| 000 | 03042nam a22002537a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | ES-MaBCA | ||
| 005 | 20170315102913.0 | ||
| 008 | 120810t xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 020 | _a978-92-9168-939-2 | ||
| 024 |
_2doi _a10.2810/777512 |
||
| 040 | _cES-MaBCA | ||
| 245 |
_aNew psychoactive substances in Europe _h[Recurso electrónico]PDF _b: Legislation and prosecution — current challenges and solutions |
||
| 260 |
_bPublications Office of the European Union _c2016 _aLuxembourg |
||
| 300 |
_a30 p. _fRecurso online |
||
| 520 | _aWith nearly 300 new psychoactive substances (NPS) reported to the EU’s early warning system in the 2013-2015 period, the evolution of the European market for NPS has accelerated to a speed that the public authorities’ established response — drug control laws — has struggled to match. Varying legal responses have been introduced in different countries, whether: by using existing laws that focused on consumer or health protection or medicinal products; by modifying drug laws to introduce group definitions of substances under control; or by developing innovative new legislation. Use of medicinal product laws — which are based on an EU directive — was challenged in the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which ruled in 2014 that substances are not medicinal products if they do not have beneficial effects on human health. As a result, Eurojust and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) were called upon to consider challenges for judicial cooperation and explore creative solutions to address the problems related to the prosecution of non-controlled NPS. The first part of this joint report is aimed at policymakers. It lists four challenges in NPS control, and then describes the different legislative solutions used in many of the Member States. Focusing on the innovative new laws that are designed to address the issue, the report gives the reader a breakdown of their key elements: the criteria used to define NPS; the systems for listing them; and the penalties for non-compliance. The second part of the report is aimed at legal practitioners. It outlines the NPS judgment of the CJEU and its practical effects on transnational prosecution of NPS cases, and describes the responses of some of the Member States most affected by the ruling. Combining the top-level monitoring activities of the EMCDDA with the operational experience of Eurojust in transnational prosecutions, this joint report aims to provide succinct but useful information to the key actors in this area. | ||
| 650 | 0 |
_91961 _aDrogas |
|
| 650 | 0 |
_911554 _aDrogas _xControl _xCooperación internacional _2embne |
|
| 650 | 0 |
_91959 _aLegislación |
|
| 650 | 0 |
_91178 _aInvestigación |
|
| 651 | 0 |
_91574 _aPaíses de la Unión Europea |
|
| 710 |
_92663 _aObservatorio Europeo de Drogas y Toxicomanías |
||
| 856 | 4 |
_uhttp://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/3353/TD0416736ENN.pdf _y *DESCARGAR PDF* |
|
| 942 |
_2udc _cINF _kBoletín UE _mNoviembre 2016 |
||
| 999 |
_c19189 _d19192 |
||