Abstract: Comparing the special seizure and extended confiscation measures, we consider that Romania,
although later than the deadline indicated in the text of article 6, paragraph 3 of Decision 2005/212/JAI, has
responded positively to the requirements of harmonization of nation al legislation with EU legislation. We
believe, however, th at this regulation on extended seizure has the effect of limiting the requirements of
seizure of goods th rough crime, practically limiting the application of seizure in respect of goods originating
from committing offenses.
Keywords: cross-border crime; safety measures; special confiscation; extended confiscation; goods subject to
Considering that other existing tools in the area, have not contributed effectively to ensure cross-
border cooperation in the matter of seizure, and a number of Member States are not yet able to
effectively confiscate the product of the offenses, the EU Council has adopted Framework Decision
2005 /212/JAI2 on seizure of products, instruments and other goods in connection with the crime.
In the conclusions of the European Council in Vienna in December 1998, were requested greater
efforts at EU level to combat international organized crime in accordance with an action plan detailing
the best way to implement the existing provisions in the Treaty of Amsterdam on an area of freedom,
security and justice3.
According to the Recommendation no. 19 of the Action Plan 2000, entitled “Prevention and control of
organized crime: a European Union strategy for the beginning of the new millennium”4, it required a
careful assessment to determine the need for a tool that, given the positive experiences of Member
States and respecting their fundamental principles, to introduce the possibility of easing rules on the
burden of proof in criminal, civil or tax area, on the source property owned by a person convicted for
the membership in an organized criminal group (Hoffman, 2008, p. 80). Also, according to Article 12
of the United Nations Convention of December 12, 2000 against Transnational Organized Crime,
states should adopt in their domestic legal systems, the measures necessary to allow seizure of
proceeds of crime5.
1 Professor, PhD, Titu Maiorescu University, Romania, Address: 22 Dâmbovnicului S tr., Bucharest 040441, Romania, Tel.:
+40213161646, Corresponding author: email@example.com.
2 Council‟s Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of February 24, 2005, J.O. no. 68, March 15, 2005, pp. 49-51.
3 J.O. number C19 of January 23, 1999, page 1.
4 J.O. number C 124 of May 3, 2000, page 1.
5 Law no. 565/2002 ratifying the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, th e Protocol to prevent,
suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, supplementing the United Nation s Convention
against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocol against the smuggling of migrants by land, sea and air,
supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, adopted at New York in November
15, 2000, published in Official Gazette No. 813 of 8 November 2002.