The Ne Bis in Idem Principle in the Interpretation of European Courts: Towards Uniform Interpretation

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 955-977 ◽  
Author(s):  
NOREL NEAGU
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Criminal Matters

AbstractAs a result of the extension of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union over the former third pillar (Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters), several cases were referred to the Court for interpretation, inter alia, of the dispositions of the Schengen Convention dealing with criminal matters, especially the ne bis in idem principle. This principle was also addressed in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the Supreme Court of the United States. While addressing the problem at international level, this article focuses principally on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights in the field of the ne bis in idem principle, concisely presenting the legal framework, findings of the Courts, and some conclusions on the interpretation of the principle. The study also analyses the absence of uniformity in interpretation and the use of different criteria in addressing identical situations by different courts, or even by the same court, concluding on a (seemingly) fortunate approximation in interpretation at European level.

Ne Bis Interpretatio In Idem?The Two Faces of theNe Bis In IdemPrinciple in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Rosanò
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Regional Custom

The meaning ofidemin thene bis in idemprinciple is controversial in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In interpreting the provision of Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement, the court has emphasized the necessary requirement in the identity of the material acts while in antitrust law three requirements have been deemed necessary: (1) Identity of the facts, (2) unity of offender, and (3) unity of the legal interest protected. Despite the opinions of some Advocates General, the court has confirmed different interpretations of the same principle, depending on differences of the legal scope in question. A few years ago, however, the European Court of Human Rights proclaimed the criterion based on the identity of the material acts as the most suitable. This might push the Court of Justice of the European Union to correct its position in the antitrust field. Should this happen, this adjustment might serve as grounds to recognize the existence of a regional custom concerning thene bis in idemprinciple.

‘Unionisation’ of the European Court of Human Rights’ ne bis in idem jurisprudence: the Case of Mihalache v Romania

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-239
Author(s):  
Cedric Serneels
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Relevant Case

This article analyses the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Mihalache v Romania. In the judgment, the Court, dealing with the application of the ne bis in idem principle, further elaborates on the different components of the concept ‘final acquittal or conviction’ under Article 4 of Protocol No 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights. The author studies this aspect of the ruling through the lens of judicial dialogue and examines in particular the influence of relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the ECtHR’s reasoning.

scholarly journals Castaño avoids a clash between the ECtHR and the CJEU, but erodes Soering. Thinking human rights transnationally

2020 ◽  
pp. 203228442097974
Author(s):  
Sibel Top ◽  
Paul De Hert
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Union Member ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
European Union Member States

This article examines the changing balance established by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) between human rights filters to extradition and the obligation to cooperate and how this shift of rationale brought the Court closer to the position of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in that respect. The article argues that the ECtHR initially adopted a position whereby it prioritised human rights concerns over extraditions, but that it later nuanced that approach by establishing, in some cases, an obligation to cooperate to ensure proper respect of human rights. This refinement of its position brought the ECtHR closer to the approach adopted by the CJEU that traditionally put the obligation to cooperate above human rights concerns. In recent years, however, the CJEU also backtracked to some extent from its uncompromising attitude on the obligation to cooperate, which enabled a convergence of the rationales of the two Courts. Although this alignment of the Courts was necessary to mitigate the conflicting obligations of European Union Member States towards both Courts, this article warns against the danger of making too many human rights concessions to cooperation in criminal matters.

Between Informal Dialogue and Official Criticism

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 409-420
Author(s):  
Anna Podolska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Proceedings

Abstract There are various forms of jurisdictional dialogue. In addition to drawing from the case law of another court or seeking direct assistance of such another court in passing the judgment, we can notice in practice situations when by issuing a verdict the courts are communicating with each other. The rulings of the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the free movement of judgments in the European Union and protection of fundamental rights are the example of such activities. Each of these bodies was interpreting separately the extent to which the mechanisms of recognising and executing the judgments may interfere with the level of protection of fundamental rights. A common conclusion concerns assigning the priority to protection of fundamental rights, while individual bodies were determining differently the standards of such protection. The analysed judgments can be construed as a communication between these bodies. Although no direct discussion takes place between these courts, this is still a form of interaction which affects the development of the case law and understanding of the boundaries of mutual recognition of judgments and protection of human rights within judicial proceedings.

The Past, Present and Future of the Ne Bis In Idem Dialogue between the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights: The Cases of Menci, Garlsson and Di Puma

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-84
Author(s):  
Max Vetzo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Market Abuse ◽  
The Past ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem

The cases of Menci (C-524/15), Garlsson (C-537/16) and Di Puma (C-596/16 and C-597/16) deal with the duplication of criminal and punitive administrative proceedings for the same conduct in the area of VAT and market abuse. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that this duplication of proceedings constitutes a limitation of the ne bis in idem principle of Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Charter). This infringement is only justified if the requirements of the limitation clause of Article 52(1) of the Charter are met. The judgments were highly anticipated as they constitute the response of the CJEU to the judgment in A and B v Norway delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in which the ECtHR lowered the level of protection afforded by the ne bis in idem principle of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention of Human Rights (A4P7 ECHR). While there are differences between the approaches taken by both courts, it appears that the reasoning of the CJEU in the judgments largely mirrors that of the ECtHR in A and B v Norway. This article frames the judgments in terms of the dialogue between the CJEU and ECtHR on the ne bis in idem principle. It does so chronologically, by focusing on the past, present and future of the ne bis in idem dialogue between both European courts.

scholarly journals THE NON BIS IN IDEM PRINCIPLE IN THE CASE LAW OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION - CONSISTENCY OR INCONSISTENCY?

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-34
Author(s):  
Darius-Dennis Pătrăuș
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Widespread Application ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters

The non bis in idem principle was first established in the Hammurabi Code (2,500 BC), under the name of res judicata pro veritate habetur.According to the non bis in idem principle, "no one is allowed to be summoned again in court or punished in another criminal case for the same criminal offense for which he has already been convicted or acquitted under the law of a state". The non bis in idem principle has a broad field of application in the field of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters.The harmonization of Member States' laws and the abolition of borders at EU level created the premises for the widespread application of the non bis in idem principle.For this reason, the Court of Justice of the European Union has been charged with interpreting the rule, namely the non bis in idem principle, as regulated in art. 54 CISA.At the present stage of regulation, an interpretation contrary to the non bis in idem principle would be likely to erode the right and affect international judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

The Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights Four Years after Opinion 2/13: Should We Lose Hope?

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 222-250
Author(s):  
Anna Francesca Masiero
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
Principle Of Legality

The accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights is an issue frequently addressed by (not only internationalist) legal scholars, who stress that it would allow for an optimisation of the level of protection of fundamental rights in the European legal area. After reviewing the historical stages of accession, this paper focuses on the second opinion of the Court of Justice regarding it (Opinion 2/13 of 2014). Therein, accession is presented as an unattainable goal, probably because of the refusal of the Court of Justice to submit to the other European court, the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights. Subsequently, the paper reviews the possible effects of accession on the current legal scenario with special attention to the Italian legal system. Finally, it aims at figuring out how accession could affect criminal matters: in particular, by means of an example concerning the principle of legality, the purpose is to demonstrate how accession could lead to an improvement of the criminal guarantees of the European legal area.

The Relationship Between the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights: an Originalist Analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 482-511
Author(s):  
Stephen Brittain
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Relationship

European Convention on Human Rights and the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights: relationship – Teleological method of interpretation of the European Court of Justice: meaning, justifications, and criticisms – Originalist method of interpretation: meaning, justifications, and criticisms – Original meaning of Article 52(3) of the Charter: text, drafting history, case law – Conclusion: case law of European Court of Human Rights not strictly binding on the Court of Justice of the European Union.

scholarly journals Ne bis in idem: a separation of acts in transnational cases?

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-115
Author(s):  
Márk Némedi
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This paper analyses the case-law of the European Court of Justice on the substantive scope of ne bis in idem in transnational cases and evaluates the findings in light of the different concepts of legal interests inherent in the concept of crime as a material notion. I argue that the application of the interpretation of the ECJ to crimes against collective interests is insufficiently justified. As a result, the interpretation of ne bis in idem based on material facts appears only partially correct and a sense of distrust seems to be cemented between member states creating obstacles to a successful reform of the principle. Part one attempts to defend that the reasoning put forward by the court lacks relevance and evaluates how this affects mutual trust. Part two analyses this interpretation in the light of different forms of legal interest. Part three examines how later case-law has tried to explain the problematic interpretation of early cases and its relationship with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The article will conclude by summarising the findings which may put into perspective the more general challenges of cooperation in criminal matters within the EU.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document