International

This week the European Parliament will be for the first time discussing my report on criminal law, in which I make a number of proposals designed to erect a dam against the haphazard approach by which ever more areas of European criminal law are coming into being, without our being able to monitor the process closely. When it comes to the criminal law we need to proceed with great caution, as it almost always concerns human rights and, furthermore, differences between member states are rooted in tradition and culture. Consider as examples the Netherlands’ regulation of abortion or euthanasia, or our policies in relation to drugs. So it’s imperative not to let the European bull loose in this china shop.

Very shortly after I started life as a MEP I proposed an own-initiative report (i.e., one which unlike most EP reports did not represent a response to a specific proposal from the European Commission) on criminal law. The European Parliament has in the past had little influence on this, but has now gained the power of co-decision in this area, which creates obligations. So the first aim of my initiative is to hold to our principles. In Brussels all too often what happens is that as a result of political hype a new proposal comes along for harmonisation of criminal law. Moreover, the Commission invariably finds it a splendid thing when anything is added to their powers and tends to make rather too much use of them. Too much criminal law is, however, never a good thing. Our system of justice can only handle a certain workload. If you try to deal with too much via the criminal law, this system’s effectiveness can be seriously put to the test. In addition, you must always ask yourself whether it is really necessary for Europe to meddle in this. When it comes to cross-border crime, such as people-trafficking, a European approach is clearly necessary. But there is no reason whatsoever to harmonise laws at European level on murder or theft, which are best dealt with by the member states.

To date neither in the European Commission nor in the European Parliament have many measures been taken against a haphazard approach to criminal law. In all sorts of legislative proposals which at first sight appear to have nothing to do with criminal law, for example in relation to the environment, the Commission is covertly introducing provisions regarding legal enforcement. This can lead to a fragmented and inconsistent result, and it is moreover far from always clearly something for European regulation. Enforcement could also be left to the member states. I have therefore formulated a number of conditions which all proposals must fulfil, a test to determine whether legal enforcement is indeed necessary, and one which goes into the question of whether this should be regulated at European level. In addition I request that an agreement be concluded between all of the EU institutions, to the effect that in each a central body is established to monitor the quality of the proposals, as exists in the Ministry of Justice and Security in the Netherlands.

First reactions from academics and also from other MEPs have been encouraging. They understand my plea for caution and quality control. I hope also that my report will be accepted by the European Parliament in a reasonably undiluted form. In that case the SP will have made a contribution to the protection of our national criminal law as well as to raising the quality of European proposals.