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.

9 Article 13 EC: Mere Rhetoric or a Harbinger of Change?

1998 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 175-197
Author(s):  
Lisa Waddington
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

Since the signing of the Treaty on European Union in Maastricht in 1992, calls have gradually been increasing for a greater recognition of, and firmer foundation for, fundamental (social) rights within the European Union. These calls naturally became louder following the Opinion of the European Court of Justice excluding the possibility of EC accession to the European Convention of Human Rights and during the lead up to the Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference. Academics, independent EU Advisory Committees, groups representing the interests of EU citizens and residents and the European Parliament lamented the almost complete absence of fundamental social rights in the Treaty, and called for an ambitious revision of the Treaty. To a large extent these calls went unheard in Amsterdam, and the new Treaty does not incorporate a comprehensive list of social fundamental rights.

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.

‘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.

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.

Enforcing EUCHR Principles and Fundamental Rights in Environmental Cases

2012 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas de Sadeleer
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Clean Environment

So far, EU treaty law does not encapsulate any individually justiciable rights to a clean environment or to health. The article explores whether individuals can rely on the environmental duties embodied in the European Union Charter of Human Rights (EUCHR), and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in cases falling within the scope of EU environmental law. Moreover, it takes a close examination of the case law of both the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the standing of individuals whose environment is impaired.

Article 13 EC: Mere Rhetoric or a Harbinger of Change?

1998 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 175-197
Author(s):  
Lisa Waddington
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

Since the signing of the Treaty on European Union in Maastricht in 1992, calls have gradually been increasing for a greater recognition of, and firmer foundation for, fundamental (social) rights within the European Union. These calls naturally became louder following the Opinion of the European Court of Justice excluding the possibility of EC accession to the European Convention of Human Rights and during the lead up to the Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference. Academics, independent EU Advisory Committees, groups representing the interests of EU citizens and residents and the European Parliament lamented the almost complete absence of fundamental social rights in the Treaty, and called for an ambitious revision of the Treaty. To a large extent these calls went unheard in Amsterdam, and the new Treaty does not incorporate a comprehensive list of social fundamental rights.

scholarly journals Refl ections on the Principle of Equal Treatment in EU Law and the Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-23
Author(s):  
Marija Daka
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Complex Approach

The paper presents some of the most relevant aspects of European nondiscrimination law established th rough European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights, looking also at the evolution of the norms and milestones of case-law on equal treatment within the two systems. The paper gives an overview of the non-discrimination concept as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union and by the European Court of Human Rights. We examine the similar elements but also give insight into conceptual differences between the two human rights regimes when dealing with equal treatment. The differences mainly stem from the more complex approach taken by EU law although, based on analysed norms, cases, and provisions, the aspects of equal treatment in EU law are largely consistent with the practice of the ECtHR. Lastly, the paper briefl y places the European non-discrimination law within the multi-layered human rights system, giving some food for thought for the future potential this concept brings.

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document