Traduction de «Norme pénale » (Français → Anglais) :

3. The Court found that although “as a general rule, neither criminal law nor the rules of criminal procedure fall within the Community’s competence”[3], “the last-mentioned finding does not prevent the Community legislature, when the application of effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties by the competent national authorities is an essential measure for combating serious environmental offences , from taking measures which relate to the criminal law of the Member States which it considers necessary in order to ensure that the rules which it lays down on environmental protection are fully effective ”[4].

On the whole, the legal basis of the criminal law is weak where the prescribed standard (1) does not concern a relationship with others and where the characteristics of the relationship do not create a victim and a perpetrator able to recognize his/her actions; (2) has to find its justification outside fundamental social relationships; and (3) results in a form of enforcement, the harmful effects of which, undermine and challenge the very legitimacy of the law (Where criminal law is involved in these issues, the very standard prescribed by the law makes the perpetrator the victim and tries to protect him from himself, which it can do o ...[+++]nly by producing a never-ending stream of knowledge, which remains constantly out of his reach).

As regards criminal legal matters, legislation must sometimes be approximated and minimum legal procedural standards must be set up if mutual confidence between Member States is to be strengthened.

On the basis of the minimum standard provided for in the 1929 Convention [36] the framework Decision also deals with the general issues of criminal law: 'individual criminal liability' and 'criminal attempts'.

To the point of Senator Maltais, the tax mechanisms are effective in large part because they rely more on a civil standard than on a criminal standard, and the funds that are seized and eventually forfeited are put towards further law enforcement much more quickly than in any criminal process. I think a lot of the answer is in that.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: By removing the word “knowingly”, the prime objective was to address the comments made by the Federal Court that to prove a case of revocation of the citizenship of an individual, the government has to meet a very high standard of intention, almost akin to the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.