The aim of this thesis is to analyse the EU approach to the question of the legitimacy of criminal law. In particular, it enquires into what theoretical justifications does the EU legal order acknowledges as legitimating the resort to harmonized criminal law as a regulatory instrument. Moreover, it enquires if the selected approach is consistent with the identity the EU has set for itself, as a ‘fundamental rights sensitive’ kind of supranational organization, as established at Article 2 TEU, which includes the respect of fundamental rights as one of EU founding values. This research aims at complementing the existing literature theorising on harmonisation of substantive criminal law as a strategy for integration, which has to date primarily focused on the extent of the EU competences, and on the relation between harmonisation and other strategies of integration, such as mutual recognition. The aspect of the impact of the exercise of these EU competences on individuals and of what are the envisaged justifications for that has been to date underexplored. This thesis aims at filling this gap. In doing so it aims at contributing to the systemic understanding of EU criminal law testing its developments against a EU constitutional law benchmark. In terms of methodology, the thesis relies on a criminal legal theory framework, which distinguishes between a normative, value-based approach to the justifications for criminal law, and an instrumental, mainly enforcement-based approach. It tailors these concepts to the supranational level, by combining criminalisation theory concepts with theories on harmonisation. In terms of sources, when enquiring the EU approach to the criminal law, the thesis looks at EU primary law (principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and EU competences to harmonise substantive criminal law); EU policy documents (multi-annual programs and ad hoc EU criminalisation policy documents) and EU secondary law (especially the Racism and Xenophobia Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia and on the 2014 Market Abuse Directive).In terms of structure, the thesis devotes the first two chapters to the delineation of the theoretical framework, discussing criminal legal theories on the subject of of the legitimacy of criminal law, and theories on harmonisation of criminal norms. This part is aimed at identifying the analytical tools through which EU primary law, EU secondary law and EU policy documents are analysed in the following 5 chapters. A final chapter draws the relevant conclusions as to the consistency of the EU approach to the legitimacy of criminal law with the EU constitutional law framework. The findings of the thesis illustrate how the EU has not been consistent in its approach to the legitimacy of EU criminal law and it identifies a number of micro-ruptures between the approach in different historical phases; but also between different layers (EU primary and secondary law as well as policy documents) during the same period; and between different policy areas (e.g. EU criminal law was used to protect the security of EU citizens, and when to secure the achievement of EU policies). The thesis nonetheless identifies a macro-synchrony, which sees an historical progressive acknowledgement of a normative approach in a previously pre-existing instrumental context. This progress was positively evaluated as it contributed to increase the coherence of EU criminal law with EU constitutional law benchmarks. / Doctorat en Sciences juridiques / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

La recherche s’intéresse aux rapports qu’entretiennent le droit de l’UE et les systèmes répressifs nationaux italien et français. Elle vise notamment à analyser les problèmes posés par l’influence croissante des sources européennes sur l’exercice par les Etats du droit de punir. Elle analyse également la compatibilité des obligations européennes de punir par rapport au principe de la légalité des délits et des peines, consacré au niveau constitutionnel en Italie et en France. En effet, quoiqu’issus d’une même tradition romano-germanique, ces deux systèmes semblent consacrer des conceptions sensiblement différentes du principe de la légalité. Par exemple, alors que le droit italien conçoit la légalité surtout comme relevant de la loi au sens formel, le système français semble insister sur la clarté, l’intelligibilité et l’accessibilité de la norme pénale qui seules peuvent en assurer la prévisibilité. Compte tenu de la pratique de la Cour de Justice d'interpréter le droit européen selon les traditions communes aux États membres, la comparaison entre les systèmes juridiques de deux États membres permettra de mieux apprécier les choix opérés dans le cadre de l'harmonisation européenne en matière pénale.Une fois le principe défini, la deuxième partie du travail se concentre sur la possibilité d'utiliser les obligations de criminalisation et la primauté du droit de l'Union pour protéger les droits fondamentaux des victimes. A ce propos le travail vise à un équilibre entre légalité pénale et protection effective des droits fondamentaux qui découlent de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme et de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne.Descripteurs : Principe de légalité des délits et des peines, obligations d’incrimination ; droit pénal comparé ; droit pénal européen ; droits fondamentaux ; droits des victimes. / The research focuses on the influence of the EU competence in criminal law on Italian and French criminal systems. More specifically it refers to the impact of this competence on the traditional principle of legality and on individual safeguards it represents. The first part deals with the increasing Union’s power to impose specific obligations of criminalization in relation to the fundamental principle of legality in criminal law. This principle acquires different meanings according to different national systems. While in Italy it is mainly conceived as a statute monopoly, France considers clarity, ascertainability and foreseeability of criminal norms as the main aspect. The research analyses whether it is possible to set aside certain national specific features in order to achieve a new European common definition of the principle of legality. Given the practice of the Court of Justice to interpret Union law according to traditions common to Member States, the research has been conducted following a comparative approach. A comparative analysis makes it possible to better assess the choices made by the European Union towards harmonization in criminal matters.The second part of the thesis concerns the possibility to use EU obligations of criminalization and the primacy of Union law to protect fundamental interest, in particular fundamental rights of victims. The research aims therefore at finding a compromise between the legality principle in criminal law and an effective protection of fundamental rights stemming from the European Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of fundamental rights of the EU.Keywords: Principle of legality ; obligations of criminalisation ; comparative criminal law ; EU criminal law ; fundamental rights; victims’ rights.