Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA
Date: 2013-02-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: counterfeiting, euro, fight against crime, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, penalty

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Strasbourg, 5.2.2013  
COM(2013) 42 final 

2013/0023 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on the protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal 
law, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA  

{SWD(2013) 19 final} 
{SWD(2013) 20 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

1.1. 

General context 

Counterfeiting  of  the  euro  and  other  currencies  remains  a  concern  throughout  the  European 
Union. It is of fundamental importance to ensure trust and confidence in the authenticity of 
notes and coins for citizens, companies and financial institutions. Counterfeits harm citizens 
and businesses that are not reimbursed for counterfeits even if received in good faith. It also 
decreases the acceptability of notes and coins.  

Counterfeiting of the euro is of special concern due to the importance of the euro. The euro is 
the single currency shared by the 17 Member States of the euro area and in use for the 330 
million  people  living  in  this  area.  It  is  also  used  at  a  large  scale  in  international  trading 
transactions  and  serves  as  important  reserve  currency  for  third  countries.  The  value  of  euro 
notes circulating worldwide, that is to say almost 913 billion euro in January 2013, is roughly 
the  same  as  that  of  US  dollar  bills.  Around  one  quarter  of  that  value  circulates  outside  the 
euro  area,  notably  in  neighboring  regions1.  Today  the  euro  is  the  second  most  important 
international currency world-wide.  

The euro continues to be a target of organised crime groups active in the forgery of money. 
Counterfeiting of the euro has led to a financial damage of at least EUR 500 million since the 
introduction of the euro in 2002. Data from the European Central Bank (ECB) show peaks in 
the  number  of  counterfeit  notes  during  the  period  2009  –  2010  and  two  other  peaks  in  the 
second  half  of  20112  and  of  20123.  The  ECB  notes  an  increase  of  11.6%  as  regards  the 
quantity  recovered  in  the  second  half  of  2012  compared  with  the  previous  months.  The 
Annual  Report  20114  of  the  European  Technical  and  Scientific  Centre  (ETSC)  points  to  a 
continuous  discovery  of  new  types  of  counterfeit  euro  coins  and  a  sharp  increase  in  the 
number  of  sophisticated  counterfeit  coins.  Europol  considers  that  there  is  a  long-term  trend 
towards  an  increase  in  the  crime  level  and  notes  that  the  criminal  threat  remains  serious5. 
Europol's assessment is confirmed by recent large-scale seizures of counterfeit euro notes and 
coins and the continuous dismantling of illegal print shops and mints each year6.  

These developments show that the existing measures against counterfeiting have not reached 
the  necessary  level  of  dissuasion  and  therefore  require  improving  the  protection  against 
counterfeiting.  In  particular,  considerable  differences  exist  with  respect  to  the  levels  of 
sanctions which are applicable in the Member States to the main forms of counterfeiting, i.e. 
the  production  and  distribution  of  counterfeit  currency.7  Whereas  the  minimum  level  of 
maximum  penalty  for  producing  counterfeits  was  harmonised  in  the  year  2000  at  a  level  of 
eight  years  imprisonment,  the  situation  concerning  the  minimum  level  of  sanctions  for 

1 
2 
3 
4 

5 
6 

7 

See European Central Bank (ECB), http://www.ecb.int/press/key/date/2013/html/sp130110.en.html.  
ECB annual Report 2011. 
ECB press release of 10 January 2013, http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2013/html/pr130110_2.en.html. 
The Protection of Euro Coins in 2011. Situation as regards euro coins counterfeiting and the activities 
of the European Technical and Scientific Centre (ETSC) based on Article 4 of Commission Decision C 
(2004) 4290 of 29 October 2004. 
Europol Organised Crime Threat Assessment 2011 (OCTA 2011). 
See, for example, Europol press releases of 13 December 2011, 15 and 29 June 2012, 13 August 2012, 
9 December 2012, https://www.europol.europa.eu/latest_press_releases. 
Impact assessment Annex 6, table with sanctions in place in the Member States as of April 2011 of the 
German Bundesbank. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
currency counterfeiting is different. There are no minimum sanctions in place in some of the 
Member States or legal provisions only provide for fines, whereas the minimum sanction in 
others  is  as  high  as  ten  years  imprisonment.  These  differences  impair  cross-border  law 
enforcement  and  judicial  cooperation8.  Furthermore,  data  collected  in  the  framework  of  a 
study  of  the  European  Counterfeiting  Experts  Group9  indicate  that  a  high  number  of  illegal 
print  shops  were  discovered  in  the  last  nine  years  in  those  Member  States  which  have  no 
minimum sanctions in place or only have fines for currency counterfeiting as their minimum 
sanctions which suggests that counterfeiters make use of forum shopping. Finally, the current 
lack  of  a  minimum  and  maximum  level  of  sanctions  for  distribution  offences  constitutes  a 
dangerous  threat  with  respect  to  the  distribution  within  the  European  Union  of  counterfeit 
notes  produced  in  third  countries,  as  illustrated  by  the  considerable  number  of  print  shops 
dismantled  in  third  countries  (e.g.  Colombia  and  Peru)  and  the  related  seizure  of  large 
amounts of counterfeit euros and other currencies ready to be exported to or distributed in the 
European  Union.  It  can  therefore  be  concluded  that  the  current  size  of  differences  in  the 
sanction systems of the Member States have a negative impact on the protection of the euro 
and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law measures.  

The  current  level  of  sanctions  is  one  of  the  reasons  for  insufficient  deterrence  and  uneven 
protection  across  the  European  Union  of  its  currency.  The  maximum  level  for  criminal 
sanctions constitutes one tool for the prosecutors and judges to determine the sanction to be 
imposed  on  the  criminal,  but  it  remains  incomplete  without  a  set  minimum  level.  Since  in 
practice  the  minimum  standard  for  the  maximum  penalty  is  rarely  imposed,  a  minimum 
penalty can be considered as more dissuasive and of great practical value for the protection of 
the euro. For those who  are  tempted to counterfeit the euro, it will be the knowledge of the 
possible sanctions which will deter them; the difference of being sentenced to imprisonment 
for a certain minimum duration instead of a fine, for example, is obvious. Thus, the minimum 
sanctions contribute to a consistent EU wide system for the protection of the euro.  

The  euro  is  the  single  currency  of  the  economic  and  monetary  union  established  by  the 
European  Union.  It  is  thus  a  truly  European  common  "good"  that  should  be  protected  in  a 
consistent  manner  across  the  European  Union,  in  particular  by  setting  a  minimum  level  of 
penalties for serious cases of production and distribution offences. 

The European Union and the Member States should provide for comprehensive protection of 
the euro and combat offences against the euro on a common basis. Following the International 
Convention  for  the  Suppression  of  Counterfeiting  Currency  ('Geneva  Convention')10  and  its 
principle  of  non-discrimination  of  other  currencies  foreseen  in  Article  5,  all  currencies  will 
profit from this increased protection of the euro.  

1.2. 

Legal context 

1.2.1.  Criminal law 

The  Geneva  Convention  lays  down  rules  to  ensure  that  severe  criminal  penalties  and  other 
sanctions can be imposed for counterfeiting offences. It also contains rules on jurisdiction and 
cooperation. Following the ratification of the Geneva Convention agreed on 20 April 1929, a 

8 
9 

10 

See section 3.2.1.3 of the Impact assessment and its Annex 3. 
The study focused on the following 15 Member States: Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Finland, 
France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and The Netherlands.  
No  2623,  p.  372.  League  of  Nations  Treaty  Series  1931.  The  Convention  has  been  ratified  by  26 
Member States. Malta has not (yet) ratified. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
certain degree of approximation of national legislation against counterfeiting of currency has 
since taken place.  

Council  Framework  Decision  2000/383/JHA  on  increasing  protection  by  criminal  penalties 
and  other  sanctions  against  counterfeiting  in  connection  with  the  introduction  of  the  euro11 
aims  at  supplementing,  on  the  territory  of  European  Union,  the  provisions  of  the  Geneva 
Convention of 1929. It identifies practices which are to be regarded as punishable in addition 
to  the  actual  act  of  counterfeiting,  such  as  distribution.  For  these  offences,  the  Framework 
Decision  requires  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive  penalties.  In  addition,  it  contains 
provisions on jurisdiction and on the liability of legal persons. The Framework Decision was 
amended  by  Council  Framework  Decision  2001/888/JHA  of  6  December  200112,  which 
introduced  a  provision  on  mutual  recognition  of  convictions  for  the  purpose  of  recognizing 
"repeat offences". 

Member States were obliged to transpose Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA by 29 
May  2001  and  Council  Framework  Decision  2001/888/JHA  by  31  December  2002.  The 
Commission has assessed their implementation in three reports13. Despite the development of 
an  EU  acquis  in  this  area,  certain  shortcomings  have  become  visible.  Although  all  Member 
States have, with minor exceptions, formally implemented the Framework Decision correctly, 
Member  States  have  adopted  diverging  rules  and  consequently  often  diverging  levels  of 
protection and practices within their national legal systems. 

1.2.2.  Further Union provisions in this area 

The  Framework  Decision  is  part  of  a  comprehensive  legal  framework  consisting  also  of 
administrative and training measures: 

• 

• 

Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the 
euro14.  It  obliges  the  Member  States  of  the  euro  area  to  ensure  adequate 
sanctions against counterfeiting and falsification of euro notes and coins; 

Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 of 28 June 2001 laying down measures 
necessary  for  the  protection  of  the  euro  against  counterfeiting15,  updated 
through Council Regulation 44/2009 of 18 December 200816. It regulates how 
euro notes and coins can be uttered in such a manner as to protect them against 
counterfeiting.  Furthermore,  issues  such  as  gathering  and  accessing  technical 
and statistical data relating to the counterfeit notes and coins, the examination 
of counterfeit notes and coins by the National Analysis Centres and obligations 
of  credit  institutions  and  centralisation  of  information  at  national  level  are 
addressed. Council Regulation (EC) No 1339/2001 of 28 June 201117 extended 
the  effects  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1338/2001  to  those  Member  States  which 
have not adopted the euro as their single currency; 

11 
12 
13 

14 
15 
16 
17 

OJ L 140 of 14 June 2000, p. 1.  
OJ L 329 of 14 December 2001, p. 3. 
The  first  report  adopted  in  December  2001,  COM(2001)  771  final;  the  second  report  in  September 
2003, COM(2003) 532 final; the third report in September 2007, COM(2007) 524 final. 
OJ L 139, 11.5.1998, p.1. 
OJ L 181, 4.7.2001, p.6. 
OJ L 17, 22.1.2009, p.1. 
OJ L 181, 4.7.2001, p.11. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Decision  of  the  European  Central  Bank  of  16  September  2010  on  the 
recirculation  of  euro  notes 
authenticity  and 
(ECB/2010/14)18; 

fitness  checking  and 

Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of  
15  December  2010  concerning  authentication  of  euro  coins  and  handling  of 
euro coins unfit for circulation19; 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2182/2004  of  6  December  2004  concerning 
medals and tokens similar to euro coins20, amended by Council regulation (EC) 
No 46/2009 of 18 December 200821; 

Council Decision 2005/511/JHA of 12 July 2005 on protecting the euro against 
counterfeiting,  by  designating  Europol  as  the  Central  Office  for  combating 
euro counterfeiting22; 

Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with 
a  view  to  reinforcing  the  fight  against  serious  crime23  by  stimulating  and 
improving coordination and cooperation between competent judicial authorities 
of the Member States also in the field of counterfeiting of the euro; 

Targeted  actions  for  exchange,  assistance  and  training  of  law  enforcement 
agents  to  establish  closer  professional  ties  for  a  more  efficient  fight  against 
euro counterfeiting are financed by the Union through the Pericles programme, 
which  was  established  by  Council  Decision  2001/923/EC  of  17  December 
200124. 

2. 

RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND 
IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

2.1. 

Consultations with interested parties 

The  Commission  has  consulted  specialist  stakeholders  on  a  number  of  occasions. 

The  consultation  of  the  stakeholders  started  at  the  58th  Euro  Counterfeiting  Expert 
Group25  (ECEG)  meeting  on  10  November  2011  and  continued  during  subsequent 
ECEG  meetings.  Experts  and  specialists26  were  further  consulted  at  The  Hague 
Conference which took place from 23 to 25 November 2011. A questionnaire on the 
implementation  of  the  Framework  Decision  was  sent  to  Member  States  on  20 
December  2011.  The  results  of  the  questionnaire  and  a  possible  way  forward  were 

18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 

25

26 

OJ L 267, 9.10.2010, p.1. 
OJ L 339, 22.12.2010, p.1. 
OJ L 373, 21.12.2004, p.1. 
OJ L 17, 22.1.2009, p.5. 
OJ L 185, 17.7.2005, p. 35. 
OJ L 63, 6.3.2002, p.1. 
OJ  L  339,  21.12.2001,  p.50.  For  an  update  on  the  programme,  see  proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  The 
European Parliament and of The Council establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme 
for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (COM(2011)0913) final.  
The  ECEG  is  provided  for  in  Regulation  (EC)  1338/2001  and  is  composed  of  experts  from  Member 
States, ECB, Europol and OLAF/ETSC. 
Representatives from law enforcement agencies, judicial authorities, central banks and mints. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
discussed at the 59th ECEG meeting on 14 March and the 60th meeting on 13 June 
2012.  The  ECB  as  well  as  Europol  participated  in  this  process  and  provided  their 
input, also through direct contributions to the Commission. 

From the consultation it can be concluded that stakeholders consider it necessary to 
provide  added  value  to  the  practitioners  for  the  protection  of  the  euro  and  other 
currencies  by  criminal  law  measures.  Two  concrete  proposals  were  received  in 
relation  to  the  improvement  of  procedural  criminal  law:  a  proposal  to  align  the 
investigative  techniques  such  as  controlled  delivery,  under-cover  agents;  and  a 
proposal to introduce provisions obliging judicial authorities to transmit samples of 
seized counterfeit currency for technical analysis for the purpose of detecting further 
counterfeits in circulation. 

The  ECB  expressed  strong  support  for  reinforcing  the  criminal  law  framework,  in 
particular  by  strengthening  and  harmonising  the  penalties,  including  by  setting 
standards for minimum penalties. 

2.2. 

Impact Assessment 

The Commission conducted an impact assessment of policy alternatives, taking into account 
the consultations of the interested parties. After considering the possible options, the impact 
assessment concludes that the following solution would be preferred:  

– 

– 

– 

– 

maintenance  of  most  of  the  provisions  from  Council  Framework  Decision 
2000/383/JHA in a new proposal, with minor modifications, taking into account the 
Treaty of Lisbon;  

modification of the provisions on penalties by introducing a minimum penalty of six 
months for production and distribution of counterfeit currency and by introducing a 
maximum penalty of at least eight years for distribution;  

introduction of a new provision obliging Member States to provide for the possibility 
to use certain investigative tools;  

introduction of a new provision obliging Member States to ensure that the National 
Analysis  Centres  and  the  National  Coin  Analysis  Centres  can  analyse  euro 
counterfeits  also  during  on-going  judicial  proceedings  for  the  purpose  of  detecting 
further counterfeits. 

3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

3.1. 

The legal basis 

The  EU's  competence  to  establish  "minimum  rules  concerning  the  definition  of  criminal 
offences and sanctions in the areas of particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension 
resulting from the nature or impact of such offences or from a special need to combat them on 
a common basis" is set out in Article 83 (1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union (TFEU).  

Counterfeiting  of  means  of  payment  is  explicitly  mentioned  in  paragraph  1  of  Article  83 
TFEU as such an area of particularly serious crime.  

3.2. 

Subsidiarity, proportionality and the respect for fundamental rights 

It is considered that there is a need for EU action based on the following factors: 

Counterfeiting  of  the  euro  poses  a  genuine  problem  for  the  Union  and  for  its  citizens, 
businesses and financial institutions. The fact that the euro is the single currency of the euro 

EN 

6 

   EN 

area  implies  that  the  offence  of  euro  counterfeiting  must  necessarily  be  considered  to  cause 
the same harm everywhere in the euro area irrespective of where it is committed. This pan-
European  dimension  requires  that  counterfeiting  is  fought  in  a  similar  manner  and  that 
criminals  encounter  equivalent  penalties,  wherever  in  the  European  Union  the  crime  is 
committed. 

This  particular  position  of  the  euro,  which  is  the  single  currency  of  the  economic  and 
monetary  union  established  by  the  European  Union  and  therefore  a  truly  European  "good", 
requires that its protection must be ensured at EU level. As such, it is even more "EU-centred" 
than a field subject to harmonisation of rules in the Member States.  

Only the EU is in a position to develop binding legislation with effect throughout the Member 
States,  and  thus  to  create  a  legal  framework  which  would  contribute  to  overcoming  the 
weaknesses of the current situation. 

According to Article 5 of the Geneva Convention, no distinction shall be made in the scale of 
punishment  between  acts  relating  to  domestic  currency  on  the  one  hand  and  to  foreign 
currency on the other. Therefore, the increased protection of the euro should be extended to 
all currencies.  

The  proposed  penalties  are  proportionate  to  the  seriousness  of  the  offences  and  the 
considerable  impact  of  counterfeiting  of  the  euro  and  other  currencies  on  citizens  and 
businesses. They are in line with the penalties currently provided for in the law of a majority 
of Member States. Since many Member States already provide for the concept of minimum 
penalties,  it  is  appropriate  and  consistent  that  the  concept  of  minimum  penalties  be  used  at 
Union level. In order to guarantee that the severity of penalties is not disproportionate to the 
criminal  offence,  a  specific  safeguard  for  cases  of  lower  amounts  of  counterfeits  is  being 
proposed,  i.e.  one  threshold  below  which  a  lower  penalty  of  imprisonment  can  be  imposed 
and another one below which also a fine can be imposed, unless the case features particularly 
serious  circumstances.  This  could  for  instance  be  the  case  where  the  counterfeit  money  is 
discovered in circumstances that clearly suggest that higher amounts have been or were to be 
produced. The chosen thresholds need to be high enough to take account of minor cases, but 
at the same time low enough to guarantee a deterrent effect of the sanction and to take account 
of the importance of genuineness of banknotes and coins and the trust citizens have in them.  

This  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  provide  for,  in  their  national  law,  the  scale  of 
penalties foreseen in Article 5, not going below the requested minimum levels. However, the 
general  rules  and  principles  of  national  criminal  law  on  the  application  and  execution  of 
sentences  in  accordance  with  the  concrete  circumstances  remain  applicable.  This  includes 
general  rules  on  the  application  of  sentences  to  juveniles,  in  cases  of  attempt,  of  only 
supporting  participation  or  where  the  perpetrator  contributes  to  the  discovery  or  to  the 
prevention of serious offences. Concerning the execution of sentences, general principles as 
e.g. on suspended imprisonment, on alternatives to imprisonment (electronic surveillance) or 
on early release would continue to apply. In the individual cases, the courts will exercise their 
discretion  taking  into  account  all  aggravating  and  mitigating  circumstances  within  the 
applicable legal framework. 

Any of the proposed criminal law measure was carefully assessed and designed in view of its 
possible effects on the protection of fundamental rights. 

The  proposal  is  relevant  to  the  following  rights  and  principles  of  the  EU  Charter  of 
Fundamental Rights (hereafter the Charter): the rights to liberty and family life (by possible 
imprisonment of convicted perpetrators), the freedom to choose an occupation and to conduct 
a business (by possible disqualifications of convicted perpetrators), the right to property (by 

EN 

7 

   EN 

possible shutting down of businesses having committed offences), the principle of legality and 
proportionality  of  criminal  offences  and  penalties  (because  definitions  for  offences  and  the 
scale of penalties are set out), the right not to be tried twice (because of the possible interplay 
with administrative punitive sanctions). These interferences are justified because they serve to 
meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union (see paragraph 1 of Article 52 of 
the Charter), and in particular to provide effective and deterring measures for the protection of 
the  euro  and  other  currencies.  It  has  been  carefully  insured  that  the  measures  do  not  go 
beyond  what  is  necessary  to  achieve  this  objective  and  are  thus  proportionate.  In  particular 
explicit  safeguards  in  the  instrument  itself  have  been  laid  down,  specifying  the  right  to  an 
effective remedy and to a fair trial, including the rights of the defence, ensuring an equivalent 
level  of  effective  judicial  protection  by  national  courts.  The  requested  penalties  are 
proportionate in relation to the offences committed. 

3.3. 

Choice of instruments 

In order to set out criminal law provisions on the basis of paragraph 1 of Article 83 TFEU, a 
directive is the correct instrument. 

3.4. 

Specific provisions 

Article 1: Subject matter – this provision gives a description of the scope and purpose of the 
proposal.  

Article  2:  Definitions  –  this  provision  sets  out  definitions  which  apply  throughout  the 
instrument. 

Article 3: Offences – this provision defines the main offences to be criminalised by Member 
States and clarifies that certain circumstances of the perpetration of the offence fall under the 
scope.  

Article  4:  Incitement,  Aiding  and  Abetting,  Attempt  –  this  provision  is  applicable  to  all 
offences mentioned above and requires Member States to criminalise all forms of preparation 
and participation. Criminal responsibility for attempt is included for the majority of offences. 

Article 5: Penalties – this provision is applicable to all offences mentioned above in Article 3 
and 4. It requires Member States to apply effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties in 
line  with  jurisprudence  of  the  Court  of  Justice.  For  more  serious  cases  of  the  offences  of 
production  and  distribution  of  counterfeit  currency,  it  sets  out  a  sanction  of  imprisonment 
within a range of at least six months and eight years for natural persons. The upper minimum 
ceiling  of  eight  years  is  already  provided  for  in  the  Framework  Decision  2000/383/JHA  for 
the offence of production.  

Articles  6  and  7:  Liability  of  and  sanction  types  for  legal  persons  –  these  provisions  are 
applicable to all offences mentioned in Article 3 and 4. They require Member States to ensure 
liability  of  legal  persons,  while  excluding  that  such  liability  is  alternative  to  that  of  natural 
persons, and to apply effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions on legal persons, and 
they outline the possible sanctions. 

Article  8:  Jurisdiction  –  this  provision  is  based  on  the  principles  of  territoriality  and 
personality.  It  is  applicable  to  all  offences  mentioned  in  Articles  3  and  4.  It  requires 
jurisdiction  of  the  judicial  authorities  which  allow  them  to  initiate  investigations,  pursue 
prosecutions  and  bring  to  judgment  cases  relating  to  currency  counterfeiting.  It  obliges 
Member  States  whose  currency  is  the  euro  to  exercise  universal  jurisdiction  on  euro 

EN 

8 

   EN 

counterfeiting  offences  under  certain  conditions.  In  case  of  parallel  proceedings,  Council 
Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA27 of 30 November 2009 on prevention and settlement of 
conflicts  of  exercise  of  jurisdiction  in  criminal  proceedings  promotes  closer  cooperation 
between  the  competent  authorities.  Following  Council  Decision  2002/187/JHA  of  28 
February  2002,  the  national  member  of  Eurojust  has  to  be  informed  of  any  case  where 
conflicts  of  jurisdiction  have  arisen  or  are  likely  to  arise.  In  addition,  Article  8  of  this 
Directive requests that Member States concentrate criminal proceedings in one Member State 
unless not appropriate. 

Article  9:  Investigative  tools  –  the  provision  aims  at  ensuring  that  investigative  tools  which 
are provided for in national law for organised crime or other serious crime cases can also be 
used in cases of counterfeiting of currency.  

Article 10: Obligation to transmit counterfeit euro notes and coins for analysis and detection 
of  counterfeits  –  the  provision  requires  from  Member  States  to  ensure  that  the  National 
Analysis Centres and the National Coin Analysis Centres can analyse euro counterfeits also 
during on-going judicial proceedings for the purpose of detecting further counterfeits. 

Article  11:  Relation  to  the  Geneva  Convention –  the  provision  requests  that  Member  States 
are contracting parties of the International Geneva Convention of 20 April 1929. 

Article  12:  Replacement  of  Council  Framework  Decision  2000/383/JHA  –  this  provision 
replaces the current provisions in the area of counterfeiting of currency in relation to Member 
States participating in this Directive. 

Article  13:  Transposition  –  the  provision  requires  that  the  Member  States  transpose  the 
Directive within 18 months after its entry into force. Member States have to communicate to 
the Commission the text of these provisions as well as future provisions in the field covered 
by this Directive. Member States are not required to transmit explanatory documents, because 
the Directive contains a limited number of legal obligations and concerns a delimited domain 
at national level. 

Articles  14,  15  and  16  –  contain  further  provisions  on  reporting  by  the  Commission  and 
review; entry into force and addressees.  

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION  

This proposal has no budgetary implications for the budget of the European Union. 

27 

OJ L 328, 15.12.2009, p. 42. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
2013/0023 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on the protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal 
law, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA  

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  and  in  particular 
Article 83(1) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

After having consulted the European Central Bank, 

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national Parliaments, 
Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee28, 

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

As  the  single  currency  shared  by  the  Member  States  of  the  euro  area,  the  euro  has 
become  an  important  factor  in  the  Union's  economy  and  the  every-day-life  of  its 
citizens. It is in the interest of the Union as a whole to oppose and pursue any activity 
that is likely to jeopardise the authenticity of the euro by counterfeiting. 

Counterfeit  money  has  a  considerable  ill-effect  on  society.  It  harms  citizens  and 
businesses that are not reimbursed for counterfeits even if received in good faith. It is 
of fundamental importance to ensure trust and confidence in the authenticity of notes 
and coins for citizens, companies and financial institutions.  

It is essential to ensure that effective and efficient criminal law measures protect the 
euro and any other currency whose circulation is legally authorised in an appropriate 
way in all Member States.  
Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro29 
obliges  the  Member  States  whose  currency  is  the  euro  to  ensure  adequate  sanctions 
against counterfeiting and falsification of euro notes and coins.  
Council  Regulations  (EC)  No  1338/200130  and  No  1339/200131  of  28  June  2001  lay 
down  measures  necessary  for  the  protection  of  the  euro  against  counterfeiting,  in 
particular measures to withdraw counterfeit euros from circulation.  

28 
29 
30 
31 

OJ C [ ] p.[ ] . 
OJ L 139, 11.5.1998, p.1. 
OJ L 181, 4.7.2001, p.6. 
OJ L 181, 4.7.2001, p. 11. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

  
                                                 
(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

The International Convention for the Suppression of Counterfeiting Currency signed at 
Geneva on 20 April 1929 and its Protocol ('Geneva Convention')32 lays down rules to 
effectively  prevent,  prosecute  and  punish  the  offence  of  counterfeiting  currency.  In 
particular, it aims at ensuring that severe criminal penalties and other sanctions can be 
imposed for offences of counterfeiting currency. All contracting parties of the Geneva 
Convention have to apply the principle of non-discrimination to currencies other than 
their domestic currency. 

The  purpose  of  this  Directive  is  to  supplement  the  provisions  and  to  facilitate  the 
application of the Geneva Convention by the Member States.  

This Directive builds on and updates Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA on 
increasing protection by  criminal penalties and other sanctions against counterfeiting 
in  connection  with  the  introduction  of  the  euro33.  This  Directive  complements  the 
Framework Decision with further provisions on the level of penalties, on investigative 
tools  and  on  the  analysis,  identification  and  detection  of  counterfeits  during  judicial 
proceedings. The Framework Decision should be replaced by this Directive in relation 
to those Member States participating in the adoption of this Directive. 

(9) 

The  Directive  should  protect  any  banknote  and  coin  whose  circulation  is  legally 
authorised, irrespective of whether it is made of paper, metal or any other material.  

(10)  The  protection of the euro  and  other currencies calls for a common definition of the 
offences related to the currency counterfeiting as well as for common sanction types 
both  for  natural  and  legal  persons.  In  order  to  ensure  coherence  with  the  Geneva 
Convention, this Directive should provide for the same offences to be punishable as in 
the  Convention.  Therefore,  the  production  of  counterfeit  notes  and  coins  and  their 
distribution  should  be  a  criminal  offence.  Important  preparatory  work  to  those 
offences,  for  example  the  production  of  counterfeiting  instruments  and  components, 
should be punished independently. The common aim of those definitions of offences 
should  be  to  act  as  a  deterrent  from  any  handling  with  counterfeit  notes  and  coins, 
instruments and tools for counterfeiting.  

(11)  The  misuse  of  legal  facilities  or  material  of  authorised  printers  or  mints  for  the 
production of unauthorised notes and coins for fraudulent use should also be regarded 
as counterfeiting. This covers situations where a national central bank or mint or other 
authorised  industry  produces  notes  or  coins  exceeding  the  quota  authorised  by  the 
European Central Bank. It also covers situations where an employee of a legal printer 
or  mint  abuses  the  facilities  for  his  or  her  own  purposes.  That  conduct  should  be 
punishable as a counterfeiting offence even if the authorised quantities have not been 
exceeded,  because  the  produced  counterfeits  would,  once  circulated,  not  be 
distinguishable from authorised notes and coins. 

(12)  Notes  and  coins  which  the  European  Central  Bank  or  the  national  central  banks  and 
mints  have  not  yet  formally  issued  should  also  fall  under  the  protection  of  this 
Directive. Thus, for instance, euro coins with new national sides or new series of euro 
notes should be protected before they have officially been put into circulation. 

(13) 

Incitement,  aiding  and  abetting  and  attempt  to  commit  the  main  counterfeiting 
offences,  including  misuse  of  legal  facilities  or  material  and  including counterfeiting 

32 
33 

No 2623, p. 372 League of Nations – Treaty Series 1931.  
OJ L 140, 14.6.2000, p. 1. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                 
of  notes  and  coins  not  yet  issued  but  designated  for  circulation,  should  also  be 
penalised where appropriate. This Directive does not require Member States to render 
attempt to commit an offence related to an instrument or component for counterfeiting 
punishable. 

(14)  The  sanctions  for  counterfeiting  offences  should  be  effective,  proportionate  and 

dissuasive throughout the Union.  

(15)  Currency counterfeiting is traditionally a crime subject to a high level of sanctions in 
the  Member  States.  This  is  due  to  the  serious  nature  and  the  impact  of  the  crime  on 
citizens and businesses and due to the need to ensure the trust of Union citizens in the 
genuine character of the euro and other currencies. This holds particularly true for the 
euro, which is the single currency of 330 million people in the euro area and which is 
the second most important international currency.  

(16)  Therefore,  Member  States  should  provide  for  certain  minimum  types  and  levels  of 
sanctions. The concept of minimum penalties is currently provided for in a majority of 
Member States. It is consistent and appropriate to adopt this approach at Union level. 

(17)  The  levels  of  the  sanctions  should  be  effective  and  dissuasive  but  should  not  go 
beyond  what  is  proportionate  to  the  offences.  The  penalty  for  natural  persons  in 
serious  cases,  that  is  to  say,  for  the  main  offences  of  production  and  distribution  of 
counterfeit  currency  involving  a  large  amount  of  counterfeit  notes  and  coins  or 
involving  particularly serious circumstances, should therefore  be a minimum penalty 
of at least six months and a maximum penalty of at least eight years of imprisonment.  

(18)  The  minimum  penalty  of  six  months  helps  to  ensure  that  equal  priority  is  given  by 
law-enforcement and judicial authorities to the offences of counterfeiting of the euro 
and other currencies and, in turn, facilitates cross-border cooperation. It contributes to 
mitigating the risk of forum-shopping. Moreover, it allows that sentenced perpetrators 
can  be  surrendered  with  the  help  of  a  European  Arrest  Warrant  so  that  the  custodial 
sentence or detention order can be executed.  

(19)  Member States should have the possibility to impose a short term of imprisonment or 
to  refrain  from  imprisonment  in  cases  where  the  total  nominal  value  of  the 
counterfeited notes and coins is not significant or does not involve particularly serious 
circumstances.  That  value  should  be  below  EUR  5  000,  that  is  to  say  ten  times  the 
highest  denomination  of  the  euro,  for  cases  calling  for  a  penalty  other  than 
imprisonment, and below EUR 10 000 for cases calling for imprisonment for a shorter 
term than six months.  

(20)  This  Directive  is  without  prejudice  to  the  general  rules  and  principles  of  national 
criminal  law  on  the  application  and  execution  of  sentences  in  accordance  with  the 
concrete circumstances in each individual case. 

(21)  Since  confidence  in  the  genuine  character  of  notes  and  coins  can  also  be  harmed  or 
threatened  by  the  conduct  of  legal  persons,  legal  persons  should  be  liable  for  the 
criminal offences committed on their behalf. 

(22)  To  ensure  the  success  of  investigations  and  prosecution  of  currency  counterfeiting 
offences,  those  responsible  for  investigating  and  prosecuting  such  offences  should 
have  access  to  the  investigative  tools  used  in  combating  organised  crime  or  other 
serious  crime.  Such  tools  include,  for  example,  the  interception  of  communications, 
covert surveillance including electronic surveillance, the monitoring of bank accounts 
and  other  financial  investigations,  taking  into  account,  inter  alia,  the  principle  of 
proportionality and the nature and seriousness of the offences under investigation.  

EN 

12 

   EN 

(23)  Member  States  should  establish  their  jurisdiction  in  coherence  with  the  Geneva 
Convention and the provisions on jurisdiction in other Union criminal law legislation, 
that is to say, for offences committed on their territory and for offences committed by 
their  nationals.  The  pre-eminent  role  of  the  euro  for  the  economy  and  society  of  the 
European Union as well as the specific threat to the euro as a currency of world-wide 
importance calls for an additional measure to protect it. Therefore, each Member State 
whose currency is the euro should exercise universal jurisdiction, for offences related 
to  the  euro  committed  outside  the  European  Union,  if  either  the  offender  is  in  its 
territory or counterfeit euros related to the offence are detected in that Member State. 
When exercising universal jurisdiction, Member States should respect the principle of 
proportionality, in particular with regard to convictions by a third country for the same 
conduct.  

(24)  Counterfeiting  often  concerns  several  Member  States  in  parallel,  with  for  instance 
production taking part in one Member State and distribution in one or more others. In 
line with the mechanisms set up in Council Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA of 30 
November 2009 on prevention and settlement of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction in 
criminal  proceedings34,  Member  States  should  concentrate  the  criminal  proceedings 
including the prosecution in one Member State in such cross-border cases unless not 
appropriate. This is in particular the situation where this concentration can streamline 
the investigation such as the seizure of evidence or where it allows the court to take 
into  account  the  whole  scale  of  the  offence  in  one  conviction.  Following  Council 
Decision  2002/187/JHA  of  28  February  2002  setting  up  Eurojust  with  a  view  to 
reinforcing the fight against serious crime35, the national member of Eurojust has to be 
informed of any case where conflicts of jurisdiction have arisen or are likely to arise. 

(25)  For  the  euro,  the  identification  of  counterfeit  notes  and  coins  is  centralised  at  the 
National  Analysis  Centres  and,  respectively,  the  Coin  National  Analysis  Centres 
which  are  designated  or  established  in  accordance  with  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1338/2001.  The  analysis,  identification  and  detection  of  counterfeit  euro  notes  and 
coins  should  also  be  possible  during  on-going  judicial  proceedings  in  order  to  avoid 
and  stop  such  types  of  counterfeits  from  further  circulating,  with  due  respect  for  the 
principle  of  a  fair  and  effective  trial.  In  general,  the  judicial  authorities  should 
authorise the physical transmission of the counterfeits to the National Analysis Centres 
and Coin National Analysis Centres. In certain circumstances, for example where only 
a few counterfeit notes or coins constitute the evidence for the criminal proceedings or 
where physical transmission would result in the risk of destruction of evidence such as 
fingerprints, the judicial authorities should instead be able to decide to give access to 
the notes and coins. 

(26)  This  Directive  respects  fundamental  rights  and  observes  the  principles  recognised  in 
particular  by  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union  and  notably 
the right to liberty and security, the respect for private and family life, the freedom to 
choose an occupation and right to engage in work, the freedom to conduct a business, 
the  right  to  property,  the  right  to  an  effective  remedy  and  to  a  fair  trial,  the 
presumption  of  innocence  and  the  right  to  defence,  the  principles  of  the  legality  and 
proportionality of criminal offences and penalties, as well as the prohibition of being 
tried  or  punished  twice  in  criminal  proceedings  for  the  same  criminal  offence.  This 

34 
35 

OJ L 328, 15.12.2009, p. 42–47. 
OJ L 63, 6.3.2002, p. 1. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

                                                 
Directive  seeks  to  ensure  full  respect  for  those  rights  and  principles  and  must  be 
implemented accordingly. 

(27)  Since  the  objective  of  this  Directive  cannot  be  sufficiently  achieved  by  the  Member 
States alone and can therefore, by reasons of the scale and effects, better achieved at 
Union  level,  the  Union  may  adopt  the  measures  laid  down  in  this  Directive,  in 
accordance  with  the  principle  of  subsidiarity as  set  out  in  Article  5  of  the  Treaty  on 
European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that 
Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective. 

(28) 

[In  accordance  with  Article  3  of  the  Protocol  (No  21)  on  the  position  of  the  United 
Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed 
to  the  Treaty  on  the  European  Union  and  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European Union, the United Kingdom and Ireland have notified their wish to take part 
in the adoption and application of this Directive. 

AND/OR 

(29) 

In  accordance  with  Articles  1  and  2  of  the  Protocol  (No  21)  on  the  position  of  the 
United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  in  respect  of  the  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice, 
annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of 
the  European  Union,  and  without  prejudice  to  Article  4  of  that  Protocol,  the  United 
Kingdom  and  Ireland  are  not  taking  part  in  the  adoption  and  application  of  this 
Directive and are not bound by it or subject to its application.] 

(30) 

In  accordance  with  Articles  1  and  2  of  the  Protocol  (No  22)  on  the  position  of 
Denmark  annexed  to  the  Treaty  on  the  European  Union  and  to  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this 
Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application, 

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: 

Article 1 

Subject matter 

This Directive establishes minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and 
sanctions  in  the  area  of  counterfeiting  of  the  euro  and  other  currencies.  It  also  introduces 
common  provisions  to  strengthen  the  fight  against  those  offences  and  to  improve  their 
investigation.  

Article 2 

Definitions 

For the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply:  

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

'currency'  means  notes  and  coins,  the  circulation  of  which  is  legally  authorised, 
including  euro  notes  and  euro  coins,  the  circulation  of  which  is  legally  authorised 
pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 974/98; 

'legal  person'  means  any  entity  having  legal  personality  under  the  applicable  law, 
except  for  States  or  public  bodies  in  the  exercise  of  State  authority  and  for  public 
international organisations;  

'Geneva  Convention'  means  the  International  Convention  for  the  Suppression  of 
Counterfeiting Currency signed at Geneva on 20 April 1929 and its Protocol. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

Article 3 

Offences 

1. 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  the  following 
conduct is punishable as a criminal offence, when committed intentionally:  

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

any fraudulent making or altering of currency, whatever means are employed; 

the fraudulent uttering of counterfeit currency; 

the  import,  export,  transport,  receiving  or  obtaining  of  counterfeit  currency 
with a view to uttering the same and with knowledge that it is counterfeit; 

(d) 

the fraudulent making, receiving, obtaining or possession of 

(i) 

instruments, articles, computer programs and any other means peculiarly 
adapted for the counterfeiting or altering of currency; or  

(ii)  holograms  or  other  components  of  currency  which  serve  to  protect 

against counterfeiting.  

The  conduct  referred  to  in  paragraph  1  includes  a  conduct  with  respect  to  notes  or 
coins being manufactured or having been manufactured by use of legal facilities or 
materials  in  violation  of  the  rights  or  the  conditions  under  which  competent 
authorities may issue notes or coins. 

The conduct referred to in paragraph 1 includes conduct in relation to notes and coins 
which are not yet issued, but are designed for circulation and are of a currency which 
is legal tender. 

Article 4 

Incitement, aiding and abetting, and attempt 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that inciting or aiding and 
abetting an offence referred to in Article 3 is punishable as a criminal offence.  

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that an attempt to commit 
an  offence  referred  to  in  points  (a),  (b)  or  (c)  of  Article  3  (1)  is  punishable  as  a 
criminal offence.  

Article 5 

Penalties 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the conduct referred 
to  in  Articles  3  and  4  is  punishable  by  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive 
criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment. 

For offences referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 3(1) involving notes and 
coins of a total nominal value of less than EUR 5 000 and not involving particularly 
serious  circumstances,  Member  States  may  provide  for  a  penalty  other  than 
imprisonment. 

Offences  referred  to  in  points  (a),  (b)  and  (c)  of  Article  3(1)  involving  notes  and 
coins  of  a  total  nominal  value  of  at  least  EUR  5  000  shall  be  punishable  by 
imprisonment with a maximum penalty of at least eight years. 

2. 

3. 

1. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

4. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Offences  referred  to  in  points  (a),  (b)  and  (c)  of  Article  3(1)  involving  notes  and 
coins  of  a  total  nominal  value  of  at  least  EUR  10  000  or  involving  particularly 
serious circumstances shall be punishable by 

(a) 

(b) 

a minimum penalty of at least six months of imprisonment;  

a maximum penalty of at least eight years of imprisonment. 

Article 6 

Liability of legal persons 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that legal persons can be 
held liable for the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 committed for their benefit 
by  any  person  acting  either  individually  or  as  part  of  an  organ  of  the  legal  person 
who has a leading position within the legal person based on 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

a power of representation of the legal person; or 

an authority to take decisions on behalf of the legal person; or 

an authority to exercise control within the legal person. 

Member States shall ensure that a legal person can be held liable where the lack of 
supervision or control by a person referred to in paragraph 1 has made possible the 
commission of an offence referred to in Articles 3 and 4 for the benefit of that legal 
person by a person under its authority. 

Liability  of  a  legal  person  under  paragraphs  1  and  2  shall  not  exclude  criminal 
proceedings against natural persons who are perpetrators, instigators or accessories in 
the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4. 

Article 7 

Sanction types for legal persons 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  a  legal  person  held  liable 
pursuant  to  Article  6  is  subject  to  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive  sanctions,  which 
shall include criminal or non-criminal fines and may include other sanctions such as 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

exclusion from entitlement to public benefits or aid; 

temporary or permanent disqualification from the practice of commercial activities; 

placing under judicial supervision; 

judicial winding-up order; 

temporary  or  permanent  closure  of  establishments  which  have  been  used  for 
committing the offence. 

Article 8 

Jurisdiction 

1. 

Each  Member  State  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  establish  its  jurisdiction 
over the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4, where  

(a) 

(b) 

the offence is committed in whole or in part within its territory; or  

the offender is one of its nationals.  

EN 

16 

   EN 

2. 

Each Member State whose currency is the euro shall take the necessary measures to 
establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 committed 
outside the European Union, at least where they relate to the euro and where 

(a) 

(b) 

the offender is in the territory of the Member State; or  

counterfeit euro notes or coins related to the offence have been detected in the 
Member State.  

For the purpose of prosecution of any of the offences, each Member State shall take 
the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  its  jurisdiction  is  not  subordinated  to  the 
condition that the acts are a criminal offence at the place where they were committed.  

3. 

Member  States  shall  concentrate  the  criminal  proceedings  in  one  Member  State, 
unless not appropriate.  

Article 9 

Investigative tools 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that effective investigative tools, 
such as those which are used in organised crime or other serious crime cases, are available to 
persons, units or services responsible for investigating or prosecuting offences referred to in 
Articles 3 to 4. 

Article 10 

Obligation to transmit counterfeit euro notes and coins for analysis and detection of 
counterfeits 

1. 

2. 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  judicial  authorities  permit  the  examination  of 
suspected  counterfeit euro notes  and coins for  analysis,  identification  and detection 
of  further  counterfeits.  For  this  purpose,  the  judicial  authorities  shall  transmit  the 
necessary samples of each type of suspected counterfeit note to the National Analysis 
Centre  and  each  type  of  suspected  counterfeit  coin  to  the  Coin  National  Analysis 
Centre without delay. 

If  the  necessary  samples  of  suspected  counterfeit  notes  and  coins  cannot  be 
transmitted because it is necessary to retain them as evidence in criminal proceedings 
in  order  to  guarantee  a  fair  and  effective  trial  and  the  right  of  defence  of  the 
suspected  perpetrator,  the  National  Analysis  Centre  and  Coin  National  Analysis 
Centre shall be given access to them without delay.  

Article 11 

Relation to the Geneva Convention 

The Member States shall accede or remain parties to the Geneva Convention.  

Article 12 

Replacement of Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA  

Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA is hereby replaced in relation to Member States 
participating  in  the  adoption  of  this  Directive  without  prejudice  to  the  obligations  of  those 
Member  States  relating  to  the  time  limit  for  transposition  of  the  Framework  Decision  into 
national law.  

EN 

17 

   EN 

In  relation  to  Member  States  participating  in  the  adoption  of  this  Directive,  references  to 
Council  Framework  Decision  2000/383/JHA  shall  be  construed  also  as  references  to  this 
Directive.  

Article 13 

Transposition 

1. 

Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative 
provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [18 months after the entry into 
force  of  this  Directive]  at  the  latest.  They  shall  forthwith  communicate  to  the 
Commission the text of those provisions. 

When  Member  States  adopt  those  provisions,  they  shall  contain  a  reference  to  this 
Directive  or  be  accompanied  by  such  a  reference  on  the  occasion  of  their  official 
publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made. 

2. 

Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions 
of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive. 

Article 14 

Reporting by the Commission and review 

The  Commission  shall,  by  [5  years  after  its  entry  into  force],  submit  a  report  on  the 
application  of  this  Directive  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council.  The  report  shall 
assess the extent to which the Member States have taken the necessary measures to comply 
with this Directive. The report shall be accompanied, if necessary, by a legislative proposal. 

Article 15 

Entry into force 

This  Directive  shall  enter  into  force  on  the  [twentieth]  day  following  its  publication  in  the 
Official Journal of the European Union. 

Article 16 

Addressees 

This Directive is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties. 

Done at Strasbourg,  

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

18 

   EN