In the past decades, the European Union has made little progress with respect to disqualifications as a sanction mechanism for the violation of laws. The creation of some form of harmonization is necessary, but the complex nature of this specific sanction mechanism has caused policy initiatives to be postponed, time after time. In answer to a call from the European Commission, the contributors in this book have conducted a comparative legal analysis in the EU 27 and looked into the practical experiences with disqualifications from a domestic and a cross border perspective. To that end, academics, policy makers, and practitioners in the Member States have been consulted. Analysis reveals a wide variety in the typology of the disqualifications as a sanction measure, the typology of the persons to whom the disqualifications can be imposed, and the typology of the authorities involved. Furthermore, there are considerable differences with respect to the inclusion of disqualifications in the national criminal records databases. Linked thereto information on foreign disqualifications is scarce and rarely used in practice. To ensure a comprehensive and consistent policy approach, this book has come up with a so called disqualification triad, comprising: (1) unified EU-wide disqualifications, (2) mutual recognition of disqualifications, and (3) EU-wide equivalent effect of disqualifications. The functioning of the disqualification triad has been further elaborated on in three case studies, which are public procurement disqualifications, disqualifications from working with children, and driving disqualifications. In doing so, this book is essential reading for both EU and national policy makers, as well as for researchers and practitioners involved. (Series: Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy [IRCP] - No. 45)

In the European Union, international cooperation in criminal matters has grown exponentially over the past few decades. Importantly, there are a wide variety of authorities involved therein, rendering the traditional distinction between police and judicial cooperation as outdated. Furthermore, its rapid growth exposed this policy field to inconsistencies and incoherence. Additionally, despite the wave of new legislation, important lacunae can be identified, setting important challenges for the future. The combination of these issues clarifies the title of this book: there is a pressing need to rethink international cooperation in criminal matters. In answer to a call from the European Commission, the contributors of this book have designed a comprehensive methodological framework to review the entirety of international cooperation in criminal matters, combining desktop reviews, expert consultations, Member State questionnaires, and focus group meetings in each of the Member States to obtain a comprehensive overview of the currently experienced obstacles and future policy options that are both needed and feasible. Over 150 individuals from different backgrounds contributed to the study, including academics, lawyers, policy makers, police, customs, intelligence services, prosecution, judiciary, correctional authorities, Ministries of Justice, and Home Affairs. The book provides an overview of the research findings and the recommendations formulated. These findings include, but are not limited to: (1) a helicopter view on cooperation with criminal justice finality, (2) a clear demarcation of the role of the judicial authorities, (3) a comprehensive review of refusal grounds, including proportionality and capacity concerns, (4) an assessment of gaps in the current body of instruments regulating international cooperation in criminal matters and possible remedies thereto, (5) a well-considered further development of Eurojust, and (6) ensuring EU wide effect of mere domestic actions. This book represents the first overall analysis of the entirety of international cooperation in criminal matters in the EU. As essential reading, it is an analysis that moves beyond the actors, bringing logic back, footed in reality. (Series: Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy [IRCP] - No. 42)

Discussions of the possibility to attribute liability to legal persons for committing offenses are far from new. The EU landscape however is scattered. Although there are obligations for the Member States to introduce liability for legal persons committing offenses, diversity remains as to: the offenses that may trigger liability * the legal persons that may be held liable * the attribution theories and mechanisms used * the type of liability, which may be either penal, administrative, or civil * the sanctions that legal persons may incur. Consistent policy making requires an identification of the main commonalities and differences in view of being able to adequately reflect them in cross-national policy initiatives. Hence, the European Commission launched a call for tender for a study on the issue, which was awarded to the Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy (IRCP). The results are published in this book. Based on comparative legal analysis in the EU27, recommendations are formulated relating to the EU approximation policy (amongst others to reconsider the concept of a 'legal person' and to look into the need for specific 'legal person'-offenses), the functioning of mutual recognition (amongst others to extend the current mutual recognition instrumentarium), the exchange of information (amongst others to develop a criminal records policy), and procedural safeguards (amongst others to secure equivalent protection outside a criminal liability context). In other words, a helicopter view is taken to ensure consistent EU policy making. (Series: Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy [IRCP] - Vol. 44)

Reviewing European policy with respect to different phases in the criminal justice chain, the contributions in this book range from looking into the extension of criminalization in the sphere of trafficking in human beings and labor exploitation, to the operability of cross-border execution of sentences involving deprivation of liberty. Most contributions look into the need to develop a conceptual framework to support future policy making, pointing to the lack thereof with respect to liability of legal persons, ne bis in idem as an EU principle, cross-border effect of disqualifications, and cooperation with private security actors. One essay looks into the public expenditure in different phases of the criminal justice chain, based on a case study on the public expenditure of Belgian drug policy. Additionally, from a historical and comparative perspective, the book analyzes specific European and Chinese interrogation rules to provide a solid context for the current situation and to support future legal reforms. (Series: Governance of Security (GofS) Research Paper - Vol. 7)

This book starts from the observation that criminal law is different in each of the EU's Member States: (1) what constitutes as an offense in one Member State does not necessarily constitute as an offense in another member state; (2) where offenses are equally criminalized in all Member States, the sanction levels may still vary; and (3) more generally, the position of the offenses in the entirety of the justice system may vary. The question arises: to what extent are those so-called offense diversities an obstacle for EU policy making and to what extent is it feasible to overcome those obstacles? The book underpins the need for the development of an EU offense policy, using the common criminalization acquis as a center piece. It argues that the common criminalization acquis can help: to ensure comparability of crime statistics * to avoid redundant double criminality testing * to overcome evidence gathering difficulties * to clarify the mandates of the EU level actors * to identify the equivalent national sentence * to scope the taking account of prior convictions. The only condition: the development of a comprehensive, consistent, and well-balanced EU offense policy. This book contains the conclusions of author Wendy De Bondt's publication-based doctoral thesis defended at Ghent University in June 2012. It will be essential reading for policy makers, both at the national and European level, in any policy field that is linked to offenses.