Showing posts with label communitarian law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label communitarian law. Show all posts

Friday, December 13, 2013

Behind the Green Mask of Rosa Koire

Behind the Green Mask of Rosa Koire
by Niki Raapana with Nordica Friedrich
Anti Communitarian League
Friday, December 13, 2013

Silent coup, holy coup, all are tricked, all are duped,
Round Green Virgin kills mother and child,
Holy infanticide, death with a smile,
Die in heavenly peace, die so the planet can breathe.

Just as Jesus was born on a silent night, Communitarianism was born of a silent coup. But now, after centuries of quiet obscurity, Communitarians are popping up everywhere! They too have risen!

Communitarianism is the miracle ideology! It's the New World Religion. It's the New World Justice. It's the New World Constitution. It's the New World Policing. It's the New Human Rights. It's Big Mother! Everyone loves it. How can we not? Gosh golly, even the Pope said Communitarianism is God's plan.

Communitarianism, according to the Communitarians, is the final, perfect stage of human social evolution. Anyone who does not embrace the Communitarian Goddess is an unevolved heretic.

Thirteen years ago when the Anti Communitarian League was first formed, most people we told about it had never heard the word Communitarianism used once in their lives. It appeared in so few dictionaries or encyclopedias published prior to 1980, some people actually accused us of making the word Communitarian up! It was so obscure it also didn't seem very important to anyone. People figured if it wasn't important enough to be on the news, then why should they even care about it? It may not be recognized by facebook yet, but the word is finally going mainstream. Now it's explaining what the word means and why we oppose it that's the biggest challenge we face, especially the way it's coming out.

We are convinced Communitarianism is an emerging religious law that can have no logical opposition. If it is allowed to continue manifesting without any barriers to its growing power, everyone will soon learn that to deny the perfection of Communitarianism is akin to denying the perfection of God. Our main purpose in gathering so much research and writing so many papers, articles, and our two books over the past ten years, was to expose what we stumbled upon while researching what happened to us when the City of Seattle used our neighborhood as a pilot test for Communitarian Law in 1999.

We identified Communitarianism as the Philosophy behind the new law in March 2000. We found the theory so repugnant we risked life, liberty and happiness to expose the new legal system as a fraud. We endured years of ridicule, semi-starvation and the loss of the love and respect of family and friends. For some stupid reason, we always assumed when it finally came out in the open, we'd be validated.

Today the word is used more and more as if it's always been part of the American language. Did ya know? Jesus Christ was a Communitarian. The American Revolution was a Communitarian Revolution. The U.S. Bill of Rights was written as a Communitarian clause. America is coming together as Communitarians, because Communitarianism has always been a part of everything.

We're hearing the word used frequently, and only as a “good thing” by activists, Catholics, Conservatives, Protestants, Muslims, Mormons, Pagans and even atheists. We saw the Occupy Wall Street movement, the Zeitgeist and Thrive Movements all come out as Communitarians. Community gardens, neighborhood bbqs, people helping people... it's all now identified as Communitarian.

It's really been amazing to witness it. Writers suddenly throw the word out as if they've always used it and everyone should know it's a “good thing” (some of the same ones who told us we made it up ten years ago!). We're watching Tea Party politicians move to the Communitarian middle (Sen Mike Lee, UT). We're witnessing national constitutions being rewritten as Communitarian (Bolivia, Scotland).

Everything we wrote about Communitarianism since 2000 is happening openly today. But, so far we haven't received one apology from one person we know who mocked us for our research. Our family and friends haven't forgiven us (or themselves). Nobody has nominated us for a PhD or Pulitzer in Investigative Journalism, either (hahahaha, as if). We still haven't been officially recognized for creating an entirely new school of philosophical thought because, under the dialectical theory, there can never BE any scientific argument opposing the final, perfect synthesis of all other theories.

Just in case you were wondering, ours is the only existing reasoned opposition. Why? Not because Communitarianism is so perfect it cannot be scientifically thrashed. It can. That part is almost easy. It is simply forbidden to speak of it as if it isn't a valid, final, dialectical argument against individualism. We broke the silent rule all dysfunctional families know; we identified the elephant in the living room.

Our academic thesis has no proper place in academia. Not even upper academia is allowed to study or explore all sides of Communitarianism. Communitarian controlled academia preaches one side of Communitarianism only. Same thing with politics. There is no Anti Communitarian Party. There has never been one U.S. Political party with the courage to identify Communitarianism as a life threatening ideology. Our antithesis will never become part of the American political debate. There is none.

Communitarianism is spreading like wildfire across the planet, but only a very narrow, controlled view of it is allowed to be discussed. Anti Communitarianism, the way we define it, can never be recognized as valid, even though it is more valid than the theory it opposes. Anti Communitarianism is actually very simple to understand, because it's a clear argument against an unclear declaration of perfection.

We showed, with a properly laid out antithesis, the Communitarian premise of their own perfection is based in nothing. Communitarians cannot prove it to be the superior theory or the superior law. There is no evidence to support Communitarian claims of being chosen by God himself to deliver the message of Communitarian harmony and peace to humanity, so they can never allow for opposition arguments, especially one that proves it to be a total scam (what the Anti Communitarian Manifesto does!).

What we are seeing now is the word being introduced in thousands of places, in hundreds of different ways. It's cunningly introduced as a soft, fuzzy, milky ideology all the way to “basically communism,” or, as in Scotland, as the greatest thing to come down from Heaven since God gave Moses the “law.”

In December 2002, we co-published our now infamous paper called, What is the Hegelian dialectic? In March 2003, we co-published Part II, The Historical Evolution of Communitarian Thinking. We later named both parts The Anti Communitarian Manifesto. Written to college standards, we stated our premise and showed how we arrived at our conclusion that Communitarianism is the final synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic. We provided solid evidence to support our argument, and we included the guru of the Communitarian movement, the Israeli Dr. Amitai Etzioni, in our antithesis. We devoted years to uncovering Etzioni's major role in the “quiet revolution.” Our research shows ample, verifiable and conclusive evidence of Etzioni's position in the entire global Communitarian coup.

A decade later, Big Mother arises like a Phoenix on the ashes of the 20th century. Yet people around the world are still forbidden to ask any of the important questions about their global governance system. The elephant is so huge it's stomping on everyone, everywhere, and we still can't talk about it!

The ancient, secret, oral, religious, legal theory behind Communitarianism must remain a taboo topic. Talmudic Law mixed with Cabala can never be identified as the eugenicist mystery school driving supranational global Communitarian Law. The truth about the “Tree of Life from Zion” must remain concealed. Opposition to Amitai Etzioni must be ignored, shut down, or co-opted. Shhhhhh.

In places already completely subservient to Etzioni under the Supremacy of Communitarian Law clause, as in the EU, there can be no public discussion of the root philosophy, lies, or false concepts that make up the Communitarian legal theory. Thank goodness we are American writers. In our nation, the Right to Freedom of Speech is protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Lies that negatively affect the general welfare of our citizens are not protected by law in our “free” country.

Nothing we wrote is unsubstantiated. Nothing we wrote has even been proved to be unverifiable. We showed exactly how the fake capitalist versus communist dialectic was designed to lead directly to the Communitarian synthesis. We showed the foundation for dialectical solutions comes directly from the Talmud and the Cabala. We showed exactly how we found UN Agenda 21 Programme for Sustainable Development fits under the global governance model called Communitarianism.

The United States is quietly replacing the U.S. Constitution with Communitarian Law. Completely ignored by Western journalists, barely mentioned by political “experts,” and never once appearing openly on a ballot, a complicit, silent media (including the alternative media) ensures the deadly transformation of American jurisprudence is a great success! The only thing left to do now is mop up a few loose ends and eliminate any traces of opposition, mainly the Anti Communitarian Manifesto.

We are the only reasoned line of defense between local free people and global Communitarian Law. Our Anti Communitarian research is so solid no one has seriously attempted to show how we are wrong in our conclusion. The best the opposition could manage in response to our thesis was to sneer, deny, bury, mock, change the subject, and ignore us. But now, after over a million people have read our original antithesis, after thousands of people now know, from us, more about Communitarianism and Zionism than anybody is supposed to know, our enemies resort to a hideous deception.

Behind the Green Mask of Rosa Koire
Leading the latest wave of American opposition to UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is a California Democrat named Rosa Koire. Rosa promotes herself as an expert. Expert in what? UN Agenda 21? Sustainability? Most certainly. She knows as much about the UN Agenda 21 plan as her expert teachers at the John Birch Society do. There's no doubt newcomers learn a lot from her. Rosa knows exactly how the plan works to take American's private property.


Rosa Koire read our original works on Communitarianism in 2010 and emailed me to tell me it was “excellent.” She re-named her 501(c)(4) the Post Sustainability Institute and defined Post-sustainability as “the condition of environmental, political, social, and economic systems after the imposition of Communitarianism.” (Notice it does not say “law”.)

The PSI mission declares the PSI is a “non-partisan, non-governmental think tank established to study the impacts UN Agenda 21/ Sustainable Development and Communitarianism have on liberty, by tracking the progression of the Sustainability movement and forecasting likely outcomes.” The PSI mission says Communitarianism is the “dominant form of world governance.”

At a glance it all sounds great, and even I was kind of okay with the PSI mission, at first. But the truth is, the ACL is the only place in the world that published any scientific, theoretical research about LA21 being part of global Communitarian governance. Besides our long research topic page on Agenda 21 and Communitarianism, first published at the ACL website in 2003, the ACL published the original and only existing reasoned antithesis to Philosophical Communitarianism. Where are the papers produced by Rosa Koire's PSI think tank? They don't exist. The PSI “think tank” has never published one original scientific study on Communitarianism showing it as the foundation for LA21.

Rosa published her book about the plan, Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21, in 2011. The first two lines of her book are “The arm of UN Agenda 21 is long and reaches into every area of the world. The Philosophy of Communitarianism pervades this plan.”

Again, there is no direct citation for Rosa's opening statement about Communitarianism pervading the plan. She states it without ANY attribution or showing how she arrived at this original conclusion. She shows no valid scientific path she took or where she even got her idea. She cannot defend it. She simply announces the Philosophy of Communitarianism is behind Agenda 21 like she decided that was what it is with magic. Rosa cunningly states our copyrighted antithesis to Communitarianism over and over, as if it requires no direct attribution and no clear citation of her source.

I called it robbery when I finally read her book earlier this year. Rosa defended her stealing it on my blog by saying our copyrighted, original antithesis belongs to the “public domain.” As she is a “forensic commercial real estate appraiser specializing in eminent domain valuation,” Rosa made her personal fortune off the government's “right” to TAKE private property for the public good. Now she is making money off our intellectual property, our copyrighted, private property, protected by law under the U.S. Constitution, because she decided it was necessary to TAKE it from us for the public good. Rosa seems to think her “twenty-eight year career as an expert witness on land use and property values” gives her some extra special legal insight into what constitutes the value of our intellectual property.

At first I was honored to be recognized by someone of her caliber for all the published work we have put out. After Rosa emailed me it quickly moved to voice, with us chatting it up, sharing stories and gossip. I had the impression we were going to become friends. I told her I was exhausted, sick, losing teeth and steam after our decade of intense research and writing on Anti Communitarianism. I was camping year round in Alaska (still am) and barely scraping by. Sales of our books were slow, not enough to even keep simple food on our table, so I was ready to do whatever she asked of me in hopes it would increase ACL Book sales. When she linked to the ACL and said I was a member of PSI Board of Directors, I really thought the ACL finally had a strong ally. Except... I did notice how she used our original thesis in her PSI mission without attributing it to us anywhere in her mission statement.

So, it shouldn't have been such a shock to finally learn in 2013 that for the first 107 pages of her book she used the term Communitarianism repeatedly to back up her Anti UN Agenda 21 position, without once citing the ACL as her source for the connection between the two. When she finally does mention me, just me and NOT my co-author Nordica Friedrich, it's as if I'm just someone who taught her about the Hegelian dialectic, because I'm the world's “foremost critic” of Communitarianism.

On page 108, Rosa says, “I learned about the Hegelian Dialectic from Niki Raapana, the world's foremost critic of Communitarianism. Her book, 2020: Our Common Destiny, is an excellent analysis of the supranational movement of Sustainable Development. The Hegelian Dialectic is the philosophical basis for Communitarianism. The idea is that true freedom only comes through slavery to the state because then all free will is relinquished to a higher order (government).”

Is it clear to Rosa's readers at this point that, “The Hegelian Dialectic is the philosophical basis for Communitarianism” is our original thesis, or that everything they read about Communitarianism for the last 107 pages of her book was just an unattributed rip off of our original works? I seriously doubt it.

There are two co-founders of the ACL, two authors of What is the Hegelian dialectic?, two contributors to 2020: Our Common Destiny, and, 2020: Our Common Destiny is NOT about the Hegelian dialectic.

Rosa Koire knows how to speak up at meetings and flyer neighborhoods, but she is not capable of writing a whole new philosophical school of thought, as we did with our Anti Communitarian Manifesto. Her misleading and absolutely wrong explanation of communitarianism, using watered down milk, is so unbelievably stupid, I wonder why she bothered to try to “explain” it at all.

Why did Rosa start out in her opening paragraph denying the existence of Communitarian Law, EU Communitarian Case Law and the acquis communitaire, Communitarian Harmonization and Norms, the Earth Charter, the Declaration of Human Rights, the Communitarian Constitution of Bolivia, the International Court's Communitarian case against Pinochet, and other existing legal documents with: “Communitarianism 'balances' the rights of the individual. Because the rights of the community are not defined in a constitution they can change without warning or notice; one's individual rights are balanced against a continuously amorphous rulebook.” We'll come back to this later.

Why didn't Rosa cite us as the source for the additional ABCD research she ads to her personal story of Jim Diers on pages 128 to 132, especially when she says “This is Communitarianism.” on page 130?
She refers to Seattle (where we learned about ABCD in 2000), ties it all to “mapping community assets” (Chapter Three in 2020), and almost verbatim quotes my 2005 One Nation Under Siege video interview where I describe the 11 page ABCD questionnaire. She refers her readers to the copy of it posted at her website and neglects to mention we have an entire chapter devoted to it. She got most of what she writes about ABCD and mapping from us. We exposed the Obama's training in ABCD. We devoted Chapter 4 of 2020 to the GIS and Mandatory Volunteerism. Reading Rosa Koire's book, there is no indication that she “borrowed” so heavily from two author's copyrighted works.

Exactly like we did in our book 2020, Rosa begins her book “teaching” Communitarianism. Then she tells the story of two womens' local resistance to the plan, and how they found UN Agenda 21. Except for our Big Mother's Double Tongued Dictionary and international contributors, Rosa ends her book exactly like we did too! Is it worth noting here that it was Nordica Friedrich who laid out the entire format for TACM and 2020, Nordica who made it a “story of how two women followed a paper trail from their lowly Seattle neighborhood to the elite boardrooms of the United Nations?”

Did removing Nordica's name and private property ownership from ALL our published works make it easier for Rosa to steal it because she wasn't stealing food directly from Nordica's babies' mouths? What WAS the point of her doing that? It just doesn't make any sense. Did she take Nordica's name off everything we published because Talmudic Law requires “two witnesses” to report a crime?

According to Property Rights expert Rosa Koire, Intellectual Property, U.S. copyright claimed by poor authors like us who can show over a decade of original, published work, can't be controlled by the minds that actually created it and copyrighted it. It's simply not ours anymore! Why does Rosa think our intellectual property belongs to her and the public domain? Well, our original, hard work is just so important we don't get to own it. Is that a decision she made based on Talmudic Law?

There is one major difference between our stories. We gave up everything to do our research, we went broke to sue the City of Seattle, to build our massive website with over 10,000 exit links to direct sources, and to write our books. Rosa boasts of her fund raising skills and tells readers about how her neighbors jumped out of their seats to write checks so that she could sue her city. Rosa Koire raised half a million dollars for her lawsuit (and she's doing it again now). We never raised a dime.

We were just defending principles in Dawson v Seattle, not principal, so we had no great outpouring of support. We were not defending our own land, so we had zero interest from other concerned land owners. We were just poor tenants. No business leaders were on our side. We didn't have homeowners on our side. (What about the ACLU? That's another joke on Americans.) Nobody cared then, or cares now, if renters have privacy rights or not. There wasn't one group in the nation willing to help us fight the Israeli Community Policing innovative new home invasion strategies. There still isn't one.

Rosa writes on page 31: “Familiarize yourself with Communitarianism. It's the political philosophy behind all of this. It states the individual's rights are a threat to the global community.” {emphasis added} “It” doesn't state that! Who is “it”? Are we an “it”? We, Nordica Friedrich and Niki Raapana, are human beings. We stated it, yes we did, that is part of our Anti Communitarian legal analysis.

Rosa Koire's rise to the front of the Anti Agenda 21 “movement” was accomplished by promotions of her by Property Rights groups like the Eagle Forum, Tea Party, John Birch Society, Michael Shaw of Freedom Advocates, and somebody she calls “Mr. X.” We were never promoted by any of these groups, except for a short time in 2008 when Michael Shaw began citing our work and his wife sent us a few sweet donations. This ended abruptly when Shaw changed his mind and began promoting the “Permanent Revolution” work of Terry Hayfield (JBS), an online wacko who had been stalking Nordica and I in internet forums and emails with a crew that all had names from the Wizard of Oz. Patrick Woods, editor of the August Review, and his son Jason can testify to that bizarre scene.

Michael Shaw dropped the word Communitarianism from his Anti Agenda 21 lectures in 2009. He began calling it “tyranny.” We never got any explanation of why he did that. Tyranny? Rosa told me Michael Shaw's father is the one who designed her vaguely familiar book cover, but who is the real author of the outrageous claim in Rosa's book that Zionism has nothing to do with UN Agenda 21 because Israel is a just a nationalist, tiny country! Not even Rosa Koire is that brazen, is she?

Why would Rosa Koire lie so boldly as if nobody would notice her big lies? The path to answers starts by looking at the missions of leading Right Wing “free enterprise” capitalists. We see they almost all promote a “return” to Biblical Law and Christian values. They don't just mean the Ten Commandments, they mean Talmudic Law. Even U.S. Supreme Court Justices and Bush II insisted the oral, mystical Talmud is the actual basis for the entire American justice system in 2002. The big lie goes unchecked.

The truth is, the deadly, silent global Communitarian coup is almost complete, and the last thing the
Communitarians need is for anyone to understand what Communitarian Law is before it's a done deal.

Why does Zionist Glenn Beck promote Koire's plagiarized, milky version of our work, and not ACL Books? Why does the Tea Party patriot movement promote Rosa Koire's milk and lies alongside the John Birch Society, and not ACL Books? Why do the Libertarians, the Ron/Rand Paul Right, Rockwell, von Mises, Tom Woods etc. continue to ignore or barely name the most important economic topic of the twenty-first century? Ever heard of a Conservative Communitarian? Libertarian Communitarian?

Why, it's such an amazingly perfect synthesis there's even Anarcho Communitarians now. The Third Way synthesis merges all political ideologies and religions under Communitarianism. It's not a murky combination of milk and water as Rosa teaches. It's a murky combination of politics and mysticism. All sides play a role. Rosa has obviously learned her far right Christian Zionist pals play theirs expertly.

Our 2003 ACL mission statement is very clear that we do not endorse any race, religion or culture that claims to be superior to everyone else. Nordica often describes 2020 as “our treatise against racism.”
2020: Our Common Destiny shares our conscript experience alongside evidence of U.S. Community Police training in Israel, called “the Harvard of Anti Terrorism.” The ACL provides an abundance of evidence of Etzioni's commitment to Militant Zionism, and it's all taken from his own published works.

Rosa calls identification of the role of Zionism part of “the dialectic.” This is an utter twisting of our original thesis that the Hegelian dialectical formula leads to Communitarianism. How is it possible to remove the Zionist father of Communitarianism from any expose of dialectical Communitarianism?

The Zionist father of Communitarianism has not only written over 30 books about the need to rebuild America into a Communitarian society, his plan for a More Muscular U.S. Foreign Policy is cited in Daily Pentagon Briefings. In the world of Communitarian deceptions, any outrageous lie is possible.

What is global Communitarianism without Etzioni, Zionism or Talmudic Law? Watered down milk.

Rosa's real reason for stealing all our ACL research and misleading readers into thinking it is all hers is stated clearly by her on the top of page 31, “Calling it a Zionist plot is absurd considering that Zionism is a nationalist movement that is completely opposed to the dissolution of boundaries.”

This reference Rosa made to Zionism was her perfect opportunity to show her readers her commitment to the whole truth, to full disclosure of the global governance plan, by sharing all known facts with her readers. Doesn't she trust her readers with all the facts? Why wasn't it important enough for Rosa to mention at this point, or at any point in her book when she said “Communitarianism,” that a lifelong Zionist, an Israeli soldier adept in Cabala, whose name means he's the “tree from Zion,” introduced the world to Communitarianism, and maybe that's why some people might call it a Zionist plot? But of course Rosa makes sure we get a geography lesson designed to lessen the reality of Israeli influence based on its size: “(Israel is about the size of Vancouver Island and slightly larger than New Jersey.)”

Facts are just facts. It's impossible to deny Zionism is also a spiritual commitment to Israel made by millions of Christians, worldwide, mainly as a result of the new Schofield Reference Bible saying any Christian who doesn't support Israel will go to Hell. Never mind that millions of American non-Zionist taxpayers are forced to support Zionism to the tune of trillions. Zionism is a lot more than a little nationalist movement, and Rosa Koire is very cunningly deceptive when she tries to bury some facts.

How is it possible to say such an idiotic thing when she's surrounded and paid very well to speak by so many middle class American Christian Zionists? Besides the Irgun family legacy assigned to Obama, Dr. Amitai Etzioni and other notable “dual” citizens in positions of American power and influence, besides the obvious American Jewish support for Israel, there are millions of Christian Zionists in the USA. There are more Zionists in America than there are in Israel. Rosa Koire doesn't know that?

Rosa writes on page 31, “Another reason why you may not have heard of UN Agenda 21 before is because opposition is often conflated with anti-Semitism.” The accusation of racism against Jews is a familiar tactic used whenever anyone even barely mentions Zionism in a political science paper, but this is the first time I have ever heard this! Opposition to Agenda 21 was always controlled by Zionist Christians who refused to link to our research because they said we were “anti-Semitic.”

We think this slur is entirely unfounded, considering the factual reality that many Jews worldwide are ANTI Zionist, just as we are. Zionism is NOT a race of people. It's not even a religion, it's a political ideology, and there's a lot of traditional, Biblical Jews in the world who not only disagree with it, they vehemently oppose it. Jews who oppose political Zionism are sneered at by the Zionists and called “self-hating Jews.” If we have to be labeled as haters because we oppose Zionism, it would be more appropriate to call us “self-hating Americans.”

I suppose Rosa's readers don't need to know their holy Zionist Communitarian guru Etzioni was financed entirely by another globe trotting Zionist named George Soros, either. Rosa wants her readers in the dark forever. She ridicules any of her readers who may ask pertinent questions about Zionism. Is Rosa Koire a professional Zionist propagandist as well as an expert in public domain takings?

So much for her PSI claim to be “non-partisan!”

The extremely partisan Zionist “resistance” to LA21 has been trying to shut us up for a long time. They tried so many different tactics to get us to stop using the word Communitarianism, maybe someday I'll write them all down. But wow, I gotta say now that having someone steal our work and revise it to fit the politically active Zionist's need for complete impunity... that's a first.

Zionists are not the least bit interested in exposing any facts that point to their influential role in furthering Communitarianism, and will shut down any writer who does. We've been working on the fringe of the Anti Agenda 21 arena for 13 years. I say fringe because our work was outright rejected by the Anti Agenda 21 leaders, because we include the taboo subjects of capitalism, Zionism, Talmudic Law, and Etzioni in our research. All we had to do to be “successful” was to shut up about the law.

I was censored by newswithviews for naming the Judaic Law Institute. We've been stalked online and personally visited by Zionists for 12 years now. It's not always the same method but it always ends at the same place; we get told to back off. Sometimes our visitors are very friendly folks. In 2009, a U.S. Army Pentagon analyst and his wife came all the way to Kenny Lake, Alaska to tell me to, “back off on the Mossad.” I told Sgt Brian Bloomquist to go back to DC and put Etzioni's name in his DoD Known Terrorist database, and then to tell the Pentagon to send me a check for doing their job.

Ten years ago, Etzioni's office staff claimed in an online public forum that we said Communitarianism was a Zionist plot. (One Etzioni assistant, Erin Riska, confirmed some of our Etzioni research that was speculation at the time we wrote it.) So, yes, we have heard ACL research is taboo before, but the first time I heard Agenda 21 called a Zionist plot is when Rosa Koire took her place on the national stage.

Our rights to privacy and self-determination were “balanced” because U.S. COPS are taught in Israel that we have “too many rights in this country.” National opposition to UN Agenda 21 wouldn't even begin until almost a decade after we were the pilot test for Etzioni's SWAT home inspections.

Rosa, who entered the arena almost two decades after UN Agenda 21 was adopted at Rio, mentions all the programs we wrote about. She knows Community Policing was a topic page at the ACL since 2003, it's the title of Chapter Two in 2020, but she never refers to us, our research, or our story, not once when she continually throws out program terms she took directly from ACL research. Leaders of the Agenda 21 resistance never include our grassroots experiences with Zionist Community Policing tactics.

Our current book project, Round Green Virgin, will be finished after we get the funds to complete it. The hardcopy edition of 2020/TACM was such a financial disaster our enemies will say we should quit publishing altogether! Certainly Rosa Koire demanded I quit. Rosa insisted I hand it ALL over, so her and the Shaws could take control of our books. (Michael Shaw is also the same man who quit citing us, quit using the term Communitarianism, and then told me the word Communitarianism would NOT be part of the Anti Agenda 21 “movement” in 2009.) Her reason? People want the books they pre-paid for and I owe her $1000 for the plane ticket to her 2011 Behind the Green Mask conference.

The fact that I was really too sick to fly was not a valid “excuse” for not going. When Nordica was all prepped and set to go in my place, Rosa refused to allow her to come. Nordica Friedrich was not welcome to speak at the first national conference focusing on Communitarianism and Agenda 21! (How's THAT for controlled opposition?) Of course Michael Shaw was the Featured Speaker, and the rest, as they say, is history. As for Nordica's copyright on both our books and her 100% ownership of our website and our ACL Books company... well, let's just pretend she doesn't exist, shall we?

Rosa never once offered to purchase the rights to reprint our copyrighted research. She showed utter contempt for the decade of sacrifices we made to create Anti Communitarianism. Our position as poor, humble, non-affiliated authors always made us look like easy targets. So, why pay for it?

Rosa spends half a page admonishing her readers to drop any valid scientific inquiry (as in What is the Hegelian dialectic?) because identifying religious and political concepts is “not productive, not realistic.” She says naming all the players, religions and economic theories that make up the
Communitarian philosophy “feeds right into the dialectic.” Rosa says we all need “to come together.”

Somebody please explain to Rosa, after she's done singing her Beatles' tune, that a legitimate study of Communitarianism must include all known facts about it, or it is not a scientific study.

The honest scientist is not allowed to remove hard evidence from the table just because they have a financial attachment to hiding that piece. Our work was not non-profit, grant funded, or government controlled. We've never been government employees! We don't censor facts. We include every religion and every political system that contributes to the final synthesis. We examine communism, capitalism, fascism, socialism and Zionism, as they all relate to achieving the final Hegelian dialectical synthesis.

Zionism is a political system based on dialectical religious law, and there is way too much evidence of its influence on Communitarianism (and communism and capitalism) to deny it. Who determined Zionism cannot be exposed along with the theory it supports? Who decided to drop the most important word “law” from any future discussion of Communitarianism? And, why would they?

Rosa says in her acknowledgments at the very end of her book that my books “were invaluable in making sense of the source.” I find that so vague. “Sense of the source?” What source? My co-author Nordica who she removed? And, oh my God, if by I helped her make sense of the source she means Hegel, then that's just over-the-top, because based on her stupid water and milk demonstration, I obviously didn't help her understand our antithesis against Hegel and Communitarianism at all!

Wait! She must mean Dr. Etzioni! He is the true “source” of all modern Communitarianism, is he not?

What does Rosa Koire tell her readers about our Communitarian guru, Amitai Etzioni, Dr. Tree of Life from Zion? What does Rosa Koire write about our Communitarian guru's 60+ years in Israeli military intelligence, his religio-political cult, his Fabian Socialist mentors, his influence on the White House, his KGB global Community Policing network, his global influence on local sustainability projects, his programs for mandatory volunteerism, or the Communitarian Network he founded in DC in 1990?

Shhhhhhhh.

Amitai Etzioni is hidden from her readers; Rosa Koire never even mentions his name.

And... good grief... she says there is only an “amorphous rulebook.” That's so not true, not even in the U.S. where it's all very quietly done. Communitarianism is not all shapeless soft law, Delphi Technique and shaming. It's not only coming down under UN Agenda 21 or Sustainable Development. It's not only an attack on American's Property Rights! It's not an uncomfortably vague, unformed, unstructured plan or program for development. It's a massive, very structured, organized global justice system.

On her very first page Rosa writes: “the rights of the community are not defined in a constitution.”

Why would she write something so easy to be checked and so easily proven to be untrue? She knows the Bolivians rewrote a Communitarian Constitution in 2009, two years before she published her book. How will she explain the newly revised Communitarian Scottish Constitution? And the next one? Did she miss the part in our book where we cited the blueprint for Global Communitarian Citizenship?

Rosa freely plagiarized our thesis and program research, but she not only avoided our constitutional law and Etzioni research, she purposefully negated it, as if somebody told her it was all taboo.

Rosa knows the 2005 EU Constitution was written with a Communitarian Supremacy of Law clause. She knows the foundation for trade unions under the WTO establishes Communitarian Law. She read it in our book, a book full of direct source citations of laws and constitutional changes, even in the U.S.

Rosa knows the changes to the law in the USA. She read, “In the state of Oregon, an evolving law of search and seizure suggests that communitarian precepts can be translated into workable and coherent State constitutional doctrine.” Taking Law Seriously: Communitarian Search and Seizure, American Criminal Law Volume: 27 Issue 4 Dated (1990) pp 583-617. It's cited in 2020: Our Common Destiny.

What Rosa surely knows is, if we can't look at Zionism, maybe we won't take Talmudic Law seriously,

In 2012, the Communitarian Pachamama cult unveiled their proposal for the Eleven Laws of Nature, described as “Human Rights for Mother Earth.” The proposal calls for a new UN international court with authority to try and convict anyone, anywhere, in any nation, who violates Mother Earth laws.

The Affordable Health Care Act, taking effect right now in the USA, is a Communitarian Law. The “right” to mandate purchase of health care insurance is based entirely in Etzioni's vision for the world. The enforcement arm for this U.S. Communitarian Law is the Internal Revenue Service, which has been proved, in U.S. Courts, time and time again, to have no constitutional authority to exist. The “right” to tax, fine, shoot and jail citizens, to make them to pay for programs that destroy their “right” to life, liberty and happiness, is a Communitarian “right.” This is what Dr. Etzioni means by “balance.”

On January 1, 2013, Pope Benedict declared, “Communitarian Development is God's Plan.” Should we all be preparing for an Inquisition against anyone or any nation who defies development?

What lengths will the Communitarians go to ensure the success of their global coup, besides misleading basically decent, kindhearted Americans? We need look no further than the bombed out ancient civilizations in the Middle East, some very stubborn holdouts against Etzioni's more moral, peaceful Communitarianism.

The phony, circular, go-nowhere dialectical wars between the Americans and the Arab world are absolutely necessary to leading the unwashed refugee Arab masses to accepting sub-nation status under Communitarian Harmonization of Norms. History shows us the Arab nations were strong American allies all the way up until 1948, before Etzioni and his terrorist buddies took over Palestine. The first really successful Communitarian project put the Palestinians behind a “Berlin” wall. The Green Space between national law and Communitarian Supremacy of Law is not a hidden agenda. The only “green mask” over UN Agenda 21 in the Middle East is the one the Zionists use to shield it from Americans.

There have been a few minor glitches to the plan. There are actual human beings involved as pawns, and they are sometimes unpredictable. But, regardless of how the war actually began, and why, the demands the Syrian refugees make now come directly from the old Zionist-communist playbook. Demands for positive Human Rights, very caring people insisting on fake UN rights that lead to final destruction of the world's most ancient Muslim strongholds, these are powerful Communitarian tools.

Communitarian developers are all over the world now; fellow travelers work their activist magic to foment the changes. The difference between cons and locals is simple; real locals fight to win and END the conflicts, whereas destruction of people, cultures, religions and neighborhoods is the Communitarian's first and primary goal. The cons feed off the RE-building too.

They love rivers of local blood and millions of homeless refugees. Their only real job is to ensure the locals argue dialectically until the cows come home or keep shooting 'til there's no more bullets, so they can sink their Communitarian development plan into the veins of the peace talks and settlements, as the only “moral” solution.

Hollywood actress turned UN Goodwill Ambassador Angelina Jolie touched the hearts of millions with her recent plea to help Syrian refugees. The new Communitarian high priestess (miraculously reborn into Mother Teresa II) didn't explain her humanitarian interest in Syria coincides with her family's financial investments in the UN Millennium Development Goals in Cambodia and U.S. Cities.

Pro-Syrian refugee activists insist her monetary motives do not matter. Any help is good help, right?

The authenticity of famous people or experts teaching us “truths” is really not an issue, is it? So what
if our heroes support a few “nice” Communitarian programs, like Rosa's story about how she got involved in fighting UN Agenda 21 because she wanted to volunteer to do some Community Service.

Supranational global governance is based upon Communitarian Law. The Law is a perfectly balanced mystical combination of all the world's philosophies, all the way back to the beginning of human history. The authors of this new age religion, of this complex global law religionalized, are busy as little bees incorporating every religion and legal system on the planet. No religion, no nation is safe.

What about that peculiar U.S. barrier to an Established State Religion at the foundation of American religious tolerance? Oh, you mean the ridiculous American LAW that declares everyone is free to follow their own conscience? Don't ya know? It's outdated and spiritually unevolved. It doesn't apply!

As our sweet little old Israeli Communitarian guru says:

“The First Amendment's Disestablishment clause is not a foreign policy tool, but a peculiarly American conception. Just because the American government is banned from promoting religion within the United States does not mean that the State Department and the Pentagon cannot promote religion overseas and in societies that are undergoing profound societal changes.”

Etzioni continues, “The last point is crucial. Overseas we are participating as a key architect and builder of new institutions; we are in what social scientists call 'the design business.'”

The key U.S. architect rebuilding Arab religious institutions is Etzioni. We're to believe the Arabs hate the U.S. because they “hate our freedoms,” not because we're in the “design business.”

Time for a Happy Holiday drink! Here's a new alcohol free recipe with a punch:

Mix ½ cup Etzioni's vision with ½ cup Bolivian claims that their 500 year old Goddess Pachamama is rooted in their ancient Communitarian traditions. Add 4oz shot of U.S. Senator Mike Lee (UT) and his Mormon Communitarianism. Top it off with the Vatican calling it all “God's plan.” Spice it up with the Islamic Communitarian Imperative by the Futhula Gulen in Turkey and Chiara Lubich Communitarian spirituality. Liberally garnish with American Methodist Communitarian soul. Slide angelic Lucifer enlightenment down the straw. Stir lightly. Now, take a drink and see if you can keep from gagging.

This Christmas season, do something exceptionally meaningful. Please give generously to our Anti Communitarian League research. We're hanging in there with nothing. If the ACL disappears, there will never be any scientific opposition to Etzioni or Communitarianism. Our “last point is crucial” too.

What kind of new theory of global justice needs absolute freedom from logic? Not the good kind.

“Conscience? Ah, that stuff will drive ya nuts.”
Marlon Brando as Terry in On the Waterfront

To order your $17 ebook copy of 2020: Our Common Destiny & the definitive Anti Communitarian Manifesto, go to http://nord.twu.net/acl. We're also starting our first newsletter. To sign up for our newslist or to contribute anti communitarian research to our new magazine, please visit the newly updated site soon! The new roster of ACL contributors is fantastic and shows the far-reaching range of people in exotic places who've recognized something “else” was going on that nobody had a name for.






Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Winter 2012-2013 Paranoia Magazine publishes The Green Virgin

My article about Pachamama, The Green Virgin, is in the winter 2012-2013 edition of Paranoia Magazine.

"Niki Raapana teases out just what Communitarianism is in her article,“Between Common Law & The Law of Mother Nature.” The reinstatement ...of the Goddess at Rio+20 Earth Summit is good, right? King Cocaine Bolivian President Evo Morales said so, the UN said so—or could this be the one-world religion that G8 has been contriving for the 99 percent? Not to mention when Occupy Wall Street became Occupy the Earth . . ."

My first time published in a paper magazine. Thanks for asking me to submit Ron Patton!

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

COMMUNITARIZATION OF THE EU THIRD PILLAR TODAY AND ACCORDING TO THE LISBON TREATY MICHAEL ŠVARC

COMMUNITARIZATION OF THE EU THIRD PILLAR TODAY
AND ACCORDING TO THE LISBON TREATY
http://www.law.muni.cz/sborniky/cofola2008/files/pdf/evropa/svarc_michael.pdf
MICHAEL ŠVARC, Právnická fakulta, Masarykova univerzita, Brno

Abstrakt
Práce se pokusí popsat a analyzovat současné projevy tzv. komunitarizace třetího pilíře EU,
kterou autor chápe jako proces, kdy oblast policejní a justiční spolupráce v trestních věcech
začíná být ovlivňována či dokonce podřizována komunitárním principům a mechanizmům
(zásada loajality, nepřímého účinku, efektivity, role Komise a ESD), a to při začlenění do
režimu mezivládní spolupráce. Ta má být překonána Lisabonskou smlouvou, která danou
oblast podřizuje zásadně komunitárnímu režimu (hlasování kvalifikovanou většinou ve
spolurozhodovaní proceduře s EP, podrobení se jurisdikci ESD, přímý účinek). Práce se
pokusí srovnat a analyzovat výhody a nevýhody obou režimů v dané oblasti. Podtrhne přitom
i specifika komunitárních mechanizmů v této oblasti dle Lisabonské smlouvy. Ambicí práce
je rovněž upozornit na možnosti, ale i meze a rizika rozvoje komunitárního režimu v oblasti
trestní politiky podle Lisabonské smlouvy.
Klíčová slova třetí pilíř, první pilíř, mezivládní spolupráce, komunitární právní řád, policejní a justiční spolupráce v trestních věcech, obecné zásady, svěření pravomocí, sdílené pravomoci,
subsidiarita, proporcionalita, přednost, přímý účinek, nepřímý účinek, odpovědnost za škodu
(Francovich), hlasování kvalifikovanou většinou, záchranná brzda, posílená spolupráce,
přeshraniční dvojí trestání (ne bis in idem), princip legality, Evropská Rada, Komise,
Evropský parlament, Rada, Soudní dvůr (ESD), národní parlamenty, žlutá, oranžová, červená
karta.

Abstract
This paper attempts to describe and analyze the current instances of the so-called
communitarization of the third pillar of the EU, which the author considers to be a process,
when the police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters starts to be influenced or even
subjected to the Community principles and mechanisms (such as the principle of loyal
cooperation, indirect effect, effectiveness, the role of the Commission and ECJ), while falling
into the intergovernmental framework. However, this framework should be displaced by the
Lisbon Treaty, which in principle subjects this area to the communitarian regime (voting by
the qualified majority in co-decision procedure with EP, jurisdiction of the ECJ, direct effect).
The paper will try to compare and analyze both advantages and disadvantages of both
(intergovernmental and communitarian) frameworks in the field of criminal matters. Specific
characteristics of communitarian mechanisms under the Lisbon Treaty will be emphasized as
well. The aim of the paper will be to show the possibilities and opportunities, but also limits
and risks of further developments of communitarized criminal policy under the Lisbon Treaty.
Key word rd pillar, first pillar, intergovernmental cooperation, Community legal order, police and
judicial cooperation in criminal matters, general principles, conferral of powers, shared
competence, subsidiarity, proportionality, supremacy (primacy), direct effect, indirect effect,
liability for damages (Francovich), qualified majority voting, emergency break, enhanced
cooperation, cross-border double jeopardy principle (ne bis in idem), substantive legality
principle, European Council, Commission, European Parliament, Council, Court of Justice
(ECJ), national parliaments, yellow, orange, red card.

Introduction
This paper will focus on developments and possible future prospects within the third pillar of
the European Union (EU). First, I will briefly sum up the “constitutional” foundations of the
third pillar, as regards both the role of the Union institutions and legal effects of the measures
adopted under this framework as provided for in the Treaty on European Union (TEU),
especially its Title VI, which governs police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
Then I will show, how this area of criminal matters has been communitarized, especially by
the case-law of the Court of Justice (ECJ). Turning to the new settlement of this area
according to the Lisbon Treaty, especially Title V, chapters 1, 4 a 5 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),1 I will try to describe and analyze the most
important novelties, which the new framework introduces. In principle all classical
Community rules and principles should apply within the specified field of criminal matters.
However, important specific characteristics applicable to this area (such as maintaining
1 TFEU will replace the current Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC). The area of police and judicial cooperation will be transfered from TEU to the TFEU and included in Title V, with the heading “Area of freedom, security and justice,” which will contain also chapters on general provisions, policies on border checks, asylum, immigration and judicial cooperation in civil matters. unanimity in certain matters, emergency break and enhanced cooperation) will be emphasized as well. Finally the paper will on the basis of attained experience and concrete examples attempt to point to the possible advantages, respectively disadvantages and risks, which the new framework may bring in contrast to the current state of affairs in the explored area of criminal matters.

The “constitutional” foundations of the third pillar compared to the first pillar
The third pillar, established by the Maastricht Treaty and limited to police and judicial
cooperation in criminal matters by the Amsterdam Treaty, forms basically a distinct
framework of intergovernmental cooperation, which is to be differentiated from the
Community legal order, resting on the TEC and developed by the ECJ case-law2. First and
foremost, the nature of the third pillar as laid down especially in the Title VI of the TEU
resembles more the classical international regime (where, it seems, there is no room for a
simple hierarchy or subordination, but the consent of each and every state is predominant)
rather than the supranational one, which was developed under the first pillar, patterned by the
primacy and direct applicability (and effectiveness) of adopted rules towards individual
member states (even when outvoted) and their citizens. From the institutional point of view,
similarly, the institutions such as the European Commission (Commission), European
Parliament (EP) and the ECJ were not granted such broad powers, as is the case in the first
pillar. By contrast, the Council of Ministers (the Council), which represents the individual
member states, was given great external and legislative powers, including the veto right for
each and single minister thanks to the unanimity voting, introduced as a rule for decisionmaking
in this sensitive and with the sovereignty of the member states´ closely connected area
of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Moreover, the intergovernmental
character of the third pillar seems to be strengthened by the legislative initiative of each
member state (sharing this right with the Commission) and mainly by the weakening of both
2 See these crucial judgements of the ECJ: C- 26/62 Van Gend en Loos, 5.2.1963, (direct effect) a C- 6/64 Costa v. ENEL, 15.7.1964 (supremacy or primacy of EC law); and further elaboration on this as regards both direct and indirect effect: C-152/84 Marshall, 26.2.1986, C-14/83 Von Colson a Kamman, 10.4.1984, C-106/89 Marleasing, 13.11.1990, C-194/94CIA Security v. Securitel, 30.4.1996, and primacy of EC law, or even the emerging concept of pre-emption: C-11/70 Internationale Handelsgesselschaft, 17.12.1970; C-35/76, resp. C-
106/77 Simmenthal I, II, 15.12.1976, resp. 9.3.1978; C-10-22/97 Ministero delle Finanze v. IN.CO.GE´90 Srl, 22.10.1998; C-148/78 Ratti, 5.4.1979; C- 31/78 Bussone, 30.11.1978; C-11/92 Gallaher, 22.6.1993; including liability for damages for infringement of Community law: C-6 & 9/90 Francovich, 19.11.1991; C-46/93 Brasserie/Factortame, 15.3.1996; C-178/94 and others point cases Dillenkofer, 8.10.1996; C-224/01 Köbler, 30.9.2003, which might be read also in conjunction with the judgement C-453/00 Kühne & Heitz, 13.1.2004; summarized In Craig, P., de Búrca, G. EU Law – Text, Cases and Materials. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003, s.178- 228; 257-315. the EP, limited only to consultation within the legislative process, and the Commission, which is not allowed to pursue infringement procedure as is the case under the first pillar Community legal order. Also the limited jurisdiction of the ECJ, as compared to its role under the first pillar, is of great significance, when assessing the specific nature of the third pillar
framework. Preliminary rulings, seemingly limited in its subject, are not obligatory at all at
any stage and annulment actions are limited only to privileged applicants. Infringement
procedure, as mentioned above, does not apply at all. As a result, the member states do not
run any risk of being financially penalized by the ECJ, when infringing third pillar union law.
As regards the legal effects of the measures adopted under the third pillar, the TEU explicitly
abolishes direct effect of the decision and framework decision. The latter resembles by
definition and aim in approximating national laws directive under the first pillar, however,
without possessing a feature of direct effect loses much of its strength, because the particular
provisions of the framework decision cannot be then directly invoked by individuals before
the national authorities, and the courts particularly, with a view setting aside, if necessary,
contrary national rule and applying directly effective one (in upwards vertical relations at
least).

Although it might seem from all above mentioned that the intergovernmental framework of
the third pillar absolutely prevails,3 the next chapter will show, how especially the ECJ is
ready to make use of some communitarian aspects involved in that framework and extend
them to the maximum, while borrowing the concepts from the first pillar as well, in order to
promote more uniform application of the union law in this field and guarantee at least some
kind of judicial protection. It will be, however, also pointed to the extension of the community
competence over criminal matters by the ECJ, revealing the potential of the first pillar for the
purposes of criminal regulation.

Third pillar under attack – creeping communitarization
In general
In spite of the fact of intergovernmental characteristics of the third pillar, as briefly sketched
above, I will try to illustrate, how this pillar has been communitarized, i.e. influenced by and
subjected to the Community principles, rules and mechanisms. 3 However, there is a regular „bridge,“ enabling to transfer the respective areas of criminal matters to the first pillar entailed in Article 42 TEU. The cumbersome procedure which subjects such a unanimous decision of the
Council to the constitutional procedures of member states makes this provision, however, practically ineffective.

Among the Union institutions it was mainly the ECJ which heavily supported this process by
taking full advantage of its jurisdiction and pointing to the broad tasks and objectives of the
Union and the necessity to ensure both the consistency within the Union framework as a
whole and the effectiveness of the measures adopted within the third pillar particularly (see
below, Pupino, Segi, EAW judgements of the ECJ). ECJ also promoted uniform application of
crucial third pillar rules and principles, such as the prohibition of cross-border double
jeopardy (see below, sketched case-law of the ECJ on ne bis in idem).

Furthermore, the potential of expansive growth of the communitarian control over criminal
matters was also supported by the ECJ case-law on the possibility of implicit competence
over criminal matters within the first pillar under certain conditions (see below,
Environmental crimes and Ship source pollution judgements of the ECJ).

Besides that, the process of communitarization was also boosted by the practice developed
within the Council, where special negotiation techniques, political pressure, package deals
seem to undermine de iure unanimity voting rule as well.4

Moreover, the active role of the Commission, coming up with legislative proposals, which
seem not always to observe both the union and Community fundamental principles such as
the subsidiarity principle5 or even fundamental rights6, contributed also a lot to the
communitarization of this area.

The role of the ECJ in communitarization of the third pillar

In my view Pupino represents a leading case in this area. The ECJ was asked by the Italian
court within the preliminary ruling procedure under article 35 TEU to give an interpretative
ruling on a specific provision of the framework decision on the protection of victims, which
related to the special criminal procedure in respect of vulnerable victims, respectively
application of the procedural benefits towards maltreated children. After declaring its
jurisdiction and its scope under the Article 46(b) TEU, in conj. with Article 35 TEU, the ECJ
stressed the binding nature of framework decisions, inspired largely by the Article 234 TEC.
Due to the fact that the TEU in this respect expressly excludes direct effect, the ECJ could
4 See, more elaborated on this matter: Čakrt, F.: Nástin komunitarizace v rámci III. pilíře. Trestněprávní revue, 2007, č. 1, s. 4 – 12.
5 See, ibid p. 7 as regards the critical reflection on this as exemplified by the Green book on the conflicts of
jurisdictions and the principle ne bis in idem in criminal proceedings, KOM(2005) 696
6 See, for instance the so-called data retention directive, where the protection of the fundamentals principle of protection of personal data might be interfered with disproportionately
only promote the effectiveness of the framework decisions by the so-called indirect effect,
elaborated within the first pillar. And indeed, it did so, stating that the binding character of the
framework decisions places on national authorities, and particularly national courts, an
obligation to interpret national law in conformity7.

Moreover, the ECJ added, that while having the jurisdiction in preliminary ruling procedure,
this would be deprived of most of its useful effect, if individuals were not entitled to invoke
framework decisions in order to obtain a confirming interpretation of national law before the
courts of the member states8. Furthermore, the ECJ, without any reference in the text of the
TEU (unlike Article 10 TEC), went further to pronounce the applicability of the principle of
loyal cooperation9 in this field as well, pointing to the aim of the Union to create an ever
closer Union among the peoples of Europe and necessity to ensure that the Union may
effectively fulfil its tasks.10 The applicability of the principle of loyal cooperation within the
third pillar gave rise to the debate on possible far-reaching implications this might bring. As
we know, from the principle at stake important Community principles, rules, mechanisms
were inferred, such as the principle of supremacy (primacy, precedence), the Francovich
principle of liability for damages, the twin principles of effectiveness and equivalence, just to
name the most important ones. And some authors indeed suggest the possible application of at
least some of them, such as Francovich principle of liability for damages and principles of
effectiveness and equivalence.11 Finally, Pupino ruling itself, while setting limits to the
application of the so-called indirect effect (cannot be contra legem and conflict the principles
7 C-105/03, „Pupino,“ 16. 6. 2005, para 34.
8 C-105/03, „Pupino,“ 16. 6. 2005, para 38.
9 However, S. Peers notices that the ECJ makes, with exception of requirement to take measures to ensure fulfilment of obligations, no reference to other aspects of the principle of loyal cooperation, see Peers, S.: Salvation outside the church: Judicial protection in the third pillar after the Pupino and Segi judgments. Common Market Law Review, 2007, č. 44, p. 916, 917.
10 C-105/03, „Pupino,“ 16. 6. 2005, paras 41, 42: „… treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe and that the task of the Union, which is founded on the European Communities, supplemented by the policies and forms of cooperation established by that treaty, shall be to organise, in a manner demonstrating consistency and solidarity, relations between the Member States and between their peoples…. It would be difficult for the Union to carry out its task effectively if the principle of loyal cooperation, requiring in particular that Member States take all appropriate measures, whether general or
particular, to ensure fulfilment of their obligations under European Union law, were not also binding in the area of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which is moreover entirely based on cooperation between the Member States and the institutions…“
11 See, for instance Spaventa, E.: Opening Pandora´s Box: Some reflections on the Constitutional Effects of the Decision in Pupino. European Constitutional Law Review, 2007, č. 3, s. 18 – 22 or Peers, S.: Salvation outside the church: Judicial protection in the third pillar after the Pupino and Segi judgments. Common Market Law Review, 2007, č. 44, p. 921 – 924, where the author comes up with practical examples, for instance that the wrongful detention, prosecution and conviction connected to the double leopardy rules should be compensated in
accordance with the principles established as regards Community damages liability.
of legal certainty and non-retroactivity or establish and aggravate criminal liability)12, in my
view, implicitly suggests that general principles of Community law, or at least some of them,
may and should be applied within the third pillar, as well. I agree with S. Peers that the
general principles of Community law13 (such as protection of human rights, legal certainty
and of the protection of legitimate expectations, non-retroactivity, principle of equality and
non-discrimination, principle of the right to defence and the rule against double jeopardy;
principles governing the exercise of community powers such as principle of conferred powers,
subsidiarity and proportionality) should apply in their entirety here as well.14 However, the
ECJ when ruling on the observance of these principles should, in my view, pay due respect to
the principles of subsidiarity and the primary (or largely exclusive) responsibility of member
states for maintaining public order and security on their territory and observing their human
rights obligations under the European Convention for the protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms (ECHR), from which the ECJ itself should in no case depart as well15.
Similarly, the ECJ, while interpreting, should not encroach upon legislative domain of the
Council as well. The ECJ in my opinion should be very careful and restraint in using too
much extensive interpretation which might run counter words and intent of drafters and
legislators. I admit, there might be instances, where the court must decide on the merits and
deliver the justice to individuals, even (if necessary and well justified) by going beyond the
text and finding just solutions by systematic a teleological interpretation. However, in general
and as a rule, the ECJ should, in my view, especially in this sensitive field of criminal affairs,
be very cautious when trying to unify some of the controversial concepts, beyond the adopted
legislative consensus reached. In this regard, the unifying case-law of the ECJ on the
principle against double jeopardy (ne bis in idem)16 seem to me (at least as regards some
judgements) very ambitious and too extensive as well, and in some instances undermining
criminal justice systems of individual member states.17 I am hinting here at some kind of
12 C-105/03, „Pupino,“ 16. 6. 2005, paras 44, 45.
13 For a systematic categorization of Community general principles see, Týč, V.: Působení práva Evropské unie ve sféře českého právního řádu In: Evropský kontext vývoje českého práva po roce 2004: sborník z workshopu konaného na Právnické fakultě MU v Brně dne 26.9.2006. 1. vyd. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2006, s. 22-27.
14 See, Peers, S.: Salvation outside the church: Judicial protection in the third pillar after the Pupino and Segi
judgments. Common Market Law Review, 2007, č. 44, p. 926 – 928.
15 Compare, Article 52(3) of the Charter of fundamentals rights of the Union, which shall be legally binding
according to the Article 6(1) of the TEU, introduced by the Lisabon Treaty.
16 See judgements: ; C-187/01, C-385/01, Gozütok & Brügge, 11.2.2003, C-288/05, Kretzinger, 18.7.2007,; C-
367/05, Kraajjenbrink, 18.7. 2007; C-150/05, Van Straaten, 28.9.2006; C-467/04, Gasparini, 28.9.2006; C-
436/04, Van Esbroeck, 9.3. 2006; C-469/03, Miraglia, 10.3.2006.
17 For a brilliant reflection see, Komárek, J.: „Tentýž čin“ v prostoru svobody, bezpečnosti a práva.
Jurisprudence, 2006, č. 3, s. 51 – 57.
hidden communitarian mechanism, which might be activated through preliminary rulings, and
which attributes the ECJ the role of de facto legislator, when interpreting the very broad and
vague terms, adopted within the Council.

Finally, the ECJ affected heavily the criminal field, which was generally perceived to be the
domain of member states or their cooperation within the third pillar,18 by two its famous
rulings on Environmental crimes19 and Ship source pollution20. The ECJ delivered its
judgement on Environmental crimes upon the respective action brought by the Commission,
which asserted that the Council had encroached upon its competences under the TEC by
adopting framework decision on the protection of environment through criminal law under the
third pillar. The ECJ took the same view and annulled the challenged framework decision on
grounds that it indeed encroached on the powers which Article 175 of the TEC in the area of
environment confers on the Community21. As a starting point the ECJ stressed that Article 47
of the TEU provides that nothing in the TEU is to affect TEC.22 Then the ECJ examined both
the aim and content of the challenged framework decision and realized that indeed the main
purpose of the adopted measure was the protection of the environment. As regards implied
competence to criminal regulation within this field, the ECJ firstly stated that as a general
rule, neither criminal law nor the rules of criminal procedure fall within the Community’s
competence.23 However, the ECJ did not stop here, but went further on to hold that the
Community legislature is not prevented to adopt measures which relate to the criminal law of
the member states 1) which it considers necessary in order to ensure that the rules which it
lays down (on environmental protection) are fully effective and 2) where the application of
effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties by the competent national
authorities is an essential measure (for combating serious offences).24
This controversial judgement gave of course a strong weapon in the hands of Commission,
which interpreted its implications very extensively both as regards the fields of Community
18 However, also the previous case-law of the ECJ show form the 1980s, that even at that times the field of
criminal policy was not completely immune from the operation of Community law, especially when the principle
of effectiveness and equivalence or non-discrimination were at stake (see, judgement 68/88, „Greek Maize,“ 21.
9. 1989 or judgement 186/87, „Cowan,“ 2. 2. 1989) or when disproportionate (criminal) restrictions on freedom
of movement arose (see, judgement C-118/75, “Watson and Belmann,” 14. 7. 1976 or judgement C-265/88,
“Messner,” 12. 12. 1989), See very brilliant summary in: Kmec, J.: Evropské trestní právo. Mechanismy
europeizace trestního práva a vytváření skutečného evropského trestního práva, Praha: C.H.Beck, 2006, s. 230.
19 C-176/03, „Environmental crimes,“ 13. 9. 2005
20 C-440/05, „Ship source pollution,“ 23. 10. 2007
21 C-176/03, „Environmental crimes,“ 13. 9. 2005, para 53.
22 Ibid. at para 38.
23 Ibid. at para 47.
24 Ibid. at para 48.
policies to which it may be applied and the intensity of the criminal regulation itself25 and as
A. Dawes and O. Lynskey in their brilliant reflection of this case put it – some of its
conclusions drawn (such as the power to decide under the first pillar policies on the choice of
the criminal penalties to be applied) were even contradictory to the judgement itself26.
The second judgement of the ECJ on Ship source pollution27 was expected with hope that it
will bring answers to the open questions which the ruling on Environmental crimes remained
unresolved. However, the ECJ judgement seems to be rather disappointing in this respect. The
answer to the question, whether the criminal competence under the first pillar should be
derived from the necessity to ensure the effectiveness of the (crucial) Community policies, as
the Advocate General Mazák suggested in his opinion28, or is limited solely to the
environmental policy, is somehow ambiguous. The ECJ confirmed that the challenged
measure could have been validly adopted under the first pillar within the specific competence
under the transport policy, however the ECJ emphasized the link with environmental
protection in this case as well.29 Fortunately, at least another issue on the intensity of criminal
legislation within the first pillar was clearly resolved, by stating that under the first pillar the
Community does not possess the power to impose the type and level of criminal penalties.30 It
should therefore limit itself to imposing effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal
penalties and leave it up to the member states to specify them in their respective criminal
systems.31
To sum up the case-law of the ECJ in the third pillar it may be concluded that many
Community principles, rules, mechanisms and concepts (such as indirect effect, principle of
loyal cooperation, principle of liability for damages, right to defence, principle against double
jeopardy and general principles including human rights and legal certainty) developed under
the first pillar were (some of them possibly) transposed within the third pillar by the creative
case-law of the ECJ. The magic word of effectiveness played the most important role in its
case-law as introduced in Pupino and confirmed in later ECJ judgements (besides those
25 See doc. COM 2005 (583), dated 23.11.2005, Brussels, Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament and the Council, particularly para 10, where it states that the member states freedom to choose the
penalties they apply may be limited by the Community legislature, if the effectiveness of community law so
requires.
26 See, Dawes, A., Lynskey, O.: The ever-longer arm of EC law: The extension of Community comeptence into
the field of criminal law. Common Market Law Review, 2008, č. 45, s. 138, 139.
27 C-440/05, „Ship source pollution,“ 23. 10. 2007
28 Opinion of the Advocate General Mazák C-440/05, „Ship source pollution,“ 23. 10. 2007, paras 88 – 102,
especially 99.
29 C-440/05, „Ship source pollution,“ 23. 10. 2007, paras 66, 67, 69.
30 Ibid. para 70
31 See, brilliant reasoning in this respect in the Opinion of the Advocate General Mazák C-440/05, „Ship source
pollution,“ 23. 10. 2007, paras 106, 107, 108 and further.
mentioned above Segi32 and European arrest warrant33 judgement of the ECJ may be added).
Third pillar of the Union temple started to be progressively rebuilt by the ECJ. And the
Lisbon Treaty accomplished this work in high style.
Third pillar “lisbonised” – communitarization with some specific characteristics
accomplished
If the Lisbon Treaty is to be ratified by all of the member states and enters into force, then the
third pillar will diminish and the institutional balance and functioning of the area of police and
judicial cooperation in criminal matters will be largely transformed. This area will be
“lisbonized,” i.e. will be governed mostly and largely by supranational principles, rules and
mechanisms, which are today called the Community ones.
The role of the institutional actors will change significantly. The Commission, the EP, the
ECJ as well as national parliaments (NPs) will gain a lot of new power in this domain. By
contrast, individual member states will lose their right to legislative initiative (only ¼ of them
together will retain this right – see Article 76 TFEU) and more importantly, in principle, also
the veto power in the decision making process, which will be newly subject to co-decision
with the EP. Furthermore, member states will be subject to infringement procedure, where
both the Commission and the ECJ will exercise their prerogatives (including supervising and
penalizing ones) in order to ensure that the union law is observed.34 The ECJ will be attributed
by the full jurisdiction over this field at the same time (only with one exception: the ECJ will
have no jurisdiction to review the validity or proportionality of operations carried out by the
police or other law-enforcement services with regard to the maintenance of law and order and
the safeguarding of internal security35). Moreover, the ECJ may develop its human rights
case-law, thanks to the binding force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union (see,
Article 6 (1) TEU in conj. with the Charter itself). Especially in the field of criminal matters
such a case-law may play a very important role. It will be seen how the relationship with
ECHR Strasbourg Court but also national constitutional courts will develop in this respect.
With the new Lisbon Treaty the Commission may turn to the real “engine” of the
development of “European criminal area”. Its strength and influence derives not only from its
32 C-355/04 P, „Segi,“ 27. 2. 2007
33 C-303/05, „European arrest warrant,“ (Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW), 3. 5. 2007
34 However, according to the Protocol (No 36) on Transitional Provisions the infringement procedures and the
new ECJ jurisdiction will apply (at the latest) after 5 years from the entry into force of the Lisabon Treaty, if the
relevant measures will not be amended before.
35 Article 276 of the TFEU
legislative monopoly (however, as mentioned above it will be shared with ¼ of members
states), but mainly, in my view, from a firm and very broad legal bases for its activities in this
field, as regards legislation in the field of substantive and procedural criminal law and
cooperation and assistance in criminal matters (but also as regards operational and nonoperational
police cooperation). The concrete competences within these fields are defined
with a certain precision. Compared to the current regulation in articles 29, 31, 34 of the TEU,
they are more elaborated but much more extensive as well. They fall within the area of the
so-called shared competence (see, Article 4(2)(j) TFEU), however, the modified version of
pre-emption should apply in my view in this area (see, Article 2(2), read in conj. with Article
2(6) TFEU), because only minimum rules on certain aspects of procedural and substantive
criminal law are allowed to be adopted (see, Article 82 (2) and 83 (1) TFEU), other aspects
may be added upon the unanimous decision of the Council and consent of the EP. It should
be, however, kept in mind that the substantive criminal competence is supposed to be
potentially expanded also within the harmonized fields, where even the cross-border element
is missing (see, Article 83 (2) TFEU). This competence reflects and develops the potential of
the ECJ judgements on Environmental crimes and Ship source pollution, while making clear
that this competence may go beyond the environmental policy and may extend to virtually all
harmonized policies and contrary to the Ship source pollution may even impose specified
criminal penalties, all this upon the condition if this proves to be essential to ensure the
effective implementation of the particular Union policy.
It is supposed that the measures adopted under all above mentioned competences will be the
directives.36 Unlike the former TEU no exclusion of direct effect is provided for. As a result,
direct effect will be applied in respective relations if classical conditions will be fulfilled
(measure is clear, precise, unconditional). Of course, it must be assumed, in my view, that
also other current Community (and future Union) principles (anyway largely transposed to the
third pillar through the Pupino ruling and its implications) must apply, if no separate
framework is provided for this area.
Finally, the crucial element of the new framework for police and judicial cooperation in
criminal matters will be the introduction of co-decision procedure (EP and Council sharing
legislative competence) and qualified majority voting within the Council in this field.
36 Only the measures under the article 82(1) TFEU within the field of criminal cooperation and assistance
(recognition, conflict of jurisdiction, facilitation of criminal cooperation as regards proceedings in criminal
matters and the enforcement of decisions) could be adopted even by regulations under the qualified majority
voting.
However, some specific characteristics will apply as well. The so-called mechanism of
emergency brake and enhanced cooperation shall apply in this context.37
As regards the emergency brake, each member of the Council will be entitled to suspend the
ordinary legislative procedure and refer the draft directive to the European Council, when it
considers that fundamental aspects of its criminal justice system would be affected. Within
the time limit of four months the European Council may find the consensus. If this procedure
fails, nine member states will be able to establish enhanced cooperation among themselves on
the basis of draft directive concerned (see Article, 82 (3) and 83 (3) TFEU), while no further
approval is required.
A kind of modified mechanism shall apply in the context of the possible establishment of the
European Public Prosecutor´s Office as well as in the sphere of operational police cooperation
where unanimity is required. In these cases, a group of at least nine member states may refer
the matter to the European Council. Again, if the consensus is not reached within four months
in the European Council, at least nine member states, if they wish so, may establish enhanced
cooperation among themselves in the particular matter, while no further approval is required
(see Article 86(1) (2, 3), 87 (3) (2, 3) TFEU, enhanced cooperation, however, shall not apply
to the development of schengen acquis).
As regards the strengthening of the role of the EP, it has already been mentioned that the EP
will win much of the power in this field. First and foremost, when the ordinary legislative
procedure shall be applied the EP should be treated on equal footing with the Council. It will
be a striking change from the current state of affairs where its role is in principle limited only
to consultation and giving non-binding opinions or issuing declarations. In cases where
unanimity decisions will be taken its consent will be required. However, as some authors
regret,38 there will be still blind areas, where the EP shall not exercise its capacity, such as the
area of defining the strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning within the
area of freedom, security and justice (Article 68 TFEU)39.
Finally, the new role and powers of the national parliaments (NPs) should not be
forgotten. The main new competence, they are granted, is that of the control of the principle
of subsidiarity (and possibly proportionality as well).40 In this area if ¼ of the NPs (each
parliament holding two votes, in bicameral systems one for each chamber) claim breach of the
37 This will, however, not be the case of the competence under article 82(1) TFEU, see the previous note.
38 Weyembergh, A.: Approximation of criminal laws, the constitutional treaty and the Hague programme.
Common Market Law Review, 2005, č. 42, p. 1595, 1596.
39 See the Tampere programme, Hague programme and its Action Plan, accessible at: http://europa.eu/
40 See Article 5 TEU, Article 69 TFEU, Articles, 6 a 7 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of
subsidiarity and proportionality (2007) attached to the Lisbon Treaty.
subsidiarity principle within the 8 weeks from the submission of particular proposal, the
challenged measure must be reviewed by the Commission and decision on maintaining,
withdrawing or amending the measure must be explained. This procedure is called “yellow
card” and as shown cannot block the legislation. Only if ½ of the votes of NPs claim the
same, then first the proposal might be blocked by the majority of the EP or 55% of the
Council. This so-called “orange card” seems to me, however, nearly useless because such a
majority would anyway block the proposal. The “red card” is then used within the context of
general passarelle, or deepening clause, which enables each and every NP to veto the decision
of the European Council to move from unanimity to qualified majority voting (or ordinary
procedure) (see, Article 48(7) TEU)41.
Pros and cons, opportunities and risks of the new framework
The most interesting and challenging issue, I will try to deal with now, is to point (on the
basis of attained experience and concrete examples) to the possible advantages and
disadvantages, as well as opportunities and risks, which the new framework may bring in
contrast to the current state of affairs in the explored area of criminal matters.
In my opinion, the new legal framework may cut off some of the shortfalls inherent in the
current system. The qualified majority voting within the Council may indeed contribute to
attaining better and faster compromises (at least when the emergency breaks are not
activated42) and replace the current prolonged negotiations which more importantly often lead
to the vague and broad compromises, sometimes entailing special exemptions etc.. This “bad
habit” has problematic repercussions both as substantive and procedural aspects are
concerned. First, from a substantive point of view, vague and broad provisions within the
criminal measures may run counter the substantive legality principle,43 the fundamental
principle of a particular importance especially within the criminal field (nullum crimen sine
lege, nulla poena sine lege). Furthermore, the relevant provisions of adopted measures are
often constructed in order to ensure that member states will not be forced to change their laws,
however, then any regulation might become useless and practical added value might be
41 For me it is regretable that at least within the competences under Article 82(2(d) and 83 third par. This
procedure is not envesiged. Such a regulation would support in my view the constitional conformity of these
provisions.
Critically to this mechanism see Monar, J.: Justice and Home Affairs in the EU Constitutional Treaty. What
Added Value for the ‚Area of Freedom, Security and Justice‘ ? European Constitutional Law Review, 2005, č. 1,
p. 241..
43 See, Weyembergh, A.: Approximation of criminal laws, the constitutional treaty and the Hague programme.
Common Market Law Review, 2005, č. 42, p. 1588 – 1590.
missed. On the other hand, these vague and broad definitions may be “sent” to the ECJ, which
then may give a more specific and controversial meaning to their words, also contrary to the
intent of its drafters and legislators (see some judgements on ne bis in idem). Thus
paradoxically the meant advantage may turn to be a great disadvantage for its creators as well.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that the introduction of qualified majority voting to a
large area of substantive and procedural criminal law and certain aspects of both police and
criminal cooperation might give rise to undue over-regulation, centralization and unification,
which will not take into account legitimate national specifics arising from different
environments and legal traditions. To find the blocking minority in the qualified majority
environment will be much harder than it is in the current unanimity environment (indeed,
practitioners argue that even in the environment of unanimity it is practically necessary to find
at least some other “co-fighters”). In this environment the Commission will be able to push
ahead much more comfortably its proposals, even problematic ones. Let´ s mention two
examples from the procedural and substantive criminal field – one abandoned, one still
negotiated. The first was a draft framework decision on certain procedural rights within the
criminal proceedings44. This draft was put to the ice, when one “big” (UK) and about four
“small” states (including the Czech republic) effectively rejected it. There were good reasons
for such a stance, in my view. Besides the unclear legal basis (which under the Lisbon Treaty
will no longer be the case) there were among others reasonable objections as to the added
value of this measure, in this field, which has already been well occupied by the ECHR rules
and the Strasbourg case-law, which could be threatened or weakened through the possible
divergent case-law of the ECJ. Another example of the problematic criminal law proposal of
the Commission, in this case from the substantive criminal law field, both as regards legal
basis (again with the Lisbon Treaty the competence will be also clearly established in this
field and it will not be necessary to found it on extensive reading of the expansive ECJ caselaw
as introduced in Environmental crimes and Ship source pollution) but mainly as regards
the lack of necessity of such a regulation, is the Commission proposal for a directive on
sanctioning of employers of illegally staying third country nationals45, which includes also the
proposals for criminalizing the employers of third country nationals. This directive (among
44 See, document 10287/07, Brussels, 5 June 2007, Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union.
45 See, document COM(2007) 249 final Brussels, 16.5.2007, Proposal for a directive of the EP and of the Council providing for sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals, especially Art. 3, 10 – 13. other objections) seems me to be both contrary to the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality, especially for the lack of a clear justification. It was not explained, if the member states are really not able to tackle the illegal immigration on their own. It was not shown that this proposal might serve its aim (really effective fight against illegal
immigration). No statistics were delivered as regards the so-called secondary flows of illegal
immigrants and so-called “nasty” employers, who are able to “count well” and “run their
business with illegal migrant workers” if not harshly criminalized by the Community.
Proportionality was not considered properly as well (should not it be left up to the member
states to decide on criminal or administrative sanctioning). Also some of the concepts
involved (e.g. exploiting working conditions) could be objected from the point they contradict
the substantive legality principle and other elements for other reasons (proportionality of
criminalizing 4 illegal migrants or repeated employment of illegal migrant workers). Last but
not least the criminal law imperative of ultima ratio was not in my view well observed as
well.46

I will stop here. I just wanted to illustrate, the problems, which occur in the criminal field
nowadays and which may effectively be aggravated if the Lisbon Treaty comes into force.
However, to be fair, it must be remembered that with the Lisbon framework not only qualified
majority comes, but also emergency brakes and enhanced cooperation, as well as somehow
strengthened subsidiarity control exercised by the NPs may be applied. If these brakes were
not inserted in the Lisbon Treaty framework, I would probably argue without any hesitance,
that the new framework creates a dangerous engine, which will produce possibly harmless
(procedural rights) and unnecessary (criminalizing employers of illegal migrants) Union
criminal legislation. Because, the brakes are there, I am cautious to absolutely reject the new
framework. However, I admit, that it is the question, whether these brakes are sufficient,
especially when considered in the whole context, where the ECJ gained the full jurisdiction
over Union criminal matters, The Commission its infringement powers and the
integrationistic-oriented EP gained in principle the equal legislative powers as the Council.
To sum up, the Lisbon treaty does form a kind of risk and a great deal of adventure at the
same time. But maybe the actors will surprise, manage and pass the test somehow. Maybe,
they will not.
46 I had an opportunity to take part in a partly negotiating of this instrument and preparing positions of the Czech republic as well. However, these are my personal remarks and reflections only. See also brilliant critical reflection on the same matter in: Dawes, A., Lynskey, O.: The ever-longer arm of EC law: The extension of Community competence into the field of criminal law. Common Market Law Review, 2008, č. 45, p. 147 – 151 and as regards the possible IP criminal area and competition area, 145 – 147, respectively 151 – 155.

Will the advantages or disadvantages prevail? The result of the play or the whole game will
depend upon many variables. Will the ministers invoke fundamentals of their respective
criminal systems? Will the European Council be able to come to consensus or will it start in
fact enhanced cooperation? Will the enhanced cooperation be exercised? Will those states,
which will abstain resist or be integrated? Will not be then the mutual trust (which seem to be
a fiction in fact nowadays) even more undermined in the multi-speed criminal arena of
enhanced cooperation and more confusing for the law enforcement authorities on the one side
and more attractive for forum-shopping and safe havens-loving criminals on the other side?
Will the NPs boldly take up their roles? Will they raise yellow and orange cards? How will
the Commission and the respective ministers react? And what about the ECJ?
These are the open questions and challenges the Lisbon Treaty brings.

Lets´ come and see. No boring films, no soap operas, are expected. Drama, thriller will come.
Welcome in new “lisbonized” criminal area!

Conclusion
In this paper I focused on describing and analyzing the main developments within the third
pillar of the EU and beyond. I showed, how this intergovernmental pillar and criminal matters
as such have been influenced and subjected to the Community principles, rules and
mechanisms, especially by the expansive ECJ case-law, represented by the judgements such
as Pupino, Environmental Crimes or Ship source pollution. Then I turned my attention to the
novelties introduced by the Lisbon framework in the explored area, both as regards
institutional and functional aspects of the new order, while emphasizing some unique
characteristics newly introduced (emergency brake, enhance cooperation). Finally I tried to
sketch the future advantages, respectively disadvantages and risks of the new order in this
field. I concluded my paper by raising questions as to the future prospects of this area under
the Lisbon Treaty, which represents a true leap into the unknown in this respect.

Literature:
[1] Craig, P., de Búrca, G.: EU Law – Text, Cases and Materials. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2003, s.178- 228; 257-315.
[2] Čakrt, F.: Nástin komunitarizace v rámci III. pilíře. Trestněprávní revue, 2007, č. 1, s.
4 – 12.
[3] Dawes, A., Lynskey, O.: The ever-longer arm of EC law: The extension of
Community comeptence into the field of criminal law. Common Market Law Review,
2008, č. 45, s. 131 – 158.
[4] Kmec, J.: Evropské trestní právo. Mechanismy europeizace trestního práva a vytváření
skutečného evropského trestního práva, Praha: C.H.Beck, 2006, s. 230.
[5] Komárek, J.: „Tentýž čin“ v prostoru svobody, bezpečnosti a práva. Jurisprudence,
2006, č. 3, s. 51 – 57.
[6] Monar, J.: Justice and Home Affairs in the EU Constitutional Treaty. What Added
Value for the ‚Area of Freedom, Security and Justice‘ ? European Constitutional Law
Review, 2005, č. 1, s. 226 – 246.
[7] Peers, S.: Salvation outside the church: Judicial protection in the third pillar after the
Pupino and Segi judgments. Common Market Law Review, 2007, č. 44, s. 883 – 929.
[8] Spaventa, E.: Opening Pandora´s Box: Some reflections on the Constitutional Effects
of the Decision in Pupino. European Constitutional Law Review, 2007, č. 3, s. 5 – 24.
[9] Týč, V.: Působení práva Evropské unie ve sféře českého právního řádu In: Evropský
kontext vývoje českého práva po roce 2004: sborník z workshopu konaného na
Právnické fakultě MU v Brně dne 26.9.2006. 1. vyd. Brno: Masarykova univerzita,
2006, s. 10-28.
[10] Weyembergh, A.: Approximation of criminal laws, the constitutional treaty and
the Hague programme. Common Market Law Review, 2005, č. 42, s. 1567 – 1597.
Case-law of the Court of Justice:
[1] C-105/03, „Pupino,“ 16. 6. 2005
[2] C-176/03, „Environmental crimes,“ 13. 9. 2005
[3] C-440/05, „Ship source pollution,“ 23. 10. 2007
[4] C-355/04 P, „Segi,“ 27. 2. 2007
[5] C-303/05, „European arrest warrant,“ (Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW), 3. 5. 2007
Kontaktní údaje na autora – email:
michael.svarc@volny.cz