in conformity with the rules of the Convention. 
COM(2001) 771 final. 
COM(2003) 532 final. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the  Commission  to  prepare  a  third  report on  the  implementation  of  the  Framework 
Decision, including Article 9a. 

This  report  therefore  looks  at  the  state  of  play  of  transposal  of  the  Framework 
Decision in the 15 Member States in the light of the conclusions of the second report, 
as  well  as  at  the  legislative  situation  in  the  12  new  Member  States.  It  contains  a 
detailed  evaluation  of  the  implementation  of  the  Framework  Decision  by  the  27 
Member States. 

The Commission sent questionnaires on the individual points raised in the previous 
report  to  all  Member  States  other  than  Germany,  which  had  already  provided 
information.  In  all  twenty  Member  States  sent  to  the  Commission  the  text  of  the 
provisions  incorporating  into  national  law  the  obligations  incumbent  upon  them 
under the Framework Decision. Eight Member States (Bulgaria, Ireland, Spain, Italy, 
Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Romania  and  Finland)  did  not  formally  reply  to  the  letter 
sent  by  the  Commission.  Information  on  the  legislation  of  Bulgaria,  Spain,  Italy, 
Malta  and  the  Netherlands  was,  however,  made  available  to  the  Commission.  The 
information that the Commission received from the Member States is very variable 
as regards comprehensiveness. The report was nonetheless drawn up on the basis of 
that  information,  supplemented  by  public  sources  where  this  was  necessary  and 
possible.  

3. 

NATIONAL MEASURES TO IMPLEMENT THE FRAMEWORK DECISION 

3.1. 

State  of  play  regarding  transposal  of  the  Framework  Decision  by  the  15 
Member States (Annex – Table 1) 

3.1.1.  General offences – Article 3 

Following  the  amendment  of  the  Spanish  Penal  Code,  all  the  cases  covered  by 
Article  3(1)(a),  (b)  and  (c)  of  the  Framework  Decision  are  now  punishable.  In 
addition,  under  an  explicit  measure  concerning  counterfeiting,  participation  in  such 
criminal  acts  constitutes  an  offence.  Spanish  legislation  also  contains  an  explicit 
measure to punish the fraudulent making, receiving or obtaining of instruments and 
other articles necessary for the counterfeiting of currency (Article 3(1)(d)). 

3.1.2.  Additional offences – Article 4 

The  Spanish  Penal  Code  prohibits  the  counterfeiting  of  currency  but  makes  no 
explicit  reference  to  the  use  of  legal  facilities.  The  French  Penal  Code  expressly 
prohibits the counterfeiting of currency by use of legal facilities or materials within 
the meaning of Article 4 of the Framework Decision. 

3.1.3.  Penalties – Article 6 

The legislation of Finland and Sweden has not yet been amended and provides for a 
maximum  penalty  of  at  least  eight  years'  imprisonment  only  for  serious  offences. 
Spanish  legislation  penalises  criminal  acts  covered  by  Article  3(1)(a)  of  the 
Framework Decision with terms of 8 to 12 years. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
3.1.4.  Liability of legal persons and sanctions – Articles 8 and 9 

The  legislation  of  Spain,  Luxembourg  and  Austria  provides  for  general  criminal 
liability  for  legal  persons  whenever  a  representative  body  commits  an  offence 
provided for by and punishable under national legislation. Under the laws in force in 
Austria,  the  sanctions  involved  are  criminal  fines.  By  contrast,  the  legislation  of 
Spain  and  Luxembourg  provides  for  the  temporary  or  permanent  closure  of  the 
enterprise, the liquidation of the company or the suspension of its activities. There is 
no provision for other sanctions. Although Portugal sent a reply about the transposal 
of  the  Framework  Decision,  it  contained  no  information  about  progress  made  with 
the draft legislation on the criminal liability of legal persons. The United Kingdom, 
according  to  its  reply,  does  not  intend  to  adopt  a  specific  act  to  provide  for  the 
liability  of  legal  persons  as  its  civil  law  concept  of  negligence  would  allow  it  to 
comply with Article 8(2). 

3.1.5.  Territorial application – Article 10 

The  United  Kingdom  authorities  have  not  notified  any  progress  with  the  draft 
legislation to implement the Framework Decision in Gibraltar. 

3.2. 

State  of  play  regarding  transposal  of  the  Framework  Decision  by  the  12 
Member States that joined in 2004 and 2007 

3.2.1.  Ratification of the 1929 Convention – Article 2 (Annex – Table 2) 

Eight  Member  States  (the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Cyprus,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Hungary,  Poland  and  Slovakia)  have  indicated  that  they  are  already  contracting 
parties  to  the  Geneva  Convention.  According  to  the  information  received  by  the 
Commission, Bulgaria and Romania have also ratified the Geneva Convention, while 
Slovenia  is  in  the  process  of  ratifying  it.  No  information  has  been  received 
concerning Malta. 

3.2.2.  General offences – Article 3 (Table 3) 

The  provisions  of  Article  3  of  the  Framework  Decision,  which  concern  the 
constituent  elements  of  criminal  acts,  have  in  general  been  transposed  into  the 
national legislation of the twelve Member States. More specifically, the legislation of 
five  Member  States  (Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Latvia,  Hungary  and  Slovakia)  expressly 
mentions all the elements that objectively and subjectively (the intentional element) 
constitute  the  offences  set  out  in  Article  3(1)(a)  to  (d).  The  legislation  of  the  other 
Member  States  contains  the  following  exceptions.  Lithuanian  legislation  does  not 
mention  "uttering",  but  only  the  "sale"  of  counterfeit  currency.  The  legislation  of 
seven  Member  States  (the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Lithuania,  Malta,  Poland, 
Romania and Slovenia) does not expressly mention the import, export or obtaining of 
counterfeit  currency  with  a  view  to  uttering.  The  legislation  of  the  Czech  Republic 
and Poland punishes such behaviour by the explicit criminalisation of the transport. 
The  legislation  of  Lithuania,  Malta  and  Romania  also  punishes  such  behaviour  by 
making an express offence of possession. The legislation of Estonia and Poland does 
not  explicitly  provide  for  a  punishment  for  the  fraudulent  making,  receiving  or 
obtaining  of  instruments  and  other  articles  necessary  for  the  counterfeiting  of 
currency (Article 3(1)(d)). 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
A total of 11 Member States (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, 
Lithuania,  Hungary,  Poland,  Romania,  Slovenia  and  Slovakia)  have  indicated  that 
instigating,  or  attempting  to  commit  the  acts  defined  in  Article  3(1),  as  well  as 
participating in such acts, are punishable under the provisions already existing in the 
general  section  of  their  Penal  Codes.  Polish  law  also  contains  a  specific  provision 
regarding  assistance  or  cover  for  persons  carrying  out  the  offences  mentioned  in 
paragraph 1. No information has been received on this matter from Malta. 

3.2.3.  Additional offences – Article 4 (Annex – Table 4) 

Article 4, which imposes criminal penalties on the counterfeiting of currency by use 
of  legal  facilities  or  materials,  has  been  transposed  in  the  legislation  of  seven 
Member  States.  More  precisely,  three  Member  States  (Bulgaria,  Cyprus  and 
Lithuania)  have  complied  with  this  Article  by  incorporating  into  their  criminal 
legislation an explicit provision making it a criminal offence to manufacture notes or 
coins  using  legal  facilities  in  violation  of  the  rights  or  the  conditions  under  which 
they may be issued. Six Member States (the Czech Republic, Latvia, Malta, Poland, 
Slovenia  and  Slovakia)  comply  with  this  Article  by  prohibiting  the  fraudulent 
manufacture of currency without reference to or distinction among the means used. 
The  authorities  of  three  Member  States  (Estonia,  Hungary  and  Romania)  have  not 
provided any information on this point. 

3.2.4.  Currency not issued but designated for circulation – Article 5 (Annex – Table 4) 

In  the  legislation  of  seven  Member  States  (Cyprus,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Hungary, 
Malta, Poland and Slovakia), the concept of counterfeit currency expressly includes 
banknotes  and  coins  which  are  not  yet  issued  but  are  designated  for  circulation.  In 
Czech  legislation,  the  proposed  amendment  of  the  Penal  Code  contains  a  specific 
provision  on  the  matter.  No  information  has  been  received,  however,  about  the 
adoption  of  the  amendment.  The  Slovenian  authorities  have  indicated  that  the 
offence  identified  in  Article  5  of  the  Framework  Decision  is  effective  by  virtue  of 
Article  217  of  the  Penal  Code,  which  covers  fraud.  The  authorities  in  Bulgaria, 
Estonia and Romania have not provided any information on this point. 

3.2.5.  Penalties – Article 6 (Annex – Table 5) 

A  total  of  11  Member  States  (Bulgaria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Cyprus,  Latvia, 
Lithuania,  Hungary,  Malta,  Poland,  Romania,  Slovenia  and  Slovakia)  have 
introduced  maximum  terms  of  imprisonment  exceeding  eight  years,  in  line  with 
Article  6(2)  of  the  Framework  Decision.  The  legislation  of  Lithuania,  however, 
provides  for  a  maximum  term  of  at  least  eight  years  (ten  years  in  this  precise 
instance)  only  for  offences  involving  amounts  that  are  "large"  or  "of  considerable 
value". Hungary's legislation reserves the maximum penalty of more than eight years 
for  the  counterfeiting  of  banknotes,  the  counterfeiting  of  coins  being  considered  a 
lesser  offence  and  thus  punishable  by  a  maximum  term  of  imprisonment  of  five 
years.  The  legislation  of  Estonia  punishes  counterfeiting  with  a  maximum  term  of 
imprisonment of six years only for repeat offences or for counterfeiting "on a large 
scale". 

All  twelve  Member  States  provide  for  penalties  for  offences  actually  carried  out, 
grouping together the various offences referred to in the Framework Decision. Eight 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Member States (the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Romania, 
Slovenia  and  Slovakia)  have  provided  for  aggravating  circumstances  if  the  offence 
involves  a  large  sum  of  money  or  is  carried  out  by  a  criminal  organisation.  Seven 
Member  States  (Bulgaria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Lithuania,  Malta,  Poland,  Slovenia 
and  Slovakia)  have  introduced  specific  lighter  punishments  for  uttering  counterfeit 
currency  received  in  good  faith.  This  choice  can  be  justified  by  the  principle  of 
proportional  penalties.  All  the  Member  States  have  indicated  that  extradition  is 
possible for such offences. 

3.2.6. 

Jurisdiction – Article 7 

Nine  Member  States  (the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Cyprus,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Hungary,  Poland,  Slovenia  and  Slovakia)  have  transposed  the  obligation  resulting 
from this provision, while no information is available on this point as regards three 
Member States (Bulgaria, Malta and Romania). 

3.2.7.  Liability of legal persons and sanctions – Articles 8 and 9 (Annex – Table 6) 

Seven  Member  States  have  transposed  the  provisions  of  Articles  8  and  9  of  the 
Framework  Decision.  More  precisely,  the  legislation  of  three  Member  States 
(Hungary,  Poland  and  Slovenia)  has  introduced  general  criminal  liability  for  legal 
persons  whenever  a  representative  body  commits  an  offence  provided  for  in  and 
punishable by a national law such as the Penal Code. The legislation of four Member 
States  (Estonia,  Cyprus,  Latvia  and  Lithuania)  has  introduced  criminal  liability  for 
legal persons specifically for counterfeiting offences. As for sanctions, the legislation 
of five Member States (Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland) has instituted 
criminal  fines,  forfeiture  and  winding-up.  Hungary  and  Slovenia  have  not  notified 
the sanctions provided for in their legislation. The authorities in the Czech Republic 
and  Slovakia  have  indicated  that  a  legislative  proposal  on  the  criminal  liability  of 
legal persons for specific conduct set out in the Penal Code is due to be adopted. The 
authorities in Bulgaria, Malta and Romania have not sent any relevant information on 
this matter. 

3.3. 

State  of  play  regarding  transposal  of  the  Framework  Decision  by  the  27 
Member States regarding previous convictions – Article 9a 

Article  9a,  which  concerns  the  recognition  of  habitual  criminality  through  final 
sentences handed down in another Member State, has been transposed in general by 
nineteen  Member  States.  More  specifically,  five  Member  States  (Belgium,  Spain, 
France, Cyprus and the Netherlands) explicitly provide for recognition of sentences 
handed down in another Member State for counterfeiting, so that sentences may be 
increased in the event of repeat offences. The legislation of eight Member States (the 
Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Hungary, Austria, Portugal and Slovakia) 
contains a provision in the general section of the Penal Code, and one therefore that 
is applicable to all offences, for the explicit recognition of foreign convictions so that 
sentences  may  be  increased.  The  legislation  of  five  Member  States  (Germany, 
Latvia,  Lithuania,  Slovenia  and  Sweden)  does  not  explicitly  mention  foreign 
convictions  but,  in  general,  the  convicted  person's  past  without  any  specific 
distinction so as to cover convictions of all types. The German authorities attached to 
their  reply  a  series  of  judgments  by  German  courts  to  demonstrate  the  established 
case-law  in  favour  of  their  interpretation.  The  authorities  in  Estonia  have  indicated 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
that  convictions  by  courts  in  other  Member  States  are  taken  into  account,  but  they 
have not supplied any details or the text of the applicable legislation. The authorities 
in  Luxembourg  and  Poland  have  indicated  that  the  provision  has  not  yet  been 
transposed. Six Member States (Bulgaria, Ireland, Malta, Romania, Finland and the 
United Kingdom) have not supplied any relevant information. 

4. 

ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION 

4.1. 

Ratification of the 1929 Convention – Article 2 

In response to the conclusions of the second report, a total of 25 Member States have 
adopted the 1929 Convention. 

4.2. 

General offences – Article 3 

Again in view of the conclusions of the second report, a total of 27 Member States 
have  adopted  a  law  expressly  transposing  the  constituent  elements  of  the  general 
concept  of  counterfeiting  of  currency  as  defined  in  Article  3(1)(a)  and  (b).  It  can 
therefore  be  considered  that  the  full  effectiveness  of  the  Framework  Decision  has 
been ensured. 

The  legislation  of  Lithuania  makes  a  criminal  offence  of  the  "sale"  –  a  narrower 
concept  than  the  "fraudulent  uttering  of  counterfeit  currency".  However,  this 
restriction has no practical consequences since the act of uttering currency received 
as genuine constitutes a separate crime.  

Regarding  Article  3(1)(c),  the  legislation  of  the  Czech  Republic  and  Poland 
criminalises transport, which, being a broader concept, covers the specific concepts 
of import and export. The legislation of Lithuania, Malta and Romania punishes such 
conduct  by  making  an  offence  of  possession  with  a  view  to  uttering,  which,  by 
implication,  covers  import  and  export.  The  full  effectiveness  of  the  Framework 
Decision  is  thus  ensured.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  the  authorities  in  two 
Member States (Estonia and Slovenia) have failed to transpose Article 3(1)(c). 

Also  in  view  of  the  conclusions  of  the  second  report,  25  Member  States  have  now 
correctly transposed the provisions of Article 3(1)(d) concerning offences relating to 
means  peculiarly  adapted  for  the  counterfeiting  of  currency.  The  legislation  of 
Estonia  and  Poland  contains  no  provision  relating  to  such  preparatory  acts,  which 
constitutes a failure to transpose. 

Likewise  in  view  of  the  conclusions  of  the  second  report,  general  provisions  on 
participating  in  and  instigating  the  conduct  in  question,  as  well  as  attempting  such 
conduct, are now in force in 26 Member States in accordance with Article 3(2) of the 
Framework Decision. 

4.3. 

Additional offences – Article 4 

In  the  light  of  the  conclusions  of  the  second  report,  23  Member  States  now  punish 
the counterfeiting of currency using legal facilities within the meaning of Article 4 of 
the Framework  Decision. However,  a large number of Member States comply with 
the  Article  by  prohibiting  the  counterfeiting  of  currency  without  reference  to  or 
distinction between the means used. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
It  is  desirable  for  all  Member  States  to  adopt  explicit  provisions  criminalising  the 
counterfeiting  of  currency  by  use  of  legal  facilities.  The  offence  referred  to  in 
Article 4 can be committed only by agents of the national authorities who have the 
right to use legal facilities. Under some legal systems, therefore, this conduct could 
also  rank  as  abuse  of  authority  by  an  official  that  displayed  the  characteristics  of  a 
"delictum proprium", i.e. an offence that can be committed only by a certain category 
of persons. As the offence clearly differs from counterfeiting, the penalties too might 
also  differ.  Although  the  non-differentiated  nature  of  the  national  measures  is 
satisfactory from the point of view of the transposal of Article 4 of the Framework 
Decision, explicit national penalties should be adopted for reasons of legal clarity. 

4.4. 

Currency not issued but designated for circulation – Article 5 

The aim of this provision is to define the objective element in counterfeiting so that 
currency  not  yet  issued  may  also  be  included.  The  provision  is  no  longer  fully 
effective if the actions are described differently (as in Slovenian legislation). A total 
of  22  Member  States  now  have  legislation  that  complies  with  Article  5(b)  of  the 
Framework Decision. 

4.5. 

Penalties – Article 6 

Also in the light of the conclusions of the second report, a total of 26 Member States 
now comply with Article 6(2), pursuant to which the offences of fraudulent making 
or altering of currency provided for in Article 3(1)(a) must be punishable by terms of 
imprisonment,  the  maximum  being  not  less  than  eight  years.  The  legislation  of 
Finland, Sweden and Lithuania includes a restrictive criterion for the application of 
the maximum penalty (seriousness of the offence), although this does not reduce the 
effectiveness of Article 6 of the Framework Decision. The competent national courts 
will  pass  the  maximum  sentence  only  in  cases  of  serious  offences.  While  this  does 
not  constitute  a  failure  to  transpose,  there  is  a  risk  that  with  such  legislation  the 
maximum sentence might appear exceptional. 

The legislation of Estonia and Hungary, where the maximum sentence provided for 
is six years and five years respectively (for coins), does not comply with the criteria 
of the Framework Decision. 

Excluding  these  exceptions  for  maximum  terms  of  imprisonment,  it  transpires  that 
the  offences  proposed  in  the  Framework  Decision  are  punishable  under  the 
legislation  of  the  27  Member  States  by  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive 
criminal penalties. 

4.6. 

Jurisdiction – Article 7 

In total, 24 Member States comply with Article 7. 

4.7. 

Liability of legal persons and sanctions – Articles 8 and 9 

In  the  light  of  the  conclusions  of  the  second  report,  20  Member  States  generally 
comply  with  the  provisions  concerning  the  liability  of  legal  persons.  The  Czech 
Republic,  Portugal  and  Slovakia  have  not  adopted  the  measures  necessary  for 
compliance with Articles 8 and 9 of the Framework Decision. The United Kingdom 
has not amended its legislation despite its failure to comply with the requirement to 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
provide  for  the  liability  of  legal  persons.  Although  the  civil  law  principle  of  fault 
could justify the payment of damages and interest to a civil party bringing an action, 
this  does  not  constitute  a  sanction  within  the  meaning  of  Articles  8  and  9  of  the 
Framework Decision. Furthermore, the counterfeiting of currency harms the general 
interest and, in most instances, no private interest suffers. 

Regarding sanctions, the legislation of Spain and Luxembourg contains no provision 
for fines even though they are required under Article 9. These countries provide for 
sanctions that are additional within the meaning of the Framework Decision, such as 
suspension or winding-up of the legal person.  

4.8. 

Previous convictions – Article 9a 

In  Greece,  foreign  convictions  are  taken  into  account  if  there  are  at  least  three  of 
them and the sentence was served abroad, even if only in part. These conditions are 
not compatible with the aim of the Framework Decision as they make recognition of 
previous convictions much stricter than does the text of Article 9a. In their reply, the 
Greek authorities indicated that amendments to the provisions in question are being 
drafted with a view to ensuring full compliance with Article 9a. 

Regarding legislation in the Member States which refers in general to the record of 
convicted  persons  without  distinction,  it  should  be  noted  that  such  legal  provisions 
are not at variance with the requirements of the Framework Decision. However, legal 
certainty (which is taken into account when assessing effective transposal) would be 
increased  if  the  legislation  of  such  Member  States  were  amended  so  that  such 
convictions  could  be  expressly  mentioned  as  being  constitutive  of  habitual 
criminality.  The  absence  of  an  explicit  reference  to  convictions  handed  down  in 
another  Member  State  could  lead,  in  practice,  to  such  convictions  not  being  taken 
into account. 

5. 

CONCLUSIONS 

5.1. 

General conclusions  

The  transposal  of  the  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  is  judged  to  be  satisfactory  overall, 
despite  some  failures  to  transpose.  The  offences  and  penalties  proposed  in  the 
Framework  Decision  have  indeed  been  incorporated  into  the  Member  States' 
legislation.  The  euro  is  therefore  protected  by  the  efficient  and  effective  measures 
called  for  by  the  Framework  Decision.  The  Framework  Decision  has  therefore 
achieved its objective and only the adoption of a small number of national measures 
is required for implementation to be complete. 

5.2. 

Specific conclusions 

More  specifically,  the  Framework  Decision  has  achieved  its  objectives  in  the  most 
important  areas.  Thus  the  fraudulent  making  or  altering  of  currency,  as  well  as  the 
fraudulent  uttering  of  currency,  constitute  infringements  under  the  laws  of  all  the 
Member  States.  The  import,  export  and  transport  of  counterfeit  currency  are  also 
expressly  sanctioned  in  most  Member  States.  Some  legal  systems  criminalise  such 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
acts by way of the concepts of transport or possession. Although varied, the penalties 
laid  down  to  punish  these  criminal  acts  comply  with  the  criteria  laid  down  in  the 
Framework  Decision,  except  in  the  case  of  two  Member  States.  In  addition,  most 
Member  States  have  introduced  the  principle  of  the  liability  of  legal  persons.  The 
legislation  of  most  Member  States  makes  provision  for  final  convictions  handed 
down in another Member State to be taken into account for repeat offences.  

Despite  this  satisfactory  overall  conclusion,  not  all  the  Member  States  have 
incorporated all the provisions of the Framework Decision into national law, with the 
result  that  some  specific  transposition  failures  need  to  be  reported.  The  following 
amendments to the national laws of the Member States are required for transposal of 
the  Framework  Decision  to  be  complete.  The  order  of  presentation  of  the 
amendments  needed  corresponds  to  the  order  of  the  provisions  of  the  Framework 
Decision. 

Article 2 

Slovenia  has  to  ratify  the  International  Convention  for  the  Suppression  of 
Counterfeiting Currency, concluded in Geneva on 20 April 1929. 

Article 3 

Estonia  and  Slovenia  must  make  the  transport,  import  and  export  of  counterfeit 
currency criminal offences in their national law. 

The fraudulent making and receipt of instruments intended for the counterfeiting of 
currency must be made criminal offences in the legislation of Estonia and Poland. 

Article 4 

The counterfeiting of currency by use of legal facilities or materials must be made a 
criminal offence in the legislation of Spain. 

Article 5 

The  counterfeiting  of  currency  not  issued  but  designated  for  circulation  must  be 
made a criminal offence in the legislation of the Czech Republic and Slovenia. 

Article 6 

Hungary's legislation must provide for a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 
eight years for counterfeiting coins. 

Estonia's  legislation  must  provide  for  a  maximum  term  of  imprisonment  of  at  least 
eight  years,  regardless  of  whether  the  offence  is  a  repeat  offence  or  a  large-scale 
counterfeiting operation. 

Articles 8 and 9 

The authorities of the Czech Republic, Slovakia and the United Kingdom must take 
the measures necessary to introduce the principle of liability of legal persons in order 
to comply with Articles 8 and 9 of the Framework Decision. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
The legislation of Spain and Luxembourg must introduce fines as sanctions in cases 
where legal persons are liable. 

Article 9a 

The legislation of Greece, Luxembourg and Poland must provide for recognition of 
convictions handed down in another Member State for establishing repeat offences. 

5.3. 

Communication of further information 

The authorities in the Member States below must send the Commission information 
regarding the following: 

Bulgaria  

Criminalisation of counterfeiting of currency not issued (Article 5), liability of legal 
persons (Articles 8 and 9) and international repeat offences (Article 9a). 

Estonia 

Criminalisation of counterfeiting of currency by use of legal facilities (Article 4) and 
criminalisation of counterfeiting of currency not issued (Article 5). 

Ireland 

International repeat offences (Article 9a). 

Hungary 

Criminalisation of counterfeiting of currency not issued (Article 5). 

Malta 

Ratification  of  the  Geneva  Convention,  provision  for  the  jurisdiction  of  national 
courts in accordance with Article 7, liability of legal persons (Articles 8 and 9) and 
international repeat offences (Article 9a). 

Portugal 

Liability of legal persons (Articles 8 and 9). 

Romania 

Criminalisation  of  counterfeiting  of  currency  by  use  of  legal  facilities  (Article  4), 
criminalisation of counterfeiting of currency not issued (Article 5), liability of legal 
persons (Articles 8 and 9) and international repeat offences (Article 9a). 

Finland 

International repeat offences (Article 9a). 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
The  authorities  of  the  United  Kingdom  must  inform  the  Commission  about 
international  repeat  offences  (Article  9a)  and  the  application  of  the  Framework 
Decision to Gibraltar. 

EN 

12 

   EN