Another Brick in the Whole. The Case-Law of the Court of Justice on Free Movement and Its Possible Impact on European Criminal Law

Open access


European Union, and criminal, laws had been interacting in many ways even before explicit competence in criminal matters was acquired by the Union in the Treaty of Maastricht. Such intersections between supranational and national provisions have frequently been handled by the CJEU. In the main, the intervention of the Court is triggered by Member States’ recourse to penal sanctions in situations covered by EU law. In such cases, the CJEU is called upon to strike a complicated balance: it has to deal with Member States’ claims of competence in criminal law, whilst ensuring that that power is used consistently with EU law. By making reference to selected cases, this paper highlights the impact that principles established in the context of the fundamental freedoms can have on EU criminal law.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • • Alexy Robert 2010 ‘The Construction of Constitutional Rights’ in Law and Ethics of Human Rights IV(1): 21-32.

  • • Ashworth Andrew 2010 Sentencing and Criminal Justice Cambridge University Press Cambridge 104-155.

  • • Asp Petter 2007 ‘Two Notions of Proportionality’ in Nuotio Kimmo (Ed.) Festschrift in honour of Raimo Lahti 2007 207–219.

  • • Asp Petter 2011 ‘The Importance of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Coherence in the Development of EU Criminal Law’ in European Criminal Law Review I(1): 44-55.

  • • Barak Aharon 2010 ‘Proportionality and Principled Balancing’ in Law and Ethics of Human Rights IV(1): 1-16.

  • • Barnard Catherine 2013 The Substantive Law of the EU. The Four Freedoms Oxford University Press Oxford.

  • • Beatty David M. 2004 The Ultimate Rule of Law Oxford University Press Oxford.

  • • Bernardi Alessandro 2012 ‘I principi di sussidiarietà e di legalità nel diritto penale europeo’ in Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto Penale dell’Economia XXV(1-2): 15-65.

  • • Bernardi Alessandro 2013 ‘Ombre e luci nel processo di armonizzazione dei sistemi penali europei’ in Allegrezza Silvia Grasso Giovanni Illuminati Giulio Sicurella Rosaria (eds) Le sfide dell’attuazione di una Procura Europea: definizione di regole comuni e il loro impatto sugli ordinamenti interni Giuffrè Milano 181-264.

  • • Böse Martin 2011 ‘The Principle of Proportionality and the Protection of Legal Interests (Verhältnismäßigkeit und Rechtsgüterschutz)’ in European Criminal Law Review I(1): 34-42.

  • • Craig Paul 2010 ‘Proportionality Rationality and Review’ in New Zealand Law Review XXXV(2): 265-302.

  • • De Búrca Grainne 1993 ‘The Principle of Proportionality’ and its Application in EC Law in Yearbook of European Law XIII(1): 105-150.

  • • Donini Massimo 2003 ‘Sussidiarietà penale e sussidiarietà comunitaria’ in Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale XLVI(1-2): 141-183.

  • • Endicott Timothy 2012 ‘Proportionality and Incommensurability’ in University of Oxford Legal Research Paper Series no. 40 available at

  • • Fichera Massimo and Herlin-Karnell Ester 2013 ‘The Margin of Appreciation Test and Balancing in the Area of Freedom Security and Justice: A Proportionate Answer for a Europe of Rights?’ in European Public Law XIX(4): 759–788.

  • • Fontanelli Filippo 2014a ‘The Implementation of European Union Law by Member States Under Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights’ in Columbia Journal of European Law XX(2): 194-247.

  • • Fontanelli Filippo 2014b ‘National Measures and the Application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to National Measures - Does Know’ in Human Rights Law Review XIV(2): 231-265.

  • • Fontanelli Filippo and Martinico Giuseppe 2013 ‘Browsing The XX Files Necessity in the GATT and why it is not like proportionality in the EU’ in SWUPL International Law Review Xiamen University Press: 32-58.

  • • Gerards Janneke H. 2009 ‘Proportionality Revire in EU Law’ in IVR Encyclopedia of Jurisprudence Legal Theory and Philosophy of Law

  • • Gibbs Alun Howard 2011 ‘Reasoned ‘Balance’ in Europe’s Area of Freedom Security and Justice’ in European Law Journal XVII(1): 121–137.

  • • Giudicelli-Delage Geneviève 2010 ‘Droit pénal de la dangerosité - Droit pénal de l’ennemi’ in Revue de sciences criminelles et de droit pénal comparé LXXI(1): 69-80.

  • • Harbo Tor-Inge 2010 ‘The Function of the Proportionality Principle in EU Law’ in European Law Journal XVI(2): 158–185.

  • • Herlin-Karnell Ester 2009 ‘Subsidiarity in the Area of EU Justice and Home Affairs Law—A Lost Cause?’ in European Law Journal XV(3): 351–361.

  • • Herlin-Karnell Ester 2013 ‘From Mutual Trust to the Full Effectiveness of EU Law: 10 Years of the European Arrest Warrant’ in European Law Review XXXVIII(1): 79-91.

  • • Husak Douglas 2004 ‘The Criminal Law as Last Resort’ in Oxford Journal of Legal Studies XXIV(2): 207-235.

  • • Jacobs Francis G. 1999 ‘Recent Developments in the Principle of Proportionality in European Community Law’ in Ellis Evelyn (ed.) The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe Hart Publisher Oxford 1999 1-22.

  • • Janssen Christine 2013 The Principle of Mutual Recognition in EU Law Oxford University Press Oxford.

  • • Kaiafa-Gbandi Maria 2011 ‘The Importance of Core Principles of Substantive Criminal Law for a European Criminal Policy Respecting Fundamental Rights and the Rule of Law in European Criminal Law Review I(1): 6-33.

  • • Keijzer Nico and van Sliedregt Elies (eds) 2005 The European Arrest Warrant in Practice T. M. C. Asser Press The Hague.

  • • Klip André 2012 European Criminal Law: An Integrative Approach Intersentia Cambridge.

  • • Lavenex Sandra 2007 ‘Mutual recognition and the monopoly of force: limits of the single market analogy’ in Journal of European Public Policy XIV(5): 762-779.

  • • Marin Luisa 2014 ‘Effective and Legitimate? Learning from the Lessons of 10 Years of Practice with the European Arrest Warrant’ in New Journal of European Criminal Law V(3): 327-348.

  • • Melander Sakari 2013 ‘Ultima Ratio in European Criminal Law’ in European Criminal Law Review III(1): 45-64.

  • • Mitsilegas Valsamis 2006 ‘The constitutional implications of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the EU’ in Common Market Law Review XLIII(5): 1277-1311.

  • • Mitsilegas Valsamis 2009 EU Criminal Law Hart Publisher Oxford.

  • • Mitsilegas Valsamis 2014 ‘Article 49’ in Peers Steve Hervey Tamara Kenner Jeff Ward Angela (eds) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. A Commentary Hart Publisher Oxford 1351-1372.

  • • Nicolaidis Kalypso and Shaffer Gregory 2005 ‘Transnational Mutual Recognition Regimes: Governance without Global Government’ in Law and Contemporary Problems LXVIII(3/4): 263-317.

  • • Peers Steve 2004 ‘Mutual recognition and criminal law in the European Union: has the Council got it wrong?’ in Common Market Law Review XLI(1): 5-36.

  • • Reich Norbert 2011 ‘How proportionate is the proportionality principle? Some critical remarks on the use and methodology of the proportionality principle in the internal market case law of the CJEU’ available at

  • • Robinson Paul H. and Darley John M. 2004 ‘Does Criminal Law Deter? A Behavioural Science Investigation’ in Oxford Journal of Legal Studies XXIV(2): 173-205.

  • • Rosas Allan 2010 ‘Life after Dassonville and Cassis: Evolution but No Revolution’ in Poiares Maduro Miguel and Azoulai Loïc (eds) The Past and Future of EU Law. The Classics of EU Law Revisited on the 50th Anniversary of the Rome Treaty Hart Publisher Oxford 433-446.

  • • Sarmiento Daniel 2013 ‘Who’s Afraid of the Charter? The Court of Justice National Courts and the New Framework of Fundamental Rights Protection in Europe in Common Market Law Review L(5): 1267-1304.

  • • Snell Jukka 2014 ‘The Internal Market and the Philosophies of Market Integration’ in Barnard Catherine and Peers Steve (eds) European Union Law Oxford University Press Oxford 300-323.

  • • Sotis Carlo 2012 ‘I principi di necessità e proporzionalità della pena nel diritto dell’Unione europea dopo Lisbona’ in Diritto Penale Contemporaneo II(1): 111-122.

  • • Tridimas Takis 2006 The General Principles of EU Law Oxford University Press Oxford.

  • • van Zyl Smit Dirk and Ashworth Andrew 2004 ‘Disproportionate Sentences as Human Rights Violations’ in The Modern Law Review LXVII(4): 541-560.

  • • Vernimmen-Van Tiggelen Gisèle Surano Laura Weyembergh Anne 2009 The future of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the European Union Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles Bruxelles.

  • • von Hirsch Andrew 1992 ‘Proportionality in the Philosophy of Punishment’ in Crime and Justice XVI(1): 55-98.

  • • von Hirsch Andrew and Ashworth Andrew 2010 Proportionate Sentencing: Exploring the Principles Oxford University Press Oxford 131-163.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.04

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.105
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.03

Target audience: researchers, academics, practitioners interested in the field of political, economic and legal issues in federal states, regional organizations, and international organizations at global level
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 249 88 4
PDF Downloads 161 65 3