INTERNATIONAL LAW STANDARDS REGARDING SUBSTANTIVE PETTY OFFENCES LAW

This article attempts to identify and analyse, in the light of the provisions of the acts of international law, the following issues belonging to the substantive part of the law on petty offences: the general problem of criminalization in petty offenses law and; the question of the criminal nature of the law of petty offenses, and thus the application of individual provisions to it and the resulting guarantees appropriate to that law; the application of the principle of guilt on the basis of the analysed regulations as a premise for assigning liability; the principle of ne bis in idem; the principle of nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege, especially in so far as it derives from the principle of lex mitior retro agit.

Problemy związane z tzw. konstrukcją ciągłości przestępstwa w odniesieniu do instytucji prawa karnego procesowego – res iudicata oraz zakazu ne bis in idem

Przemysław Krawczyk discusses the impact of institutions related to the continuity of a crime on the substantive validity of judgments in criminal cases and the ne bis in idem prohibition that flows from it. The study presents the views of doctrine and judicature which treat the scope of the validity of substantive judgment in relation to conduct (acts) committed in the conditions of continuity. It should be noted at the outset that positions on this issue tend to be diametrically different. Moreover, Krawczyk points out how important it is to set temporal limits to the continuity of an offence. This issue is of considerable importance from the point of view of the substantive validity of a ruling issued in a criminal trial, because incorrect or insufficiently precise delimitation of these limits may result in a violation of some fundamental principles of criminal law, both substantive and procedural.

Odpowiedzialność karna i dyscyplinarna żołnierza i funkcjonariusza w świetle zasady ne bis in idem

he appearance in the legal system of military disciplinary regulations introducing the category of the so-called a contact act (i.e. an act that is a military disciplinary offense that simulta-neously fulfills the features of a prohibited act, penalized in another act, e.g. in the Act of June 6, 1997, the Penal Code) triggered a number of questions about the mutual relationship between the repressive nature of criminal and quasi-repressive military disciplinary liability. The category of a contact act expressis verbis refers to the provision of Art. 17 sec. 1 and art. 17 sec. 2 points 2-3 of the Act of 09/10/2009 on Military Discipline. Committing a military disciplinary offense by a mil-itary soldier, which at the same time carries the features of an offense penalized in the Criminal Code, gives the possibility of double (i.e. criminal and disciplinary) punishment of a soldier for the same act in fact. Therefore, it is necessary to consider whether such practice makes ne bis in idem (prohibiting repeated punishment of a person for the same act) quite a constitutional principle; or, on the contrary, this practice violates constitutional standards? The analysis made in this article is an attempt to answer this question. The considerations are dogmatic and historical in nature, using the method of systemic and linguistic interpretation.

Ne Bis in Idem for an Infringement Action Based on a Previously Enforced Patent

Fensterflügel [Window sash]

Thoughts on the principle of ne bis in idem in the light of administrative and criminal sanctions for the legal protection of animals

According to the well-developed interpretation of the principle of the ne bis in idem in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, the same conduct cannot be the subject of two proceedings or santions with similar functions and purposes. In Hungary the Constitutional Court has interpreted the rules of the ne bis in idem in administrative and criminal procedure for animal welfare fine and sanctions for cruelty to animals in Decision 8/2017. (IV.18) AB and the legislator settled its rules in Act on administrative sanctions which came into effect from the 1st of January, 2021. The recent study through practical issues approaches how principle prevails, its problems and possible solutions in the field of unlawful conduct in animal welfare, in particular regarding the role of the prosecutor.

Ne bis in idem in the jurisprudence of the European Court on Human Rights with special emphasis on the case Milenković v. Serbia

In comparative and domestic case law, individuals are often being criminally prosecuted for actions that also contain elements of misdemeanours or other administrative or disciplinary offenses, for which they have already been trialed and even punished. This is evidentially a violation of the ne bis in idem principle, which represents not only one of the basic pillars of criminal law, but also internationally protected human right. Therefore, through analysis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular Milenković v. Serbia case, together with the stands of domestic courts on the topic at hand, it will be illustrated that inadequate application of the prohibition against double jeopardy necessarily leads to inadequate criminal protection, shortage of just satisfaction for victims and undermining of legal certainty.

Die Konkurrenz von Verwaltungs- und Justizstrafrecht

Im Strafverfahren gilt der „Ne bis in idem“-Grundsatz: Niemand darf wegen derselben Tat wiederholt strafrechtlich verfolgt werden. Welche Auswirkungen hat dieser Prozessgrundsatz auf die strafrechtliche Verfolgung eines alkoholisierten Fahrzeuglenkers, der einen Unfall mit Personenschaden verursacht? Dieses Verhalten ist sowohl aus der Perspektive der Verwaltungsbehörden wegen des Lenkens eines Fahrzeuges in alkoholisierten Zustand als auch aus der Perspektive der Justiz wegen der grob fahrlässigen Körperverletzung strafrechtlich relevant. Um auf jede Rechtsverletzung zu reagieren, müsste das Geschehen somit doppelt strafrechtlich verfolgt werden. Folgt hingegen aus dem „Ne bis in idem“-Grundsatz, dass ein rechtskräftiges Straferkenntnis einer gerichtlichen Strafverfolgung entgegensteht und umgekehrt? Dieses Buch widmet sich insbesondere der Definition des prozessualen Tatbegriffes zur Klärung des Verhältnisses zwischen Verwaltungs- und Justizstrafrecht. Dabei werden grundlegende Probleme des Strafverfahrens besprochen, wie etwa die Rechtskraft und der „Ne bis in idem“-Grundsatz. Um das Konkurrenzverhältnis zu klären, wird eine verfahrensübergreifende Perspektive eingenommen.

THE SANCTIONING OF INSIDER TRADING IN BRAZIL AND IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE PROTECTION OF RIGHTS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Nosso objetivo aqui é comparar a proteção contra insider trading no Brasil e na União Europeia, especificamente a maneira como o insider trading é sancionado nessas duas jurisdições. Destacaremos as diferentes combinações entre sanções administrativas e criminais encontradas nos dois sistemas e suas implicações para os direitos fundamentais e da personalidade (no caso do Brasil) dos responsáveis pela prática de abuso de informação privilegiada. A possível acumulação de punições impostas por tribunais criminais e órgãos reguladores administrativos levanta a questão de saber se pode haver uma violação do princípio ne bis in idem. A resposta a essa pergunta será diferente em cada sistema. Começaremos fazendo um breve balanço da gênese e da evolução da regulamentação sobre uso de informações privilegiadas no Brasil e na UE, a fim de compreender as diferentes razões para a proibição do insider trading nas duas jurisdições de forma a entender os motivos por trás de suas divergências e convergências.

Prekid kontinuiteta radnje trajnog kaznenog djela povrede dužnosti uzdržavanja

Karakteristično protupravno stanje hotimičnog izbjegavanja obveze uzdržavanja druge osobe koje svojom radnjom stvori počinitelj kaznenog djela, može opstojati ovisno ili neovisno o njegovoj volji. Budući da je povreda dužnosti uzdržavanja trajno kazneno djelo, nameće se pitanje prekida li pravomoćna sudska odluka kaznenog suda kontinuitet neprava i je li moguće okorjelom povratniku ponovno suditi, bez povrede načela ne bis in idem. U radu je korištena metoda analize, deskriptivna za obilježja djela, a eksplikativna za poseban osvrt na ličnost počinitelja i utvrđivanje oblika privremenog prestanka neprava na strani počinitelja. Statističkom metodom u kombinaciji s metodom uzorka provedeno je specifično istraživanje konkretnih predmeta na usustavljenom uzorku punoljetnih počinitelja kaznenog djela nedozvoljene trgovine na području Republike Hrvatske. Rezultati istraživanja pokazuju da svršetak radnje uskrate izdvajanja sredstava za skrb o drugoj osobi različitoj od počinitelja kaznenog djela ne ovisi uvijek o njegovim postupcima, da osuda ne smije predstavljati temelj ili podstrek za daljnje kršenje obveze i da pravomoćna sudska presuda mora biti osnova zaključka da je dovršena radnja trajnog kaznenog djela povrede dužnosti uzdržavanja. Zaključno se utvrđuje da osuda za trajno kazneno djelo povrede dužnosti uzdržavanja ne uključuje i daljnje održavanje protupravnog stanja prouzročenog propuštanjem zakonske obveze počinitelja da pribavlja nužna sredstva za život osobe o kojoj je dužan skrbiti.