The origin of EU authority in criminal matters: a sociology of legal experts in European policy-making

Abstract

This article aims to show how experts in European law shaped the direction and content of European public policy in the area of criminal justice. Putting policy experts at the core of our analysis allows us to examine the meso level of policy-making processes directly, where we can study the actors that played a concrete role in providing political and technical solutions during the drafting and adoption of European decisions. Our research focuses specifically on magistrates and senior civil servants who were actively involved in formulating and adopting the instruments of judicial co-operation (the Eurojust unit and the European Arrest Warrant). Through a sociological analysis of individual and collective actions of these legal professionals, we can explain how this branch of the EU was institutionalized and achieved its current form.

Keywords:

• Criminal matters
• Eurojust
• European Arrest Warrant
• legal experts
• judicial co-operation
• policy-making

Notes

1 Eurojust, the first European unit devoted exclusively to judicial co-operation, was a multilateral office with a prosecutor from the legal system of each EU member state. Council of the European Union, Decision 187/JAI setting up Eurojust to reinforce the fight against serious organised crime, OJEC C 063, 6 March 2002. The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is a specific procedure for extradition between EU member states. The EAW marked the implementation of the European principle of mutual recognition of legal decisions in a new field of law. Council of the European Union, ‘Framework decision of the European Council 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member states’, OJEC L 190, 18 July 2002.

2 By the term ‘legal policy’ we mean how the member states and legal doctrine shape and view trends in court decisions.

3 To respect the anonymity frequently requested by our interviewees, we will specify only their nationality and/or function. Furthermore, while French actors make up the largest contingent, the information they provided is representative of the data gathered on the actors from other member states.

4 Article 30 of the Treaty of Amsterdam Treaty of Amsterdam modifying the treaties of the European Union, OJEC C 340, 10 November 1997.

5 For a detailed account of the intergovernmental negotiations that culminated in the adoption of the Eurojust unit and the European arrest warrant, cf. Bigo et al. (2008) and Mégie (2010).

6 Interview conducted with a French liaison magistrate, a former member of the French PR in Brussels in February 2003. Similar testimonials were obtained from other civil servants and magistrates who were present in Brussels at the time.

7 Interview with a member of the GSCEU, April 2004.

8 In total secrecy, including from the GSCEU members in charge of the negotiation schedule, the Berlin authorities filed a project in 2000, one day before the project prepared by the GSCEU and the ‘four Presidencies’. In taking this position, the German authorities sought to intervene directly in a process from which they felt excluded, even though the idea of Eurojust had originally been supported by some of their representatives. In this case, the German chancellery wanted to participate concretely in defining the working framework of Eurojust to avoid having to cope later on with orientations it opposed.

9 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, OJEC C 197, 12 July 2000.

10 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, OJEC C 197, 12 July 2000.

Additional information

Biographical note:

Antoine Mégie is lecturer in politics at the University of Rouen. He is editor of the review Politique européenne.