Questa tesi affronta l'argomento dell'impatto delle attività dei gruppi criminali condotte all'interno degli Stati Membri dell'Unione europea. Negli ultimi anni l'importanza di questo argomento è stata ampiamente sottolineata soprattutto a livello europeo. La ricerca è stata possibile anche grazie alla partecipazione dell'autrice al progetto di ricerca sulla criminalità organizzata finanziato dalla Commissione europea (VI Programma Quadro) e dimostra come il mondo accademico può rispondere alla necessità di una conoscenza dell'impatto del crimine organizzato che sia comparabile a livello europeo. Si tratta di un primo tentativo di definire i criteri di una metodologia comune europea finalizzata alla misurazione dell'impatto di specifiche attività criminali, ai fini della selezione degli indicatori che rispettano tali criteri; in altre parole, questo lavoro intende offrire un primo studio comprensivo di tutti gli aspetti connessi allo sviluppo di una metodologia comune europea che misuri l'impatto delle attività criminali e di conseguenza creare la base per ulteriori ricerche sull'argomento. / This thesis addresses the topic of the harm caused by organised criminal activities carried out across the EU Member States. It is a topic whose importance has been widely remarked upon, in recent years, especially at EU level. This thesis - that benefits from the participation of the author in a Project on OC harm funded under the VI FP of the European Commission - shows how academics can respond to the need for a comparative knowledge on OC harm at EU level. It is a first attempt to define the criteria of a common EU methodology for measuring the harm caused by selected OC activities, and to identify indicators complying with these criteria, therefore putting forward a possible methodology. In other words, this thesis intends to provide a first comprehensive study that will bring together in a systematic way all the issues related to the development of a common EU methodology assessing the impact of OC activities and, therefore, create the basis for further research on the subject.

La lutte contre la criminalité organisée est, aujourd'hui, une des priorités nationales et internationales. Pour ce faire, les États n'adoptent pas cependant toujours les mêmes solutions, comme le montre l'étude comparative des droits français et koweïtien. Sur le plan substantiel, les deux droits ont de nombreux points communs. La criminalité organisée n'a en effet pas été incriminée en tant que telle, aussi bien par le législateur français que koweïtien. Il existe cependant dans ces deux droits plusieurs incriminations permettant d'appréhender ce phénomène criminel. Il s'agit donc ou bien de lutter contre les organisations criminelles, via l'association de malfaiteurs ou l'entente criminelle, ou bien de lutter contre les activités criminelles commises par ces organisations, via la circonstance aggravante de bande organisée ou de groupe criminel organisé. Pour lutter contre la criminalité organisée, les deux droits adoptent également une politique répressive adaptée notamment en permettant aux repentis de bénéficier d'une exemption ou éventuellement d'une réduction de peine lors qu'ils collaborent avec la justice. Sur le plan procédural, les deux droits ont en revanche adopté une approche différente. Le droit français a prévu, en ce domaine, des règles de procédure dérogatoires au droit commun et a donné compétence à des juridictions spécialisées (les JIRS). Le droit koweïtien, quant à lui, se contente des règles procédurales et des juridictions de droit commun pour appréhender la criminalité organisée. Sur cet aspect, si la spécialisation des juridictions françaises ne semble guère transposable en droit koweïtien, le législateur du Koweït pourrait s'inspirer des règles dérogatoires prévues en droit français pour mieux appréhender la criminalité organisée. / The fight against organized crime is today one of the national and international priorities. To do so, however, the countries do not always adopt the same solutions, as shown by the comparative study of French and Kuwaiti laws. Substantially, the two laws have many points in common. Organized crime has not actually been criminalized as such by French and Kuwaiti legislators. There are, however, several criminalizations to apprehend this criminal phenomenon in these two laws. It is either to fight against criminal organizations, via the conspiracy (association de malfaiteurs/entente criminelle), or to fight against the criminal activities committed by these organizations, via the aggravating circumstance of organized criminal group (bande organisée/groupe criminel organisé). To fight against organized crime, both laws also adopt an adapted repressive policy that allows the collaborator of justice to be exempted from penalty or to benefit from a reduction of the sentence. Procedurally, the two laws have adopted different approaches. The French law contains some special criminal procedures, applicable to organized crime, that derogate from ordinary criminal procedures. It also conferred on the specialized courts the competence to adjudicate the organized crime cases (the JIRS). The Kuwaiti law, on the other hand, is content with relying on ordinary criminal procedures and ordinary courts to apprehend organized crime. On this aspect, if the specialization of the French courts does not seem to be transposable into Kuwaiti law, the latter can adopt the French special criminal procedures to better combat organized crime.