Multi-Offenders In (Double) Jeopardy – Towards Cross-Border Prosecution and Sentencing Rules for Offenders Who Have Committed Multiple Offences

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 256-284
Author(s):  
Nele Audenaert ◽  
Wendy De Bondt
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Double Jeopardy ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Procedural Safeguards

The European freedom of movement has led to an increase of criminal cases with a cross-border element. Offenders can easily commit multiple offences on the territory of different Member States or can easily move from one Member State to another after having committed an offence. This might result in some proportionality concerns, since being prosecuted more than once and being punished more than once might cause extra (unjustified) distress on the offender. There is thus a dire need for European rules on prosecution and sentencing in cases with a cross-border element. In this regard, several EU rules are being analysed, more specifically in the light of the prosecution and sentencing of multi-offenders. Of course, the ne bis in idem principle is one of the main rules in this context. It will appear that the ne bis in idem principle’s field of application is still too restricted, too contested and even too unexplored. Not all defendants can enjoy the procedural safeguards called to life by the ne bis in idem principle, nor does unanimity exist with regard to which offenders can invoke the principle. Unfortunately, the more recent legal instruments neither succeed in providing some more procedural safeguards and some more legal certainty for all defendants. This contribution will analyse the lack of procedural safeguards for multi-offenders due to the limited ne bis in idem principle and the non-complementary fields of application of other judicial cooperation instruments on both the prosecution and sentencing level and will make some recommendations in this regard.

Hard Way from Extradition to European Arrest Warrant

2010 ◽  
pp. 22-31
Author(s):  
O. Potyomkina
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
Existing Problems ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
National Boundaries ◽  
The Eu

The article is referred to a hard way of the European Arrest Warrant adoption, which became the first tool in the field of judicial cooperation on criminal cases having embodied the judicial decisions mutual recognition principle. The foundation of a single European Arrest Warrant with due regard to all existing problems of its appliance is a significant breakthrough in the EU states cooperation, given that it forces them to rely on each other's legislation. The European Warrant was designed to efface national boundaries in the sphere of court cooperation, to establish a "freedom of movement" and a single market of judicial decisions.

Criminal Jurisdiction—Concurrent Jurisdiction, Sovereignty, and the Urgent Requirement for Coordination

2021 ◽  
pp. 81-114
Author(s):  
Julia Hörnle
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Double Jeopardy ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Limited Application ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Conflicts Of Jurisdiction

Chapter 4 provides an incisive introduction to criminal jurisdiction and the internet, setting the scene for the chapters on jurisdiction of the criminal courts (Chapter 5) and investigative jurisdiction (Chapter 6). It explains the concurrency of criminal jurisdiction in international law and analyses the problems arising. In particular, there are two main conflicts of jurisdiction: first, the multiple, overlapping claims of jurisdiction between several states and the risk of multiple prosecutions for the same crime (or no prosecutions, as no state has sufficient evidence or motivation; second, jurisdictional overreach where conduct is lawful in one country, but a criminal offence in another country who wishes to prosecute, potentially causing jurisdictional overreach and spill-over effects. The chapter begins by setting out the grounds of jurisdiction under international law. An examination of the cross-border implications of cybercrime follows, distinguishing three discrete aspects of the cross-border nature of cybercrime and analysing the nature of jurisdictional conflicts under the lens of territoriality and connecting factors. It analyses how a better coordination of jurisdictional claims might be achieved under comity and reasonableness principles, and coordination under EU law, such as the Eurojust Guidelines and the EU Framework Decision. Finally, it critically analyses the ambit of double jeopardy and the ne bis in idem principles and their limited application. Conflicts of criminal jurisdiction, and the potential of multiple prosecutions of defendants for the same offence, call for greater international cooperation between states and coordination rules between different legal orders. However, the development of coordination rules in respect of national criminal jurisdiction is in its infancy.

Part III The EU Resolution Regime, 11 Institutional and Cross-Border Issues

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gleeson Simon ◽  
Guynn Randall
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Single Resolution Mechanism ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Credit Institutions

This chapter examines how the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive is implemented in international and cross-border situations, both within the EU and between the EU and third countries. The BRRD requires each member state to recognize in their law the effect of resolution actions taken by other member states. This means that as regards foreign resolution action which purports to transfer assets located in their jurisdiction, or rights or liabilities governed by their law, or write-down or convert liabilities governed by their law or owed to creditors in their jurisdictions, their law must make provision for such transfers or conversions to take effect automatically and cannot be prevented, challenged, or set aside under their law. The chapter covers the scope of the Single Resolution Mechanism, cross-border branching, and the relevant changes to the Credit Institutions (Winding-Up) Directive.

scholarly journals Dano and Alimanovic: the recent evolution of CJEU caselaw on EU citizenship and cross-border access to social benefits

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-80
Author(s):  
Rui Lanceiro
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Social Benefits ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Member States ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Right

Since its inception, the concept of EU citizenship, as well as the rights and duties deriving therefrom, has evolved considerably, particularly in the area of social rights. ECJ case law has played a central role in defining the right of EU citizens to access social benefits in the host Member States, which meant a decrease in their degree of discretion to restrict the access to national social securities systems. However, the recent Dano and Alimanovic judgments represent a significant change from previous case-law, setting limits on the right of EU citizens to social benefits in the host Member States. The right of residence in another Member State appears to be dependent on the status of a worker citizen in accordance with the new methodology in order to avoid being an excessive burden on the social system of the host Member State. However, the new approach still leaves several unanswered questions. Were these decisions an attempt to address the “social security tourism” debate? Is the CJEU falling behind with regard to the protection of social rights? What will remain of previous jurisprudence?

Part V Legal and Conduct Risk in Interconnected Financial Markets, 19 ‘Brexit’

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mccormick Roger ◽  
Stears Chris
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Financial Markets ◽  
Financial Institutions ◽  
Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Legal Risks ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

This chapter considers the legal risks raised by Brexit. These include change of law risk for financial markets and especially for institutions that wish to do cross-border business in the EU. For example, while the UK remains in the EU, financial institutions carrying on certain ‘regulated activities’ are afforded so-called ‘passporting’ rights pursuant to which, broadly, they can take advantage of the fact that they are established and appropriately authorised in one member state to do business in other member states, without the need for separate permissions or authorisations in those other states. If the UK leaves the EU, such passporting rights may be terminated unless the Brexit negotiation results in them being preserved in some way.

Criminal judicial cooperation in the European Union to obtain cross-border evidence

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabet Cerrato-Guri ◽  
Roser Casanova-Martí
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Cross Border

This paper aims to analyze the problems that may arise from the issuance, by a Spanish criminal judge, of a European Investigation Order to request evidence and/or investigative measures from another Member State of the European Union, to incorporate them later to the Spanish criminal process. In particular, we will focus on the difficulties set out by the introduction and subsequent admissibility of the evidence and investigative measure derived from a European Investigation Order that has been issued by a Spanish judge to incorporate its result into the Spanish criminal process.

scholarly journals Art. 22(4) Brussels i regulation and its successoronly only apply to cases concerned with the actual registration or validityof the listed ip rights. Commentary on the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 5 october 2017, c-341/16 = Artículo 22.4 del Reglamento Bruselas I y su sucesor solo se aplican a los casos relacionados con el registro efectivo o la validez de los derechos de propiedad intelectual enumerados. Comentario de la Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea de 5 de octubre de 2017, c-341/16

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 937
Author(s):  
Kilian Sendlmeier
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
General Provision

Abstract: The CJEU reaffirms its established case law on Art. 22(4) Brussels I Regulation (No. 44/2001) and interprets the provision narrowly. Courts in member states in which patents, trade marks, designs, or similar rights that are required to be deposited or registered, have jurisdiction only in cases that are actually concerned with the registration or validity of these IP rights. A case concerned with the potential ownership of such rights falls within the general provision of Art. 2(1) Brussels I and, therefore, is to be brought before courts in the member state where the defendant is domiciled.Keywords: Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters, Brussels I Regulation (No. 44/2001), Jurisdiction under Art. 2(1) and Art. 22(4) Brussels I Regulation, jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with IP rights, registration of property of a trade markResumen: El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea mantiene su jurisprudencia establecida sobre el Art. 22.4 del Reglamento (CE) nº 44/2001 de Bruselas I e interpreta este artículo en sentido estricto. Los tribunales de los Estados miembros en los que se exige el depósito o el registro de patentes, marcas, dibujos y modelos u otros derechos similares solo son competentes en los casos en que se la posible titularidad de ese derecho entra en el ámbito de la disposición general del Art. 2.1 del Reglamento Bruselas I y, por lo tanto, debe ser llevado ante los tribunales de aquel estado miembro en el que el demandado esté domiciliado.Palabras clave: Procedimiento prejudicial, Cooperación judicial en materia civil y mercantil, Reglamento (CE) n° 44/2001, Competencia judicial, Artículo 2, apartado 1, Competencia de los órganos jurisdiccionales del domicilio del demandado, Artículo 22, punto 4, Competencia exclusiva en materia detítulos de propiedad intelectual, inscripción como titular de una marca.

Estimating efficiency of Directive 2011/24/EU cross-border healthcare in member states

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. 827-834
Author(s):  
Mustapha D Ibrahim ◽  
Mevhibe B Hocaoglu ◽  
Berna Numan ◽  
Sahand Daneshvar
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Healthcare Policy ◽  
Data Envelopment ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Patients Rights ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Country Level ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Patients Experience

Aim: Directive 2011/24/EU on patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare facilitates EU citizens' access to and reimbursement for healthcare provided or prescribed in a member state other than the member state of affiliation. Materials & methods: The efficiency of cross-border healthcare policy is evaluated using data envelopment analysis of relevant items in Eurobarometer Survey on Safety and Quality of Care and Patients’ Rights in the EU. Results: Our study shows policy inefficiency in 52% of the 25 EU member states included in the analysis. Addressing difficulties patients encounter while seeking reimbursement from their national health service or health insurer and reducing the number of adverse events patients experience when receiving healthcare improves policy efficiency. Conclusion: Our findings confirm that there is country-level variation in cross-border healthcare policy efficiency.

scholarly journals UNION REGULATIONS ON PASSENGER RIGHTS IN CASE OF FLIGHT CANCELLATION, REFUSAL AT BOARDING OR LONG DELAY OF FLIGHTS

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-36
Author(s):  
ELISE NICOLETA VÂLCU
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
State Level ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Law System ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters

The European Union is a "supranational governance" structured by its well-defined institutions. The decision-making triangle formed by the Commission, the Parliament and the Council legislate in agreement or consultation, covering the whole picture of policies developed at EU level and implemented at Member State level. Among the most important developed policies, it is necessary to mention the freedom of movement of the Union nationals, freedom of movement of goods and services, judicial cooperation in criminal matters, etc. Freedom of movement implies a series of segmental rights, such as the right to temporary or permanent residence, the right to work, to travel and study, etc. The Union law system identifies legal instruments to regulate the rights of passengers traveling within the Union, from the Union to a third country, or arriving in the territory of a Member State irrespective of the type of transport, air, rail, water or road.At present, in the field of air transport we identify Regulation no. 261/2004 on the right to compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of refusal of boarding and cancellation or long delay of flights, which is part of a comprehensive package of legislation aimed at protecting consumers in general across the European Union.

scholarly journals THE EUROPEAN ORDER FOR PAYMENT PROCEDURE

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina-Marilena Gheorghe
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
European Community ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Decisions ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The One ◽  
Commercial Field

In the spirit of the Treaty of institution of the European Community and consideringthe need to maintain and develop a space of freedom, security and justice in the purpose ofthe free circulation of individuals, of goods, services and commodities, the Communityconsidered as opportune the adoption of certain measures in the field of judicial cooperationin civil and commercial field, which to have a cross-border incidence, therefore instituting, onEuropean level, a new freedom, the one of free circulation of the legal decisions. Therefore, itwas adopted the (EC) Regulation no. 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and Council asof 12.12.2006 regarding the institution of an European procedure of payment order, of whichpurpose is the one to simplify, to accelerate and reduce the procedure costs in the crossbordercauses regarding non-challenged pecuniary receivables, also ensuring the freecirculation of the European orders for payment within all the member states by establishingsome minimum standards of which compliance removes any other intermediary procedure inthe member state of execution before acknowledging the execution1.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document