Liquidity crisis, criminal sanctions and non-payment of VAT according to the Court of Justice of the European Union

2020 ◽  
Vol 177 (4) ◽  
pp. 39-68
Author(s):  
Antonio Del Sole
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Cash Flow ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Liquidity Crisis

The continuing cash-flow crise of taxpayers, and in particular of businesses, recently exacerbated by the effects of Covid-19, raises the question whether it is acceptable in law today that the fulfilment of a debt, even if that debt is of a fiscal nature, to be subject to criminal sanctions. In the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 2 May 2018 in Case C-574/15, this article is fundamentally concerned with the legitimacy of the use of criminal law to sanction taxpayers who find themselves unable to fulfil their tax obligations, although they were timely and truthfully declared to the tax authorities.

scholarly journals The Future of Criminal Law within the European Union - Union Law or Community Law Competence?

2007 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 145
Author(s):  
Verena Murshetz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Constitution ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

Recent developments regarding criminal matters within the European Union (EU) show a trend towards a supranational criminal competence, which could be realised before the entry into force of the European Constitution whose future is uncertain. The strongest indicators in this development are two judgments of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), one that extends the powers of the European Community (EC) over the protection of the environment through criminal sanctions  and the other applying the principle of conforming interpretation to framework decisions . This trend is questionable though, as the Treaty of the European Union (TEU) does not confer a criminal competence upon the EC. The third pillar containing criminal matters is intergovernmental in nature. This article critically discusses the recent trend and presents arguments against an implied supranational criminal law within the EU.

scholarly journals Expulsion or Imprisonment? Criminal Law Sanctions for Breaching an Entry Ban in the Light of Crimmigration Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 247
Author(s):  
Jim Waasdorp ◽  
Aniel Pahladsingh
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Illegal Migration ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Illegal Migrant ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

At EU-level, the use of substantive criminal law as a response to illegal migration is materialised by both the EU legislator and the Member States individually. EU involvement in criminalizing illegal migration takes place in a twofold manner: directly, through harmonization of national legislations, and indirectly, through the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). An example of the latter is the case law of the CJEU regarding criminal law sanctions for breaching an entry ban. In 2008 the EU adopted the Return Directive. This directive aims at establishing common standards and procedures to be applied in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. To actually effectuate their return, the Return Directive provides for several instruments, inter alia, entry bans. In this article, we will analyse six judgments of the CJEU in the light of crimmigration law and make a distinction between the Member Statesʼ power to classify a breach of an entry ban as an offence and to lay down criminal law sanctions in national legislation, and their power to impose such sanctions.Key notes: Return Directive, entry ban, illegal migrant, criminal law sanctions, crimmigration, expulsion  

The emerging EU extradition Law. Petruhhin and beyond

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel João Costa
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Equal Protection ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice

In a recent decision, the Court of Justice of the European Union held that Member States which apply a nationality exception in their extradition relations with third States are bound, under certain circumstances, to accord equal protection to EU citizens other than their own nationals. This article evaluates the nature, scope, impact and meaning of this ruling, and looks into two other extradition cases that are currently awaiting preliminary rulings. The analysis conducted leads the author to claim that these constitute ground-breaking developments which qualify as the advent of a new area within EU criminal law.

Court of Justice of the European Communities

2006 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harmen van der Wilt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Framework Decision ◽  
Court Of Justice

The European Union has been tightening its grip on the criminal laws of the member states. Article 31 of the Treaty on European Union introduced the framework decision as the appropriate instrument to harmonize criminal law. In this way, member states may be required to adopt minimum levels of criminal definitions and sanctions. This is a matter of ‘third pillar’ law. The case under scrutiny, however, is a perfect illustration of the delicate relationship between EU first pillar law and domestic criminal law.

Possession of significant quantity of narcotic drugs – problem overview in the context of the judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union dated 11 June 2020 C-634/18

2021 ◽  
Vol 2(24) ◽  
pp. 341-356
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Tkaczyk-Rymanowska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Drug Addiction ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Case Basis ◽  
Narcotic Drugs

In the judgment of 11 June 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union took the position that it is not contradictory to the community regulations for courts to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not in a specific case the quantity of drugs possessed by the offender is significant and therefore the penalty should be made more severe. The interpretation of the concept of a ‘significant quantity’ of drugs may be left for the national courts to decide on a case-by-case basis on condition that this interpretation is reasonably foreseeable. This article presents an opinion in the discussion of the problems generated by the concept of significant quantities of narcotic drugs in the Polish criminal law, as specified in article 62(2) of the Act on Counteracting Drug Addiction of 29 July 2005. Most of all, however, the doubts that the judgment of the Court of Justice may raise in the context of the Polish legal order and recognised (and very diverse) case-law.

CASE-LAW OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ON CRIMINAL ISSUES WITHIN MARKET ABUSE AT EUROPEAN LEVEL

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (06) ◽  
pp. 237-255
Author(s):  
LIBOR KLIMEK ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Level ◽  
Legal Practice ◽  
Member States ◽  
Market Abuse ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Court Of Justice

A set of legislative instruments regulating market abuse have been adopted by the European Union. As regards criminal law sanctions, the principal contemporary legislative instrument in this field, addressed to its Member States, is the Directive 2014/57/EU on criminal sanctions for market abuse. Legislation has been supplemented by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (formerly known as the Court of Justice of the European Communities). It is a key element for the development of legal practice in all Member States of the European Union. The assessment of case-law on criminal issues within market abuse is therefore needed. The paper analyses relevant cases. In each case at the outset a reference for a preliminary ruling is mentioned. Further, dispute in the main proceedings and the question(s) referred for a preliminary ruling are analysed. The most important parts of analyses are considerations by the Court of Justice and its rulings.

scholarly journals Zakres związania państw członkowskich Kartą Praw Podstawowych Unii Europejskiej w kontekście stosowania prawa karnego (uwagi na tle orzecznictwa TSUE)

2017 ◽  
pp. 49-79
Author(s):  
Monika Szwarc
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Fair Balance

The article focuses on the recent jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the context of the national criminal laws of the Member States, concerning the scope of application of the Charter. Drawing conclusions from this jurisprudence the Author answers the question when the Member State is 'implementing Union law' in the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter in the criminal law context. It is considered that Member States implement Union law when interpreting framework decisions (Lanigan, JZ, Vilkas), when assessing the conformity of the national measures with framework decisions (Jeremy F., Radu), when executing judgements in the framework of the mutual recognition (Aranyosi and Caldararu) and when assuring the effectiveness of EU law by enacting criminal sanctions (Tarrico). In addition, in some situations Member States may be considered to be implementing Union law while enacting national measures which may affect the rights derived from Union law (Delvigne). It is assumed in the article that CJEU is often called to strike the fair balance between the different (and sometimes diverging) interests of three categories of actors: interests of individuals (to have their fundamental rights protected), interests of Member States (to exercise ius puniendi) and interests of the European Union as a whole (to ensure effectivess of EU law).

scholarly journals The Court of Justice of the European Union’s Mutual Trust Journey in EU Criminal Law: From a Presumption to (Room for) Rebuttal

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 468-495
Author(s):  
Auke Willems
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Eu

AbstractMore than any other EU institution, the Court of Justice of the European Union has upheld the presumption of mutual trust in EU criminal law cooperation. Surprisingly though, despite mutual trust’s centrality in the Court’s jurisprudence, it has long not qualified nor properly elaborated the notion of trust, but rather held on to its presumed existence based on a high level of fundamental rights protection throughout the Union. This article will assess the important role of the Court in establishing, upholding and ultimately qualifying the trust presumption in the EU criminal justice context. Along the lines of a number of key cases, the narrative of a strong defence of (the presumption of) mutual trust appears, but also of an evolution toward more room for rebuttal in recent cases. This signals the increased weight given to fundamental rights protection in the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.

Punitive Administrative Sanctions After the Treaty of Lisbon: Does Administrative Really Mean Administrative?

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-176
Author(s):  
Markus Kärner
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
European Court ◽  
Administrative Sanctions

This article analyses the dichotomy between administrative and criminal sanctions in European Union law and aims to establish which limits do the policy goals of the European Union set for the national transposition of administrative sanctions as opposed to criminal sanctions. The article discusses the difficulties in differentiating between administrative and criminal sanctions and gives an overview of the evolution of the European Union sanctioning system from the early competence disputes to the rationale behind the post-Lisbon parallel harmonisation of criminal and administrative sanctions. The final part of the article uses these findings along with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice to ascertain the key requirements for transposing European Union administrative sanctions into national law, namely whether the policy goals of the European Union require the formal non-criminal classification of the sanction as a way of negative harmonisation of criminal law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document