¹ Treaty of Lisbon, Dec. 13, 2007, 2007 O.J. (C 306) (amending the Treaty on European Union and establishing the European Community) [hereinafter Lisbon Treaty]. Google Scholar

² E.g. Naguel Neagu, Entrapment between Two Pillars: The European Court of Justice Rulings in Criminal Law, 15 Eur. L. J. 536 (2009).Google Scholar

³ Protocol on Transitional Provisions Attached to the Lisbon Treaty, art. 9–10.Google Scholar

⁴ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvE 02/08, June 30, 2009, http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208en.html. See 10 Germ. L.J. 1169, 1169–1354 (2009), at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=2&vol=10&no=8.Google Scholar

⁵ However, it also further ‘intergovernmentalized’ the criminal law when it moved the former third pillar area of immigration and asylum and civil law to the first pillar sphere.Google Scholar

⁶ See European Council Tampere 1999; The Hague Programme: Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the EU, 2005 OJ (C 53/1).Google Scholar

⁷ See Mitsilegas, Valsamis, EU Criminal Law (2009); Steve Peers, EU Justice and Home Affairs (2006). See also Case C-120/78, Cassis de Dijon, 1979 E.C.R. 649.Google Scholar

⁸ See Note, Council, The Stockholm Programme (2009) at http://www.se2009.eu/polopoly_fs/1.26419!menu/standard/file/Klar_Stockholmsprogram.pdf.Google Scholar

⁹ The Court of Justice was largely excluded from this prior to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Article 35 TEU (which is now abolished) was based on a voluntary declaration by the Member States to confer such jurisdiction in the former third pillar.Google Scholar

¹⁰ If such an emergency brake scenario occurs, a Member State may request that the measure be referred to the European Council. In that case, the ordinary legislative procedure is suspended, and after discussion and “… in case of a consensus, the European Council shall, within four months of this suspension, refer the draft back to the Council, which shall terminate the suspension of the ordinary legislative procedure. …”Google Scholar

¹¹ Ester Herlin-Karnell, The Lisbon Treaty and the Criminal Law: Anything New Under the Sun, 10 Eur. J. L. Reform 321 (2008).Google Scholar

¹² See Case C-123/08, Wolzenburg (2009) (not yet reported).Google Scholar

¹³ See 2002 O.J. (L 190/1) (on the EAW).Google Scholar

¹⁴ E.g. Andrew Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law (2006).Google Scholar

¹⁵ E.g. Armin von Bogdandy, Founding Principles, in Principles of European Constitutional Law 11 (Armin Von Bogdandy & Jorgen Bast eds., 2010).Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Opinion 2/94, Accession to the ECHR, 1996 E.C.R. 1-1759; Case C-376/98, Germany v. Parliament and Council, 2000 E.C.R. 1-8419 (the classic cases on limits to broad use of EU powers). On competences in general see, e.g., Stephen Weatherill, Competence and Legitimacy, in The Outer Limits of EU Law 1 (Catherine Barnard & Okede Odudo eds., 2009); Derek Wyatt, Community Competence to Regulate the Internal Market, Oxford Legal Working Paper, No 9/2007 (2007) at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=997863; Paul Craig, The Lisbon Treaty, Process, Architecture and Substance, 33 Eur. L. Rev. 137 (2008); Theodore Konstandinides, Division of Powers in EU Law (2009).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Stephen Weatherill, Conference Presentation at Utrecht, Legality and Concealed Mechanisms Behind the Extension of EU Powers (2009) (on file with the author).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Takis Tridimas, The General Principles of EU Law 242 (2006).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Case C-63/83, Kent Kirk, 1984 E.C.R. 2689.Google Scholar

²⁰ See, e.g., Kokkinakis v. Greece, No. 260-A Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A), (1993); Cantoni v. France, Eur. Ct. H.R., Reports 1996-V; compare Case C-74/95 & Case C-129/95, Criminal Proceedings Against X 1996 E.C.R. I-6609; Case C-354/95, National Farmer's Union, 1997 E.C.R. I-4559.Google Scholar

²¹ See Frande, Dan, Den straffrattsliga legalitetsprincipen (1989) (explaining legality).Google Scholar

²² See also International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), art. 15 (Dec. 16, 1966). E.g. Ester Herlin-Karnell, Recent Developments in the Area of European Criminal Law, 14 Maastricht J. Eur. & Comp. L. 15 (2007).Google Scholar

²³ Case C-176/03 Commission v. Council, [2005] ECR I-7879.Google Scholar

²⁴ M. Accetto & S. Zleptnig, The Principle of Effectiveness: Rethinking its Role in Community Law, 11 Eur. Pub. L. 375 (2005).Google Scholar

²⁵ John Temple Lang, The Developments of the Court of Justice on the Duties of Cooperation of National Authorities and Community Institutions Under Article 10 EC, 31 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1483 (2008); Eleftheria Neframi, The Duty of Loyalty: Rethinking its Scope Through its Application in the Field of EU External Relations, 47 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 323 (2010).Google Scholar

²⁶ E.g. C-106/89, Marleasing, 1990 E.C.R. I-4135.Google Scholar

²⁷ E.g. Malcom Ross, Effectiveness in the European legal Order(s): Beyond Supremacy to Constitutional Proportionality, 31 Eur. L. Rev. 476 (2006).Google Scholar

²⁸ Case C-176/03, Comm'n v. Council, 2005 E.C.R. I-7879. See also Case C-440/05, Comm'n v Council, 2007 E.C.R. I-9097.Google Scholar

²⁹ See Ester Herlin-Karnell, Commission v. Council: Some Reflection on Criminal Law in the First Pillar, 13 Eur. Pub. L. 69 (2007) (provides a more detailed account with more references).Google Scholar

³⁰ See, e.g., Jonathan Schonsheck, On Criminalisation (1994).Google Scholar

³¹ See id. Google Scholar

³² See Chalmers, James & Leverick, Fiona, Fair Labelling in Criminal Law, 71 Modern Law Review 217(2008).Google Scholar

³³ See Husak, Douglas, Applying Ultima Ratio: A Skeptical Assessment, 2 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 535 (2005).Google Scholar

³⁴ See Case C-440/05, Commission v. Council, Opinion of AG Mazak (2007) (a more nuanced approach).Google Scholar

³⁵ See Davies, Gareth, Subsidiarity: The Wrong Idea, in the Wrong Place, at the Wrong Time, 43 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 63 (2006).Google Scholar

³⁶ See Weatherill, Stephen, Competence and Legitimacy, in The Outer Limits of European Law 1 (C. Barnard & O. Odudo eds., 2009).Google Scholar

³⁷ See Opinion of AG Mazak in C-440/05, (June 28, 2007) (explaining that the classic liberal tradition the subsidiarity principle indicates that a minimal sanction is at the same time optimal). Ester Herlin-Karnell, Subsidiarity in the Area of EU Justice and Home Affairs – A Lost Cause? 15 Eur. L. J. 351 (2009) (explaining subsidiarity in EU criminal law). See Linda Gröning, EU staten och rätten att straffa (2008) (providing an interesting study on criminal law theory and tensions with EU integration).Google Scholar

³⁸ See Jareborg, Nils, Criminalization as Last Resort (Ultima Ratio), 2 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 531 (2005).Google Scholar

³⁹ See generally, Andrew Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law (2006).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See id. Google Scholar

⁴¹ See Treaty, Lisbon, Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality and the Protocol on the Role of the National Parliaments, Annex (2009).Google Scholar

⁴² Lisbon Treaty, Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality, Annex, art. 2 (2009).Google Scholar

⁴³ Jareborg, supra note 38.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See Commission Communication: Delivering an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice for Europe's Citizens, at 5 COM (2010) 171.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See, e.g., Paul Craig, EU Administrative Law (2006); Takis Tridimas, The General Principles of EU Law 139 (2006) (providing a more detailed account).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Gareth Davies, Subsidiarity: The Wrong Idea, in the Wrong Place, at the Wrong Time, 43 Common Mkt L. Rev. 63 (2006).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Matthias Kumm, Constitutionalising Subsidiarity in Integrated Markets: The Case of Tobacco Regulation, 12 Eur. L. J. 503 (2006).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See Timermanns, Christian, Subsidiarity and Transparency, 22 Fordham Int'l L.J. 106 (1999).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See, e.g., Craig, supra note 45.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See Ashworth, Andrew, Criminal Law, Human Rights and Preventive Justice, in Regulating Deviance (Alan Norrie, et. al., 2009)Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Dougan, M., The Treaty of Lisbon 2007: Winning Minds, Not Hearts, 45 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 617 (2008).Google Scholar

⁵² See 2002 OJ (L 190/1) (on the EAW).Google Scholar

⁵³ See, e.g., Case C-303/05, Advocaten voor de Wereld, 2007 E.C.R. I-3633.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See, e.g., C-186/87, Cowan v. Le Trésor Public, 1986 E.C.R. 195.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Alexander Somek, Individualism 215 (2008).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See, e.g., Markus Möstl, Preconditions and Limits of Mutual Recognition, Common Mkt. L. Rev. 47, 405 (2010) (on mutual recognition).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Case C-123/08, Wolzenburg, (Oct. 6, 2009).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See Case C-123/08, Wolzenburg, Opinion of AG Bot (March 24, 2009).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See 2004 O.J. (L 158/77).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See Spaventa, Eleanor, Seeing the Wood Despite the Trees? On the Scope of Union Citizenship and its Constitutional Effects, 45 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 13, 45 (2008).Google Scholar