28 Counterfeiting of the euro and
other currencies
| (34678)
6152/13
+ ADDs 1-3
COM(13) 42
| Directive on the protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA
|
| Legal base | Article 83(1) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Ministry of Justice
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 14 May 2013
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 86-xxxiii (2013-13) chapter 5 (27 February 2013)
|
| Discussion in Council | Now not relevant
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background and previous scrutiny
28.1 The background to the draft Directive and a summary of
its content is set out in our Thirty-third Report.[101]
28.2 In that Report, we recommended the document
for debate in European Committee B owing to the legal significance
of the application of the JHA Title V opt-in provisions to it.
We also requested the Government, as part of that debate, to
respond to the questions we listed in the Conclusions to that
Report.
28.3 The debate was held on Tuesday 23 April,
during which the Government addressed the questions we had raised.[102]
The Government indicated in the debate that it was not minded
to opt into the draft Directive, and now formally notifies us
of its final decision to that effect. A Written Ministerial Statement
notifying the House of the decision was presented on 10 May.[103]
Minister's Letter of 14 May 2013
28.4 The Secretary of State for Justice (Chris
Grayling) tells us although "the fight against counterfeiting
requires robust national laws and effective international cooperation
at the operational level" he is content that existing national
law and the UK's participation in international co-operation (within
the Geneva Convention framework) already provides sufficient and
effective enforcement against counterfeiting. He does not think
that this would be improved by the UK's participation in the Directive,
because this is objectionable for two other reasons:
- the exterritorial powers contained
in the Directive would not be an "effective enforcement tool"
for UK enforcement authorities, particularly as regards UK nationals
involved in counterfeiting activities overseas; and
- the requirement for minimum criminal penalties
for serious counterfeiting would restrict judicial sentencing
discretion in the UK and is inconsistent with EU Council guidance
on legislation on penalties.
Our assessment
28.5 This decision not to opt into the Directive
has implications for UK's JHA Title V block opt-out. As the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary for State for Justice (Jeremy Wright) confirmed
in the European Committee debate, in not participating in this
Directive, the original 2000 Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA on
increasing protection by criminal penalties and other sanctions
against counterfeiting of the euro and other currencies (as amended
by the 2001 Framework Decision 2001/888/JHA) will remain within
the scope of the 2014 block opt-out decision. Had the UK opted
into the new Directive, then the original 2000 decision and the
amending decision would have been repealed when adopted, and therefore
removed from the scope of the block opt-out decision.
Conclusion
28.6 The UK has decided not
to participate in this document for reasons, and with consequences,
of which we were already aware. The Government has also answered,
in the course of the debate in European Committee, all the questions
which we addressed to it in our previous Report. In the absence
of any outstanding issues, we now clear this document from scrutiny.
101 See headnote. Back
102
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmgeneral/euro/130423/130423s01.htm. Back
103
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130510/wmstext/
130510m0001.htm#13051033000007. Back
| 
