¹ Case C-440/05, Comm'n of the Eur. Cmtys. v. Council of the Eur. Union, 2007 E.C.R. I-09097, at para. 67-69.Google Scholar

² See e.g., Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25.10.2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking, 2004 O.J. (L 335) 8 (establishing elements of serious types of drug offences and allowing Member States to regulate on personal consumption issues); Zypries, Brigitte, Federal Minister of Justice, Vortrag der Bundesjustizministerin Zypries auf der Jahrestagung der Deutsch-Niederländischen Juristenkonferenz: Deutschland ist den Niederlanden in Freundschaft und Arbeit verbunden (3 Oct. 2003), http://www.bmj.bund.de/enid/0,6db3296d6f6e7468092d093132093a0979656172092d0932303033093a09706d635f6964092d09383934/Reden/Brigitte_Zypries_zc.html; Bundesverfassungsgericht [BverfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2031/92, 9 Mar. 1994, 90 BVerfGE 145 (regarding the consumption of cannabis); Kniesel, Michael, Nach der Entscheidung des BVerfG zur Strafbarkeit weicher Drogen - Anfang vom Ende der Drogenpolitik durch Strafrecht, 27 Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 352 (1994); Gusy, Christoph, Grenzen staatlicher Kriminalisierung des Umgangs mit Drogen, 51 JuristenZeitung 863 (1994).Google Scholar

³ See 1 Schwangerschaftsabbruch im internationalen Vergleich - Europa (Albin Eser & Hans-Georg Koch eds., 1988); Groh, Thomas & Lange-Bertalot, Nils, Der Schutz des Lebens Ungeborener nach der EMRK, 58 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 713 (2005); Trechsel, Stefan, Fristenlösung Schweizer Art, in Festschrift Albin Eser 637 (J. Arnold et al. eds., 2005).Google Scholar

⁴ See, e.g., Lindemann, Michael, Zur Rechtswirklichkeit von Euthanasie und ärztlich assistiertem Suizid in den Niederlanden, 117 Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 208 (2005); Lorenz, Dieter, Aktuelle Verfassungsfragen der Euthanasie, 64 JuristenZeitung 57 (2009); Oduncu, Fuat S. & Eisenmenger, Wolfgang, Euthanasie - Sterbehilfe - Sterbebegleitung. Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme im internationalen Vergleich, 20 Medizinrecht 327 (2002); Kutzer, Klaus, Probleme der Sterbehilfe – Entwicklung und Stand der Diskussion, 10 Familie Partnerschaft und Recht 683 (2004); Weber, Sebastian, Justizielle Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen und parlamentarische Demokratie, 42 Europarecht 88, 98 (2008).Google Scholar

⁵ See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH - Federal Court of Justice], 1 StR 184/00, 12 Dec. 2000, 46 BGHSt212 (regarding the applicability of the German Criminal Code regarding holocaust denial through the internet). Initiatives to criminalize the holocaust denial in all EU Member States could not prevail. See the Statement of the Federal Government, Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Kleine Anfrage der Abgeordneten Sevim Dagdelen, Ulla Jelpke und der Fraktion DIE LINKE, BTDrucks 16/4689 (2007); Weber, Sebastian, Strafbarkeit der Holocaustleugnung in der Europäischen Union, 41 Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 21 (2008).Google Scholar

⁶ Safferling, Christoph, Die Abgrenzung von strafloser Vorbereitung und strafbarem Versuch im deutschen, europäischen und im Völkerstrafrecht, 118 Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 682 (2006); Klip, André, European Criminal Law 193 (2009).Google Scholar

⁷ See Ambos, Kai, Der Allgemeine Teil des Völkerstrafrechts 549-551 (2002) (for a short overview of different approaches regarding co-perpetration in Anglo-American and continental European criminal law).Google Scholar

⁸ Vogel, Joachim, Elemente der Straftat: Bemerkungen zur französischen Straftatlehre und zur Straftat des common law, 145 Goltdammer's Archiv für Strafrecht 117 (1998).Google Scholar

⁹ See Safferling, Christoph, Vorsatz und Schuld 481-488 (2008).Google Scholar

¹⁰ BVerfGE 25, 269 (284); BverfGE 95, 96. See Safferling, supra note 9, at 100.Google Scholar

¹¹ Lisbon Case, BverfG, 2 BvE 2/08, 30 June 2009, 62 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2267 (2009) [hereinafter referred to as the “Lisbon Case”]; an English version is available at: www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de.Google Scholar

¹² For criticism regarding Art. 79 (3) GG, see Daniel Halberstam & Christoph Möllers, The German Constitutional Court says “Ja zu Deutschland!”, 10 Germ. L.J. 1241, 1254 (2009).Google Scholar

¹³ See Tomuschat, Christian, The Ruling of the German Constitutional Court and the Treaty of Lisbon, 10 Germ. L.J. 1259 (2009).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Criminal lawyers have thus far uttered respect and concurrance with the findings of the Court. See Kai Ambos & Peter Rackow, Erste Überlegungen zu den Konsequenzen des Lissabon-Urteils des Bundesverfassungsgerichts für das Europäische Strafrecht, 4 Zeitschrift für internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 397 (2009). For a rather disillusioned comment, see Bernd Schünemann, Spät kommt ihr, doch ihr Kommt: Glosse eines Strafrechtlers zur Lissabon-Entscheidung des BVerfG, 4 Zeitschrift für internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 393 (2009)Google Scholar

¹⁵ Lisbon Case, para. 364.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See, e.g., Wohlfahrt, Christian, The Lisbon Case: A Critical Summary, 10 Germ. L.J. 1277, 1278-1281 (2009).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Id. at 1282.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See also Ambos, & Rackow, , supra note 14, at 403.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Safferling, Christoph, The Justification of Punishment in International Criminal Law, 4 Austrian Rev. Int'l and Eur. L. 126 (1999); Alexander, Heidi S., The Theoretic and Democratic Implications of Anti-abortion Trigger Laws, 61 Rutgers L. Rev. 381, 398 (2009); Ferrante, Marcelo, Deterrence and Crime Results, 10 New Crim. L. Rev. 1 (2007).Google Scholar

²⁰ Streng, Franz, Strafrechtliche Sanktionen para. 59 (2d. ed. 2002); Kury, Helmut, Präventionskonzepte, in Auf der Suche nach neuer Sicherheit: Fakten, Theorien und Folgen 35 (Hans-Jürgen Lange, H. Peter Ohly & Jo Reichertz eds., 2008).Google Scholar

²¹ Engländer, Armin, Diskurs als Rechtsquelle (2002).Google Scholar

²² Streletz v. Deutschland, 2001-II Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 86; Mastrometteo v. Italy, 2002-VIII Eur. Ct. H.R. para. 89; Jens Meyer-Ladewig, Eurpäische Menschenrechtskonvention – Handkommentar,K Art. 2 Rn. 7-14 (2. ed. 2006); Lagodny, Otto, Schutz des Lebens durch Strafverfahren im Lichte von Art. 2 EMRK und Folgerungen für das Legalitätsprinzip, in Die EMRK im Privat-, Straf- und Öffentlichen Recht, p. 83 (Joachim Renzikowski ed., 2004); Grabenwarter, Christoph, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention § 20 para. 16-19 (2d. ed. 2008).Google Scholar

²³ Labita v. Italy, 2000-IV Eur. Ct. H.R. para. 130-136; Meyer-Ladewig, supra note 22, at Art. 3 RdNr. 2-4c; Christoph Safferling, Die zwangsweise Verabreichung von Brechmitteln: Die StPO auf dem menschenrechtlichen Prüfstand, JURA, 100-108 (2008).Google Scholar

²⁴ Case 50/76, Amsterdam Bulb BV v. Produktschap voor Siergewassen, 1977 E.C.R. 137; see Bernd Hecker, Europäisches Strafrecht, § 7 para. 20 (2d. ed. 2007).Google Scholar

²⁵ Satzger, Helmut, Die Europäisierung des Strafrechts 210 (2001).Google Scholar

²⁶ Case 68/88, Comm'n v. Greek Republic, 1989 E.C.R. 2965Google Scholar

²⁷ Ambos, Kai, Internationales Strafrecht § 11 para. 33 (2d. ed. 2007).Google Scholar

²⁸ Case C-176/03, Comm'n of the Eur. Cmtys. v. Council of the Eur. Union, 2005 E.C.R. I-7879., para. 47.Google Scholar

²⁹ It is important to note that the ECJ established a subjective test in this regard; see Helmut Satzger, Internationales und Europäisches Strafrecht § 8 para. 42 (3d. ed. 2009)Google Scholar

³⁰ For a discussion of these principles in greater detail, see Satzger, supra note 25, at 368.Google Scholar

³¹ See Ambos, , supra note 27, at § 11 para 30-32a.Google Scholar

³² The decision meets mostly criticism. See Roland Hefendehl, Europäischer Umweltschutz: Demokratiespritze für Europa oder Brüsseler Putsch?, 1 Zeitschrift für internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 161 (2006); Heger, Martin, Anmerkung zum EuGH Urteil v. 13.9.2005, 61 JuristenZeitung 310 (2006); Braum, Stefan, Europäische Strafgesetzgebung: Demokratische Strafgesetzlichkeit oder administrative Opportunität? - Besprechung des Urteils des EuGH vom 13. September 2005, Rs C-176/03, 25 wistra 121 (2006). The decision has also been welcomed. See Martin Böse, Die Zuständigkeit der Europäischen Gemeinschaft für das Strafrecht - zugleich Besprechung von EuGH, Urteil vom 13.9.2005, 153 Goltdammer's Archiv 211 (2006); Hecker, Bernd, Europäisches Strafrecht, § 8 MN 27 (2d. ed. 2007).Google Scholar

³³ Lisbon Case, para. 362.Google Scholar

³⁴ Convention Drawn Up on the Basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, 1995 O.J. (C 316) 49; 1996 O.J. (C 313) 2; 1997 O.J. (C 221) 12.Google Scholar

³⁵ Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA on 22 July 2003 on Combating Corruption in the Private Sector, 2003 O.J. (L 192) 54.Google Scholar

³⁶ Council Framework Decision of 26 June 2001 on Money Laundering, the Identification, Tracing, Freezing, Seizing and Confiscation of Instrumentalities and the Proceeds of Crime, 2001 O.J. (L 182) 1.Google Scholar

³⁷ Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on Combating Terrorism, 2002 O.J. (L 164) 3; Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA of 28 November 2008 amending Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on Combating Terrorism2008 O.J. (L 330) 21.Google Scholar

³⁸ Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25 October 2004 Laying Down Minimum Provisions on the Constituent Elements of Criminal Acts and Penalties in the Field of Illicit Drug Trafficking, 2004 O.J. (L 335) 8.Google Scholar

³⁹ Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on Combating Certain Forms and Expressions of Racism and Xenophobia by Means of Criminal Law, 2008 O.J. (L 328) 55.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See Satzger, , supra note 29, at § 8 para. 58; André Klip, European Criminal Law, 197 (2009).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender policies between Member States, 2002 O.J. (L 190) 1. This framework decision and its implementation into German law also has led to a decision by the BVerfG. BVerfGE 113, 237. See Simone Mölders, European Arrest Warrant Act is Void – The Decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court of 18 July 2005, 7 Germ. L.J. 45 (2005). For a broader context, see Oreste Pollicino, European Arrest Warrant and Constitutional Principles of the Member States: a Case Law-Based Outline in the Attempt to Strike the Right Balance between Interacting Legal Systems, 9 Germ. L.J. 1313 (2008).Google Scholar

⁴² Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA of 18 December 2008 on the European evidence warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters, 2008 O.J. (L 350) 72.Google Scholar

⁴³ Case C-105/03, Criminal Proceedings against Maria Pupino, 2005 E.C.R. I-5285; see Stefan Lorenzmeier, The Legal Effect of Framwork Decisions – A Case-Note on the Pupino Decision of the European Court of Justice, 1 Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 583 (2006); Klip, , supra note 6, at 65.; Carl Lebeck, Sliding Towards Supranationalism? The Constitutional Status of EU Framework Decisions after Pupino, 8 Germ. L.J. 501 (2007). For a more positive view, see Ester Herlin-Karnell, In the wake of Pupino: Advocaten voor der Wereld and Dell'Orto, 8 Germ. L.J. 1147 (2007).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See also Rackow, Peter, Verfasst der EuGH die Union, 3 Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 526, 527 (2008).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Calliess, Christian, EUV/EGV Kommentar Art. 1 EUV para. 9 (Christian Calliess & Matthias Ruffert eds., 3d. ed. 2007).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See Haltern, Ulrich, Europarecht. Dogmatik im Kontext 60-67 (2005).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Satzger, , supra note 29, at § 7 para. 41. It is merely a question of terminology, as argued by Matej Avbelj, Questioning EU Constitutionalisms, 9 Germ. L.J. 1 (2008).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing hte European Community, 13 Dec. 2007, 2007 O.J. (C 306) 1, Art 1 § 6 cl. 1. [Hereinafter the Treaty of Lisbon].Google Scholar

⁴⁹ The Lisbon Treaty is generally driven by the principle of “mutual recognition” in cooperation in criminal matters, See Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community, 13 Dec. 2007, 2007 O.J. (C 306) 1, Art. 69 A (1) [hereinafter the Lisbon Treaty]. This article is renumbered Article 82 in the amended Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2008 O.J. (C 115) 1 [hereinafter the AEU]. The Draft Constitution was also based on this principle. See Satzger, supra note 29, at § 9 para. 24. For a critical analysis see A Programme for Europrean Criminal Justice, 344-413 (Bernd Schünemann ed., 2006).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ AEU, art. 83 § 1.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Id. at art. 83 § 2.Google Scholar

⁵² Lisbon Case, para. 358.Google Scholar

⁵³ Treaty of Lisbon, Art. 326.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Id. at para. 361; see Halberstam & Möllers, supra note 12, at 1243.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See Streng, Franz, Probleme der Strafrechtsgeltung und -anwendung in einem Europa ohne Grenzen, in Strafrecht und Kriminalität in Europa, 143-164 (F. Zieschang, E. Hilgendorf & K. Laubenthal eds., 2003).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Hassemer, Winfried & Neumann, Ulfried, Vor § 1, in Nomos Kommentar StGB, para. 62 (Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfried Neumann & Hans-Ulrich Paeffgen eds., 2d. ed. 2005); Joecks, Wolfgang, Introduction, in 1 Münchener Kommentar StGB, para. 29 (Wolfgang Joecks & Klaus Miebach eds., 2003); Johannes Wessels & Werner Beulke, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, § 1 para. 6 (38th ed. 2008). In English law, see J.C. Smith & Brian Hogan, Criminal Law, 16 (11^th ed. 2005). See also the controversial decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court regarding the punishability of incest, where the majority opined that the “criminal provision is justified by the sum of the comprehensible penal objectives against the background of a societal conviction effective to date based upon cultural history regarding the fact that incest should carry criminal penalties, which is also evident in international comparison.” BVerfGE 120, 224 (para. 50). This finding was heavily criticized by Judge Hassemer in his dissenting opinion. Compare Tatjana Hörnle, Das Verbot des Geschwisterinzests - Verfassungsgerichtliche Bestätigung und verfassungsrechtliche Kritik, 61 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2085 (2008).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See also Streng, Franz, “Demokratisches Strafrecht” in einem vereinigten Europa – Zum Verhältnis von Konsens und technokratischem Oktroy im Strafrecht, in Opferschutz - Richterrecht - Strafprozessreform. 28. Strafverteidigertag, 85-102 (2005).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ This is seen differently by Rolf-Peter Callies, Theorie des Strafe im demokratischen und sozialen Rechtsstaat, 187 (1974) (of the opinion that the culpability principle is in substance a specification of the proportionality principle).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Sachs, Michael, Art. 20, in Grundgesetz Kommentar, para. 154 (5th ed. 2009); Hans D. Jarass & Bodo Pieroth, Art. 20, in Grundgesetz Kommentar, para. 86 (10th ed. 2009).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See, e.g., BVerfGE 120, 378 (as regards so called screening of license plates).Google Scholar

⁶¹ See Volk, Klaus, Grundkurs Strafprozessrecht § 10 para. 41 (5th ed. 2006); see also Craxi (No. 2) v. Italy, App. No. Nr. 25337/9438, 38 E.H.R.R. 47, para. 67 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2003).Google Scholar

⁶² Safferling, Christoph, Die Gefährdung der “auswärtigen Beziehungen” der Bundesrepublik Deutschland als strafwürdiges Verhalten im Außenwirtschaftsverkehr, 29 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (forthcoming 2009).Google Scholar

⁶³ See Schünemann, Bernd, Die Funktion des Schuldprinzips im Präventionsstrafrecht, in Grundfragen des modernen Strafrechtssystems 153, 171–176 (Bernd Schünemann ed., 1984).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Jesús Mará Silva-Sánchez, Die Expansion des Strafrechts 87 (2003).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See Sieber, Ulrich, Die Zukunft des Europäischens Strafrecht, 121 Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 1, 2 (2009).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Similarly Nikolaos Bitzilekis, Maria Kaiafa-Gbandi & Elisavet Symeonidou-Kastanidou, Theory of the Genuine European Legal Interests, in A Programme for European Criminal Justice 467 (Bernd Schünemann ed., 2006).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ See Delmas-Marty, Mireille & Vervaele, John, 1 The Implementation of the Corpus Juris in the Member States (2000); Das Corpus Juris als Gurndlage eines Europäischen Strafrechts (Barbara Huber ed., 2000); Braum, Stefan, Das “Corpus Juris” – Legitimität, Erforderlichkeit und Machbarkeit, 55 JuristenZeitung 493 (2000)Google Scholar

⁶⁸ A supranational model of criminal law is described by Sieber, supra note 64, at 22.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Ambos, , supra note 27, at § 9 para. 16. Id. at § 11 para. 15.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ In particular clarity: Roland Hefendehl, European Criminal Law: how far and no further?, in A Programme for European Criminal Justice 450, 456 (Bernd Schünemann ed., 2006).Google Scholar

⁷¹ For a general introduction, see Claus Roxin, Teil 1, § 2, in Strafrecht. Allgemeiner, paras. 2, 123 (4th ed. 2006) (arguing that the “harm principle” as derived from John Stuart Mill “On Liberty” is a parallel phenomenon in Anglo-American legal thinking); see also Roland Hefendehl, Kollektive Rechtsgüter im Strafrecht (2002); Die Rechtsgutstheorie – Legitimationsbasis des Strafrechts oder dogmatisches Glasperlenspiel? (Roland Hefendehl, Andrew v. Hirsch & Wolfgang Wohlers eds., 2003). The concept is not generally accepted among German scholars. Likewise the BVerfG has not adopted the theory of the “legal good”in its decision on the punishability of incest. See supra note 49.Google Scholar

⁷² See, e.g., Hefendehl, supra note 69, at 464.Google Scholar

⁷³ Sieber, , supra note 64, at 17 (2009).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Treaty of Lisbon, Art. 1. § 5 cl. 2.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Id. at Art. 1 § 6 cl. 3.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Several models of cooperation are analysed by Sieber, supra note 64, at 2.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Similarly, see Silva-Sánchez, supra note 63, at 83 (regarding national criminal law). Silva-Sánchez follows a dualistic approach to modern criminal law and differentiates between a core criminal law, which foresees imprisonment as a sanction, and a more flexible criminal law, which foresees “only” monetary or economic sanctions.Google Scholar