Actus Reus and Participation in European Criminal Law

Texte du rabat

The Treaty of Lisbon has expanded the competences of the EU in criminal law. The Union, in a multitude of legislative instruments, requires its Member States to criminalize a variety of conducts. Although it frequently refers to conduct, attempt and participation in its legislation, it fails to determine what these concepts should denote to.

Contenu

Chapter I. Introduction 1. European criminal law 2. The need for a general part 2.1. Practical Relevance 2.2. Theoretical relevance 3. Research questions 3.1. Introduction 3.2. Elaborated research questions and outline 3.2.1. Perpetration 3.2.2. Participating in crime - the multiple actor scenarios 3.2.3. Inchoate liability 3.2.4. Corporate Criminal liability 4. Methodology 4.1. Introduction 4.2. Comparative research 4.2.1. The investigated penal systems 4.2.2. Comparative methodology 4.3. Criteria for synthesis 4.3.1. External criteria for the synthesis 4.3.2. Internal criteria for the synthesis 5. Criminal Liability 5.1. Definition 5.2. Harm versus Culpability and Objectivism versus subjectivism in the law 5.3. The framework of criminal liability 5.4. Criminal liability in the risk society Chapter II. Perpetration - The elements of crime 1. Introduction 2. The doctrine of conduct or the conundrum of the baseline of criminal liability 2.1. Introduction 2.2. The doctrine of conduct and the criminal law's image of man 2.2.1. The image of man in the Risk Society 2.2.2. Is criminal liability confined to human conduct? 2.3. Different theories of conduct 2.3.1. The causal theory of action - or the ghost in the machine 2.3.2. The teleological theory of action - human conduct is "seeing", not blind 2.3.3. The social theory of action - significance lies not in the act but in the context in which it is born 2.3.4. The normative act requirement - the legal normative view 2.4. The conduct requirement in practice 2.4.1. Loss of physical control 2.4.2. Impaired consciousness 2.5. The underlying rationale of the conduct requirement 2.6. Conclusion 3. Omissions: Criminal liability in absence of physical action? 3.1. Introduction 3.2. Omissions in criminal law 3.2.1. Statutory duties of care 3.2.2. Commission by omission 3.3. Conclusion 4. Causality 4.1. Introduction 4.2. The conditio sine qua non or the 'but for' test 4.3. The theory of proximate cause 4.4. The theory of adequate causation 4.5. The relevance theory 4.6. Causation in Criminal Law in England, the Netherlands and Germany 4.6.1. The legal principled approach 4.6.2. The metaphysical/normative approach 4.6.3. The normative/legal approach 4.7. Evaluation 4.8. Conundrums of causation 4.8.1. Predispositions of the victim 4.8.2. Conduct of the victim breaking the chain of causation 4.8.3. Medical interventions 4.8.4. Drug administration cases 4.9. Causation in European Union Law 4.10. Conclusion Chapter III. Modes of liability - The multiple actor scenarios 1. Introduction 2. Terminology and outline 2.1. Terminology 2.2. Outline 3. Unitarian and differentiated concepts of participation 4. The derivative nature of the accomplices' liability 4.1. Introduction 4.2. Rationales for secondary liability 4.3. The nature and quality of the derivative relationship 5. The concepts of participation in England: a short introduction 5.1. The English approach to participation 5.2. Secondary forms of participation 5.2.1. Actus reus 5.2.2. The fault element in complicity 5.3. An expansion of liability - The Serious Crime Act 2007 6. Perpetration: Choices and Dilemmas 6.1. Introduction 6.2. A Restrictive or extensive conception of perpetration? 6.2.1. The different connotations of perpetration 6.2.2. The restrictive concept of perpetration 6.2.3. An extensive concept of perpetration 6.3. A Subjective or objective approach to perpetration? 6.4. Concluding remarks 7. Vertical forms of perpetration 7.1. Introduction 7.2. The Perpetrator behind the scene 7.2.1. The German hegemony over the act doctrine 7.2.2. The Dutch doctrine of functional perpetration 7.2.3. The English doctrine of vicarious liability 7.2.4. Evaluation 7.3. Perpetration by means 7.3.1. The traditional scope of the doctrine 7.3.2. The different designs and limitations of the doctrine 7.3.3. Extending perpetration by means 7.3.4. Concluding remarks 7.4. Instigation 7.4.1. Introduction 7.4.2. Instigation in Germany and the Netherlands 7.4.3. The fault element of instigation 7.4.4. Errors of the perpetrator and their effect on the instigator 7.4.5. The means of instigation in the Dutch penal system 8. Horizontal forms of perpetration 8.1. Co-perpetration 8.1.1. Expanding the scope of mutual attribution 8.1.2. Is mere presence sufficient to establish co-perpetration? 8.1.3. The limits of mutual attribution 8.2. The English doctrine of joint criminal enterprise 8.3. Concluding remarks 9. Assisting a criminal offence 9.1. Introduction 9.2. Assistance in the Netherlands, Germany and England/Wales 9.3. The scope and nature of assistance 9.3.1. The scope of assistance 9.3.2. The nature of assistance 9.4. The furthering effect of aid (causality) 9.5. The fault element of assistance 10. Limitations to participatory liability - Withdrawal 10.1. Withdrawal from participation in a joint enterprise 10.2. Withdrawal from assistance and encouragement 11. The notions of perpetration and participation in EU Law 11.1. Introduction 11.2. The notions of agreement and concerted practices 11.3. The objective requirement 11.4. The subjective requirement 11.5. The model of participation in competition law 11.6. Evaluation 12. Preliminary conclusion 13. Towards a European concept of participation 13.1. Introduction 13.2. A normative concept of participation in crime 13.3. Trivial assistance Chapter IV. Inchoate offences: Attempt and preparation 1. Introduction 2. Two patterns of criminality 2.1. The pattern of manifest criminality a.k.a. the harm-centred view 2.2. The pattern of subjective criminality a.k.a. the culpabilitycentred view 2.3. The communalities of the two patterns. 3. The Objective - Subjective Debate. 4. The pattern of criminality in the culture of control 5. Attempt versus preparation 6. Preparation 6.1. Introduction 6.2. Offences criminalising preparatory conduct 6.2.1. Introduction 6.2.2. Specific offences: Possession and endangerment 6.3. Preparation as a doctrine of the general part 6.3.1. Introduction 6.3.2. The Dutch doctrine of preparation 6.4. Evaluation 7. Criminal attempts 7.1. Introduction 7.2. The rationale for punishing attempts 7.2.1. Introduction 7.2.2. Objective rationales 7.2.3. Subjective rationales. 7.2.4. Mixed rationales 7.3. Analysing the legislative starting point of attempt liability 7.3.1. Introduction 7.3.2. Germany 7.3.3. The Netherlands 7.3.4. England 7.4. The actus reus of criminal attempts 7.4.1. Introduction 7.4.2. Drawing the line between attempt and preparation 7.4.3. Concluding remarks 7.5. The fault element in attempts 7.5.1. Introduction 7.5.2. The fault element in England/Wales 7.5.3. The fault element in the Netherlands 7.5.4. The fault element in Germany 7.5.5. Conclusion 8. Impossible attempts. 8.1. Introduction 8.2. The objective approach: Impossibility in the Netherlands 8.3. The Subjective approach: Impossibility in England and Wales 8.4. The mixed approach: Impossibility in Germany 8.5. Concluding remarks 9. Voluntary Withdrawal 9.1. Introduction 9.2. Rationales for accepting voluntary withdrawal 9.3. The nature of the exception 9.4. The constituent elements of withdrawal 9.4.1. Categories of attempts 9.4.2. Voluntariness 9.4.3. The actus contrarius in complete attempts 9.5. Voluntary withdrawal from preparation? 10. Inchoate offences in the European Union 11. Conclusion 11.1. Preparation 11.2. Criminal attempts Chapter V. Criminal liability of legal entities 1. Introduction 2. Alternative and complementary methods to tackle corporate wrongdoing 2.1. Introduction 2.2. Regulatory offences. 2.3. Strict liability offences 2.4. Personal liability o…