The aim of the thesis is to find out whose interests are promoted by the European Parliament Committee rapporteurs in a legislative process. The thesis tries to show on the case study of approving the Passenger Name Record (PNR) directive if the rapporteurs of the directive who influence the most the negotiations are influenced by their national party, the national government, the EP political group or by their own ideological interests. It was supposed that a very political topic as the directive PNR undoubtedly is, would be influenced the most by the national governments which alongside France tried to react on the terrorist attack in Paris in 2015 by adopting the directive and improving the security situation in the Europe. Through the interviews with the representatives of the EP political groups and content analysis of the relevant documents, the thesis concludes that in the concrete case of PNR directive, the interests of the governments are not the most significant but the ideological interests of the rapporteurs are. They are either in line with the interest of the EU citizens' better security situation or better protection of their personal data. The rapporteurs voted according to ability to push their interests to the directive proposal.

Centrée sur le droit pénal face à la migration transfrontière, la présente étude prend le parti d’intégrer en son sein deux formes de migration spécifiques : la migration irrégulière et la migration pour motif terroriste. Elle choisit également de faire du droit pénal son objet central. Ce choix conduit naturellement à renverser les perspectives initiales et à envisager, non les effets du droit pénal sur la migration transfrontière, mais l’inverse : les incidences de la migration transfrontière sur le droit pénal. À cet égard, migration irrégulière et migration pour motif terroriste ont en commun d’ébranler le droit pénal. Face à la migration irrégulière, le droit pénal subit une instrumentalisation : sa mobilisation n’est effectuée que dans une finalité administrative d’éloignement de la migration présente à la frontière (particulièrement dans les zones d’attente et frontalières). Plus encore, la politique de prévention contre l’immigration irrégulière développée à l’échelle de l’Union européenne a entraîné un véritable enchevêtrement de normes pénales, agissant dans de multiples espaces géographiques, dont certaines sont détournées afin d’entraver la migration en mer, et d’autres créées pour l’empêcher de se former sur terre, au sein des États tiers de départ. À l’inverse, le droit pénal apparaît absent face à la migration pour motif terroriste. Alors qu’il pourrait se saisir de ce phénomène, il semble au contraire dépassé par la montée en puissance de mesures de police administrative. De nature à anticiper d’une manière quasiment prédictive le risque terroriste porté par la migration transfrontière, ces mesures entraînent l’obsolescence du droit pénal. Penser le droit pénal face à la migration transfrontière permet enfin de révéler que la migration irrégulière et la migration pour motif terroriste sont liées par le droit, en étant envisagées sous le prisme du risque qu’elles portent en elle. / This study focuses on the link between criminal law and crossborder migration and will address two specific forms of migration : irregular migration and migration with a terrorist purpose. The main focus of this study is criminal law. This choice has resulted in a reversal of the original focus ; that is to say the effects of crossborder migration on criminal law as opposed to the effects of criminal law on crossborder migration. Both irregular migration and migration with a terrorist purpose undermine criminal law. With respect to irregular migration, criminal law is used as an administrative instrument to repel migrants from national borders particularly those in waiting zones and crossborder zones. Prevention policies against irregular migration implemented at the EU level have resulted in an entanglement of criminal norms, in various geographic areas, some of them were diverted to prevent migration by sea and other were created to stop migrants trying to enter by land via third countries. On the contrary, criminal law seems absent with regards to migration with a terrorist purpose. While it could effectively tackle this phenomenon, it seems overwhelmed by the rise of administrative police measures. These measures are able to anticipate in a quasi-predictive manner the risk of terrorism via crossborder migration and they in fact render criminal law ineffective. Thinking criminal law in the face of crossborder migration has allowed to reveal that irregular migration and migration with a terrorist purpose are legally contected, when they are considered through the prism of the risk conveyed.