Ficheiro de 4,94 MB em formato PDF (201 p.).

1 Harmonization and Approximation Policies in the European Union. 1.1 Defining Harmonization and Approximation of Criminal Law in the EU. 1.1.1 Harmonization. 1.1.2 Approximation. 1.2 The EU Policy in the III Pillar and Harmonization and Approximation of Criminal Law. 1.2.1 The Evolution of the EU Policy on Approximation and Harmonization of Criminal Law. 1.2.2 Harmonization and Approximation of Criminal Law and the Principle of Mutual Recognition. 1.3 Conclusions of Chapter 1. 2 Organized Crime Legislation: Reasons and Background for the Assessment of Harmonization and Approximation. 2.1 Reasons for Assessing the Sector of Organized Crime. 2.1.1 Reasons Relating to the EU Policy in the III Pillar. 2.1.2 The Lack of Comparative Research in the Sector of Organized Crime. 2.2 The Main Instruments Aiming at Harmonization and Approximation of EU Member States’ Organized Crime Legislation. 2.2.1 The Joint Action on Making It a Criminal Offence to Participate in a Criminal Organization in the Member States of the European Union. 2.2.2 The United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. 2.2.3 The Framework Decision on the Fight Against Organised Crime 2.2.4 Remarks on the Legal Instruments Aiming at Harmonization and Approximation of Organized Crime Legislation. 2.3 Conclusions of Chapter 2. The Assessment of Organized Crime Legislation. 3 The Methodology 3.1 The Methodology: Assessing Through Indicators. 3.1.1 Objectives, Operational Definitions and Methodology. 3.1.2 Data Gathering. 3.1.3 The Analysis. 3.2 Possible Problems Related to the Methodology. 3.3 Conclusions of Chapter 3. 4 Assessing Harmonization: The Horizontal Analysis. 4.1 Structure of Criminal Law. 4.1.1 Criminal Organization Offences. 4.1.2 Aggravating Circumstances. 4.1.3 Punishability of the Mere Agreement to a Criminal Organization. 4.2 Requirements of the Criminal Organization. 4.2.1 Number of Members of a Criminal Organization. 4.2.2 Structure of the Criminal Organization. 4.2.3 Continuity of the Criminal Organization. 4.3 The Activities of a Criminal Organization. 4.4 The Penalties 4.4.1 Standard Penalty for Participation/Membership. 4.4.2 Penalty Differentiation. 4.5 Collaborators with Justice. 4.5.1 Benefits for Collaborators with Justice. 4.5.2 Requirements for Benefits. 4.6 Legal Persons. 4.6.1 Liability of Legal Persons. 4.6.2 Sanctions for Legal Persons. 4.7 Rules on Jurisdiction. 4.8 Conclusions of Chapter 4. Considerations on the Harmonization of Criminal Organization Legislation Among EU Member States. 4.8.1 Different Criminal Law Approaches to Organized Crime. 4.8.2 The Level of Harmonization Among EU Member States. 5 Assessing Approximation: The Vertical Analysis. 5.1 Article 1: Definitions. 5.1.1 Number of Members. 5.1.2 Number of Predicate Offences. 5.1.3 Type of Predicate Offences. 5.1.4 Structure of the Criminal Organization. 5.1.5 Continuity of the Criminal Organization. 5.1.6 Additional Requirements. 5.2 Article 2: Offences Relating to Participation in a Criminal Organisation. 5.3 Article 3: Penalties. 5.3.1 Standard Penalty for Participation/Membership. 5.3.2 Aggravating Circumstance. 5.4 Article 4: Special Circumstances. 5.5 Article 5: Liability of Legal Persons. 5.5.1 Crimes Committed by Persons Having a Leading Position Within the Legal Person. 5.5.2 Crimes Made Possible by a Lack of Supervision or Control. 5.6 Article 6: Penalties for Legal Persons. 5.6.1 Criminal/Non-Criminal Fines. 5.6.2 Other Penalties 5.7 Article 7: Jurisdiction. 5.7.1 Territorial Jurisdiction. 5.7.2 Jurisdiction over Offences Committed by a National. 5.7.3 Jurisdiction over Offences Committed for the Benefit of a Legal Person Established in the Territory. 5.8 Conclusions of Chapter 5. Considerations on the Level of Approximation to the Standards of the Framework Decision (2008/841/JHA). 6 Conclusions and Implications. 6.1 Possibilities for Further Research. 6.2 Considerations on the European Policies on Harmonization and. Approximation of Organized Crime Legislation. 6.2.1 Criminal Organization Offences: A Trade-Off Between. Effectiveness and Legality?. 6.2.2 The Expected Impact of the Framework Decision (2008/841/JHA): A Further trompe l’oeil with Possible Dangerous Consequences. 6.3 Final Conclusions. Bibliography. Index.