BRUSSELS unveiled detailed proposals yesterday that would for the first time create a body of pan-European criminal law and force member states to punish citizens who transgress it.

The European Commission listed seven offences that it insisted should become European crimes immediately, including computer hacking, corporate fraud, people-trafficking and marine pollution.

The ruling means that for the first time in legal history, a British government and Parliament will no longer have the sovereign right to decide what constitutes a crime and what the punishment should be.

The highly controversial announcement, made possible by a European Court of Justice ruling in September, would represent a huge transfer of power from national capitals to the EU. At present member states jealously guard their right to decide what constitutes a criminal offence, and when their citizens should be fined, imprisoned or given criminal records.

The Commission suggested several other offences, including racial discrimination and intellectual property theft, which could become European crimes in the future. It will also set out the level of penalty, such as length of prison sentence, that would apply to each crime.

The announcement is strongly opposed by Britain and many other member states. The Commission is using powers granted by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, the EU’s supreme court, and governments fear that there is little they can do to prevent it. The court ruled that the EU had the right to require member states to create criminal offences, and could dictate the length of prison sentences.

The case before the court in September applied only to environmental law, but the Commission says it means that it can create criminal penalties to enforce the entire body of EU law. A Commission statement said that the court’s reasoning can be applied “to all Community policies and freedoms which involve binding legislation with which criminal penalties should be associated in order to ensure their effectiveness”.

The seven crimes announced by the Commission are counterfeiting euro notes and coins; credit card and cheque fraud; money laundering; people-trafficking; computer hacking and virus attacks; corruption in the private sector; and marine pollution. The possible future EU crimes are intellectual property theft; racial discrimination and incitement to racial hatred; trafficking in human organs and tissue; and corruption in awarding public contracts.

The Commission said that it would create criminal offences at the European level only when absolutely necessary, and only generally for cross-border crimes. “We do not want to have criminal penalties everywhere,” a senior official said. “We do not want to criminalise all EU law. We only want it when it is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of EU law.”

Under the new regime, the Commission has the right to propose European crimes and the level of penalties, which will then have to be approved by a majority vote in the European Parliament and by a majority of EU members.

A member state that opposed the crime will still have to introduce it if a sufficient number of other EU states voted for it. If a government were to refuse to implement the EU legislation, it could be hauled before the European Court of Justice, which can compel it to do so.

Asked whether the EU could compel Britain to jail its citizens for doing things that the British Government and Parliament did not consider a crime, a Commission lawyer replied: “Yes, but it is very unlikely.”

Timothy Kirkhope, the leader of the Conservative MEPs, said: “It was clear from the Commission’s delight after the Court’s ruling in September that it would waste no time in making full use of this massive extension of its powers.”

The British Government has always strongly opposed interference by Brussels in criminal law, and said that it would examine the Commission’s announcement before deciding how to respond. But if most other member states go along with the Commission, there will be little that Britain can do.

Other member states are also consulting their lawyers. One EU diplomat said: “It may be that we decide the importance of having an EU approach is so high, and the chances of being outvoted so slight, that we can go along with it.”

EU CRIMES

BEING CONSIDERED

Intellectual property theft

Racial discrimination and incitement to racial hatred

Trafficking in human organs and tissue

Corruption in awarding public contracts

Times Recommends

• Rio Tinto four held as China prepares case
• Diplomats must keep heads down and trousers up
• When in Rome should one make like Berlusconi?