Prosecution of Italian traffickers can go ahead even after Romania’s accession to EU

10 October 2016 by

italy_immigrationPaoletti and others (Judgment) [2016] EUECJ C-218/15 (6 October 2016) – read judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that people smugglers can be punished even if the illegal immigrants themselves have subsequently gained EU citizenship by dint of the relevant country’s accession to the EU.

Legal and factual background

The accused in the main proceedings had illegally obtained work and residence permits for 30 Romanian nationals in 2004 and 2005, before the accession of Romania to the EU. They were therefore charged with having organised the illegal entry of these Romanian nationals “in order to benefit from intensive and ongoing exploitation of foreign labour”. This law was introduced to the Italian criminal code in accordance with the EU directive requiring the prevention and punishment of people smuggling (Article 3 of Directive 2002/90 and Article 1 of Framework Decision 2002/946, which provide that such an offence is to be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties).

Article 49 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Freedoms mirrors Article 7 of the ECHR, which prohibits the imposition of retrospective or more severe penalties. The Charter applies to Member States’ actions by virtue of Article 6 TEU.

The question put to the CJEU was whether Romania’s subsequent accession to the EU had the effect of abolishing the offence of facilitating the illegal immigration of Romanian nationals, and whether the principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law should apply to the accused in the main proceedings.

In essence, what the referring court was asking was whether or not Article 6 TEU and Article 49 of the Charter should be interpreted as meaning that the accession of a state to the EU prevents a Member State imposing a criminal penalty on persons who committed the offence of facilitating illegal immigration before the accession of Romania to the EU.

Arguments on admissibilty

The Italian government argued that this referral question was not admissible because EU law does not apply to offences committed before Romania’s accession to the EU; in other words, these actions fell outside the scope of EU law.

The Charter’s field of application, as far as Member State action is concerned, is limited to Member State’s actions when implementing EU law. There should be “a degree of connection between an EU legal measure and the national measure in question, above and beyond the matters covered being closely related” (para 14).

The Court did not accept this argument. It observed that the questions referred related to the question of the effect of the acquisition of the status of EU citizens by Romanian nationals, as a consequence of the accession of Romania to the EU. The question therefore involved the interpretation of EU law, and therefore the Court had jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling.

The CJEU’s findings on the substantive question

The Court considered that the Italian law criminalising the facilitation of illegal immigration was not directed to those being smuggled, who subsequently obtained EU citizenship by virtue of accession.

The mere fact that, after their illegal entry, those nationals have become EU citizens because of the accession of their State of origin to the European Union has no bearing on the course of the criminal proceedings brought against those persons who facilitate illegal immigration.

That acquisition of EU citizenship constitutes a factual situation which is not capable of changing the constituent elements of the offence of facilitation of illegal immigration. [32-33]

The Court agreed with the AG’s opinion that, to decide otherwise, “would encourage such trafficking once a State has initiated the process of accession to the European Union, since traffickers would then be assured of benefiting from immunity.”

In that case, the aim achieved would be exactly the opposite of the aim pursued by the EU legislature.

It therefore followed that neither Article 6 TEU nor Article 49 of the Charter could be interpreted as meaning that the accession of a State to the European Union precludes another Member State imposing a criminal penalty on persons who committed, before the accession, the offence of facilitation of illegal immigration for nationals of the first State.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: