Public Policy and the Court of Justice: The “Combinatorial Logic” in the Framework of Criminal Law
| Author | Stefano Manacorda |
| Date | 01 March 2010 |
| Published date | 01 March 2010 |
| DOI | 10.1177/203228441000100106 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
New Journal of Eur opean Crimina l Law, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 2010 59
pUBLiC poLiCY And tHe CoURt oF JUstiCe:
tHe “ComBinAtoRiAL LogiC” in tHe
FRAmeWoRK oF CRiminAL LAW
S M*
ABSTRAC T
Introductory remarks: public policy, limitation o r vector of European criminal law
integration? I. e unstable equilibrium between Community public policy and national
criminal law – A. General public policy clauses recognised by the Treaties: a polysemous
and e xible concept. B. e restrictive approach of the Court of Justice: autonomous
meaning and strict interpretation. C. e dynamic s of interpretation and the concer ns
for national criminal law. II. In search of the method of the Court’s reasoning: a
“combinatorial logic” – A. e cr iterion of appropriateness in relation to legitimate
purpose: the variable application of f ree movement. B. e criterion of the se riousness
of the threat and individu al conduct . C. e test of prop ortionality and non
discriminat ion laid down by the Court. Concluding remark s.
1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: PUBLIC POLICY?
LIMITATION OR VECTOR OF EUROPEAN CRIMINAL
LAW INTEGRATION?
e control exercised by the Court of Just ice of the European Community (CJEC) on
internal cri minal law systems has i ncreased appreciably in the last ten years and this
has not gone unnoticed.1 In this context what has remained at the heart of the ruli ngs
* Professor of criminal law, Seconda Università di Napol i; V isiting Professor Université Paris 1
Panthéon-Sorbon ne; transl ated from the original Fre nch by Scott C rosby, Crosby Houben & Aps,
Brussels, and Nicola White, Dickinson Dees LLP, Newca stle. is tex t is the translati on of the
original French version published in Giudicelli-Delage(G.) et Ma nacorda (S.) (dir.), Cour de Justice
et justice pén ale en Europe, Société de lé gislation Comparée, 2 010.
1 See Manacorda (S.), “‘Judicial acti vism’ dans le cadre de l ’Espace de liberté , de justice et de sécur ité
de l’Union eu ropéenne”, Rev. Sc. Cr im., 2005 p. 94 0 et s. ; Labayle (H.), “Architecte ou s pectatrice ?
Stefano Manac orda
60 Intersentia
of the Community court on criminal law is the neutralisation of national criminal law
which is not a particularly recent phenomenon.2 A normative integration mechanism
such as thi s requires on the one hand a c onict between a Communit y law rule with
direct eec t and on the other an internal crim inal law rule or even a conict among
several such provisions and i s thus predicated on a triadic normative a ntinomy or on
neutrali sation in malam partem .3
However, conict with Community law does not inevitably lead to the setting side
of the domestic crimina l law rule because a Member State may escape the application
of the free movement rules where the hard core of its national interests is at stake. For
example Article 30 EC provides that the prohibition of quantitative rest rictions on
imports and measures of equivalent eect does not preclude measures which, although
restricting intra-community trade are “ju stied on grounds of public morality public
policy or public security; the p rotection of health and life of humans, animals or plants;
the protection of national trea sures possessing artistic, his toric or archaeological value;
or the protection of industri al or commercial property”.
Public pol icy, a term broad b oth in concept and in scope as it covers a range of
Treaty derogations (see below), thus constitutes a limit or an exception to the economic
and normative integration which the Commu nity legal order seeks to establish.4 at
said, the quest ion arises whether public polic y can also do the opposite a nd function
as a vector for crimina l law integration throughout all twenty seven Member St ates.
La Cour de justic e de l’Union dans l’E space de liberté, séc urité et justice”, RT D eu r., 2006, p. 1 et s. ;
Labayle (H.), “L’ouverture de la jarre d e Pandore, réex ions sur la comp étence de la C ommunauté
en matière pénale”, Cahie rs de droit européen, 2006, p. 379 et s. ; Bernardi (A.), “Le rôle du troisième
pilier dans l’européanis ation du droit pénal. Un bilan synthétique à la vei lle de la réforme des
traités”, Rev. Sc. Crim., 2007, p. 73 et s.; Braum (s.), Weyembergh (A.), Le contrôle juridict ionnel dans
l’espace pénal européen / e judicial control in EU c ooperation in criminal matters, Bruxel les,
Editions de l ’Université de Bruxelle s, 2009.
2 Satzger (H.), Die Europaesierung des Straf rechts. Eine Untersuchung zum Einu ss des Europaeischen
Gemeinscha rechts au f des deutsche Strafrecht, Köln, Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2001, p. 478 et s. ;
Manacorda (S.), “Un bilan des interférences entre droit communautaire et droit pénal : neutralisat ion
et obligations d’ incriminati on”, Rev. Sc. Cri m., 2 006, p. 245 et s. ; Ma nacorda (s), “Die
„Neutrali sierung” staat licher Strafnorm en durch die Europäi schen Gemeinscha en: theoretische s
Bild aus italieni scher Sicht”, in Sieber (U.), Dannecker (G.), Kindhaeuser (U.), Vogel (J.), Martin (T.)
(dir.), Strafrecht und Wirtschasstrafre cht – Dogmatik, Rechtsverglei ch, Rechtstatsachen – Festschr i
für K. Tiedeman n, Muenchen, Wolter Kluver, 2008, p. 1407 et s.
3 is is the hypothesis cor responding to cases i n which two national lega l norms, whose reach must
be conrmed with regard to E uropean law, are set in comparison w ith each other a nd conict: see
Sotis (C.), Il diritto senza codice. Uno studio sul si stema penale europeo vigente , Milan, Giurè, 2007,
p. 227 et s.
4 Picheral (C.), “Fasc. 650 : Ordre public e t droit communautai re. Communautar isation des réser ves
d’ordre public”, JurisCla sseur Europe Traité, 2007, §1.
To continue reading
Request your trial