Advertisement

European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 215–244 | Cite as

Punitive Damages: A European Criminal Law Approach. State Sanctions and the System of Guarantees

  • Manuel Gómez Tomillo
Article

Abstract

It has traditionally been upheld that punitive damages are incompatible with the Constitutions of civil law countries. This paper sustains the opposing thesis and argues their compatibility, of a general nature, with the basic principles of continental European States, and especially with the principles of legality, proportionality and non bis in idem. This opens the way to the enforcement, in Europe, of sentences delivered in the United States of America. However, despite this starting point, the advisability of exporting the model of punitive damages is rejected. The theme is expanded to argue the equivalent nature of the guarantees and limits of all sanctioning activity of the State and those already established in Criminal Law. This would encompass punitive damages and all types of civil sanctions.

Keywords

Criminal law Punitive damages System of guarantees 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I wish to express my thanks to the University of Harvard, at which I completed the present work, in the summer of 2011, and to the Spanish Ministry of Innovation and Science, which financed it through research project DER2009-08324.

References

  1. Aguado Correa, T. (1999). El principio de proporcionalidad en Derecho penal. Madrid: Edersa.Google Scholar
  2. Behr, V. (2003). Private law, punishment, and disgorgement: punitive damages in American and German Law- Tendencies towards approximation of apparently irreconcilable concepts. Chicago Kent Law Review, 78, 105.Google Scholar
  3. Benatti, F. (2008). Correggere e punire: dalla law of torts all’inadempimento del contratto. Milano: Giuffré.Google Scholar
  4. Bohnert, J. (2006). Karlsruher Kommentar zum Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten, 3 Auf. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  5. Brockmeier, D. (1999). Punitive damages, multiple damages und deutscher ordre public. Tübingen: Mohr, Siebeck.Google Scholar
  6. Calandrillo, S. P. (2010). Penalizing punitive damages: why the supreme court needs a lesson in Law and economics. George Washington Law Review, 78, 774.Google Scholar
  7. Cheh, M. M. (1991). Constitutional limits on using civil remedies to achieve criminal Law objectives: understanding and transcending the criminal-civil Law distinction. Hastings Law Journal, 42, 1325.Google Scholar
  8. Cid Moliné, J. (1996). Garantías y sanciones. (Argumentos contra la tesis de la identidad de garantías entre las sanciones punitivas). Revista de la Administración Pública, 140.Google Scholar
  9. Coffee, J. C., Jr. (1991). Does “unlawful” mean “criminal”?: reflections on the disappearing tort/crime distinction in American Law. Buffalo Law Review, 21, 193.Google Scholar
  10. Coffee, J. C., Jr. (1992). Paradigms lost: the blurring of the criminal and civil law models and what can be done about it. Yale Law Journal, 101, 1875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Colby, T. B. (2003). Beyond the multiple punishment problem: punitive damages as punishment for individual, private wrongs. Minnesota Law Review, 87, 583.Google Scholar
  12. Cooter, R. D. (1997). Punitive damages, social norms and economic analysis. Law & Contemporay Problems, 73, 60.Google Scholar
  13. Crowley, M. A. (2001). From punishment to annihilation: Engle v. R.J. Reynolds tobacco Co.—No more butts—punitive damages have gone too far. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 64, 1513.Google Scholar
  14. Crump, D. (1998). Evidence, economics, and ethics: what information should jurors be given to determine the amount of a punitive-damage award? Maryland Law Review, 57, 174.Google Scholar
  15. Curcio, A. A. (1993). Painful publicity—an alternative punitive damage sanction. DePaul Law Review, 57, 341.Google Scholar
  16. de la Mata Barranco, N. (2007). El principio de proporcionalidad penal. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.Google Scholar
  17. del Olmo, P. (2009). Punitive damages in Spain. In H. Koziol & V. Wilcox (Eds.), Punitive damages: common law and civil law perspectives. Wien, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Dobbs, D. B. (1998). Ending punishment in “punitive” damages: deterrence-measured remedies. Alabama Law Review, 40, 831.Google Scholar
  19. Elliott, D. (1989). Why punitive damages don’t deter corporate misconduct effectively. Alabama Law Review, 40, 1053.Google Scholar
  20. Ellis, D. E. (1982). Fairness and efficiency in the law of punitive damages. Southern California Law Review, 56, 1.Google Scholar
  21. Ellis, D. D., Jr. (1989). Punitive damages, due process, and the jury. Alabama Law Review, 40, 975.Google Scholar
  22. Feijoo Sánchez, B. (2006). Sobre la “administrativización” del Derecho penal en la “sociedad del riesgo”. Un apunte sobre la política criminal a principios del Siglo XXI, Derecho y justicia penal en el siglo XXI. In Liber amicorum en homenaje al profesor Antonio González Cuéllar García. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
  23. Fernández Gregoraci, B. (2008). Recargo de las prestaciones de la seguridad social: un supuesto específico de punitive damages, Anurio de Derecho Civil, T. LXI.Google Scholar
  24. Fernández Nieto, J. (2009). La aplicación judicial europea del principio de proporcionalidad. Madrid: Dykinson.Google Scholar
  25. Fernández Teruelo, J. G. (2010). Algunas consideraciones críticas sobre el nuevo modelo de responsabilidad penal de las personas jurídicas. Revista de Derecho Penal, 31.Google Scholar
  26. Ferrajoli, L. (1995). Derecho y Razón. Valladolid: Trotta.Google Scholar
  27. Finch, M. (2002). Giving full faith and credit to punitive damages awards: will Florida rule the nation? Minnesota Law Review, 86, 497.Google Scholar
  28. Frankel, R. (2011). The disappearing opt-out right in punitive-damages class actions. Wisconsin Law Review, 2011, 563.Google Scholar
  29. Galanter, M., & Luban, D. (1993). Poetic justice: punitive damages and legal pluralism. The American University Law Review, 42, 1394.Google Scholar
  30. Geistfeld, Mark A. (2008). Punitive damages, retribution and due process. Southern California Law Review, 81, 263 and ff.Google Scholar
  31. Gobert, J., & Punch, M. (2003). Rethinking corporate crime. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  32. Gómez-Jara Díez, C. (2006). Autoorganización empresarial y autorresponsabilidad empresarial, Revista Electrónica de Ciencia Penal y Criminología 05.Google Scholar
  33. Gómez Tomillo, M. (2010). Introducción a la responsabilidad penal de las personas jurídicas. Valladolid: Lex Nova.Google Scholar
  34. Gómez Tomillo, M. (2011). Comentarios al código penal (2th edn.). Valladolid: Lex Nova.Google Scholar
  35. Gómez Tomillo, M., & Sanz Rubiales, I. (2010). Derecho administrativo sancionador. Parte general (2th edn.). Cizur Menor: Thomson-Aranzadi.Google Scholar
  36. Gracia Martín, L. (2006). Tratado de las consecuencias jurídicas del delito. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.Google Scholar
  37. Gruner, R. S. (2010). Corporate criminal liability and prevention. New York: Law Journal Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hassemer, W. (1973). Theorie und Soziologie des Verbrechens. Ansätze zu einer Paxisorienterender Rechtsgutlehre. Frankfurt: Athenaum-Fisher-Taschbenbuch.Google Scholar
  39. Hassemer, W. (1998). Perspectivas del Derecho penal del futuro, Revista Penal 1.Google Scholar
  40. Heine, G. (1995). Die strafrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit von Unternehmen, von individuellem Fehlverhalten zu kollectiven Fehlentwicklungen, insbesondere bei Grossrisiken. Baden Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  41. Hersch, J., Viscusi, W. K. (2010). Punitive Damages by Numbers: Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, Supreme Court Economic Review 259, 8.Google Scholar
  42. Hines, L. J. (2004). Due process limitations on punitive damages: why State Farm won’t be the last word. Akron Law Review, 37, 779.Google Scholar
  43. Ingraham, D. M. (1997). Note: civil money sanctions barred by double jeopardy: should the supreme court reject healy? Washington & Lee Law Review, 54, 1183.Google Scholar
  44. Jescheck, H-H.,Weigend, T. (1996). Lehrbuch des Strafrechts. Allgemeiner Teil, 5 Auf.Google Scholar
  45. Johnson, J. J. (1999). A uniform standard for exemplary damages in employment discrimination cases. University of Richmond Law Review, 33, 41.Google Scholar
  46. Kircher, J. J., & Wiseman, C. M. (2000). Punitive damages: law and practice (2nd edn., Vol. 1). St. Paul, Minn.: West Group.Google Scholar
  47. Klode, M. (2009). Punitive damages—Ein aktueller Beitrag zum US-Amerikanischer Strafschedenersatz, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 27.Google Scholar
  48. Koenig, T., & Rustad, M. (1998). “Crimtorts” as corporates just deserts. University of Michigan Journal Law Reform, 31, 289.Google Scholar
  49. Koziol, H. (2008). Punitive damages. A European perspective. Louisiana Law Review, 68, 741.Google Scholar
  50. Lagodny, O. (1996). Strafrecht vor den Schranken der Grundrechte. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  51. López, M. E. (2001). Comment: a normative theory of nontortfeasor liability and taxonomy for exemplary damages. University of California Law Review, 48, 1017.Google Scholar
  52. López Herrera, E. (2008). Los daños punitivos. Naturaleza. Tipos. Jurisprudencia comparada. Análisis económico. Aplicación al derecho del consumidor (art. 52 bis, ley 24.240). Buenos Aires: Abeledo Perrot.Google Scholar
  53. Lozano Cutanda, B. (1997). La tensión entre eficacia y garantías en la represión administrativa: aplicación de los principios constitucionales del orden penal en el derecho administrativo sancionador con especial referencia al principio de legalidad. Cuadernos de Derecho Judicial 11.Google Scholar
  54. Mallor, J., & Roberts, B. (1999). Punitive damages: toward a principle aproach. Hastings Law Journal, 50, 969.Google Scholar
  55. Mann, K. (1992). Punitive civil sanctions: the middleground between criminal and civil Law. Yale Law Journal, 101, 1795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Marina Jalvo, B. (2006). El régimen disciplinario de los funcionarios públicos (3rd edn.). Valladolid: Lex Nova.Google Scholar
  57. Markel, D. (2009a). Retributive damages: a theory of punitive damages as intermediate sanction. Cornell Law Review, 94, 239.Google Scholar
  58. Markel, D. (2009b). How should punitive damages work. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 157, 1383.Google Scholar
  59. Martínez-Buján Pérez, C. (1998). Derecho penal económico. Parte general, Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.Google Scholar
  60. Massey Calvin, R. (1987) The Excessive Fines Clause and Punitive Damages: Some Lessons From History. Vanderbilt Law Review, 40 1233 and ff.Google Scholar
  61. Maugeri, A. M. (1999a). Il regolamento n. 2988/95: un modelo di disciplina del potere punitivo comunitario I. Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto Penale della Economia 3.Google Scholar
  62. Maugeri, A. M. (1999b). Il regolamento n. 2988/95: un modelo di disciplina del potere punitivo comunitario II. Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto Penale della Economia 4.Google Scholar
  63. Meriwether Cordray, M. (1999). The limits of state sovereignty and the issue of multiple punitive damages awards. Oregon Law Review, 48, 275.Google Scholar
  64. Mir Puig, S. (2010). Derecho penal. Parte general (8th edn.). Barcelona: Reppertor.Google Scholar
  65. Mörsdorf-Schulte, J. (1999). Funktion und Dogmatik US-amerikanischer punitive damages. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Diskussion um die Zustellung und Anerkennung in Deutchland. Berlin: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  66. Mueller, P. (2000). Punitive damages und deutsches Schadensersatzrecht. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Murphy, R. W. (1998). Superbifurcation: making room for state prosecution in the punitive damages process. North Carolina Law Review, 76, 463.Google Scholar
  68. Nieto, A. (2005). Derecho administrativo sancionador (5th edn.). Madrid: Tecnos.Google Scholar
  69. Nieto Martín, A. (2008). La responsabilidad penal de las personas jurídicas: un modelo legislativo. Madrid: Iustel.Google Scholar
  70. OECD (2008). Follow-up Report on the implementation of the phase 2 recommendations on the applications of the Convention and the 1997 revised recommendation on combating bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions. http://www.oecd.org/spain/41590651.pdf. Accessed 30 October 2012.
  71. Owen, D. G. (1994). A punitive damages overview: functions, problems and reform. Villanova Law Review, 39, 36.Google Scholar
  72. Owen, D. (2010). Response: aggravating punitive damages. University of Pennsylvania Law Review Pennumbra, 158, 181.Google Scholar
  73. Pace, K. A. (1997). Recalibrating the scales of justice through national punitive damage reform. The American University Law Review, 46, 1573.Google Scholar
  74. Paliero, C. E. (1985). Materia penale e illecito amministrativo secondo la corte Europea dei diritti del’uomo: una questione “classica” a una svolta radicale, Rivista Italiana di Diritto e Procedura Penale, 894.Google Scholar
  75. Pepe, C. (1990). Illecito e sanzione administrativa. Padova: Cedam.Google Scholar
  76. Polinsky, A. M., & Shavell, S. (1998). Punitive damages: an economic analysis. Harvard Law Review, 111, 869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Pollack, B. J. (2009). Time to stop living vicariously: a better approach to corporate criminal liability. American Criminal Law Review, 46, 1393.Google Scholar
  78. Quarta, F. (2008). Recognition and enforcement of U.S. punitive damages awards in continental Europe: the Italian supreme Court’s veto. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 31, 753.Google Scholar
  79. Reglero Campos, F. (2000). Tratado de responsabilidad civil (2nd edn.). Cizur Menor: Thomson Aranzadi.Google Scholar
  80. Robles Planas, R. (2006). Delitos de personas jurídicas?, InDret 2.Google Scholar
  81. Romero, L. M. (2008). Punitive damages, criminal punishment, and proportionality: the importance of legislative limits. Connecticut Law Review, 41, 109.Google Scholar
  82. Rosengarten, J. (1994). Punitive damages und ihre Anerkennung und Vollstreckung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Hamburg, 1994. Hamburg Univ.Google Scholar
  83. Roxin, C. (2006). Strafrecht. Allgemeiner Teil. 4 Auf. Munchen: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  84. Rubin, E. L. (1998). The incidence, scope, and purpose of punitive damages: reconceptualizing the runcible remedies of common law. Wisconsin Law Review, 1998, 131.Google Scholar
  85. Rubin, P. H., Calfee, J. E., & Grady, M. F. (1997). BMW v gore: mitigating the punitive economics of punitive damages. Supreme Court Economic Review, 5, 179.Google Scholar
  86. Rubio de las Casas, M. (1984). Potestad sancionadora de la Administración y garantías del administrado. Comentario a la Sentencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos de 21 de febrero de 1984. El caso Otztürk, Revista de la Administración Pública 104.Google Scholar
  87. Rustad, M. L. (2005). Access to justice: can business co-exist with the civil justice system?: the closing of punitive damages’ iron cage. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 38, 1297.Google Scholar
  88. Rustad, M., & Koenig, T. (1993). Historical continuity of punitive damage awards: reforming the tort reformers. The American University Law Review, 42, 1269.Google Scholar
  89. Sabatino, J. M. (1997). Privatization and punitives: should government contractors share the Sovereign’s immunities from exemplary damages? Ohio State Law Journal, 58, 175.Google Scholar
  90. Salas Claver, J. (2007). Daños punitivos. La pregunta es para cuándo, Práctica derecho daños: Revista de Responsabilidad Civil y Seguros, 55.Google Scholar
  91. Salvador Coderch, P., & Castiñeira Palou, M. T. (1997). Prevenir y castigar. Madrid: Marcial Pons.Google Scholar
  92. Sánchez García de Paz, I. (1994). El principio constitucional de proporcionalidad en el Derecho penal, La Ley 3676.Google Scholar
  93. Schlueter, L. L. (2005). Punitive damages, 5th edn., Lexis Nexis.Google Scholar
  94. Schroeder, F.-Ch. (1997). Die Rechstnatur des Grundsatzes “ne bis in idem”, Juristische Schülung 1997-3.Google Scholar
  95. Schünemann, B. (1996). Consideraciones críticas sobre la situación espiritual de la ciencia jurídico-penal alemana, Anuario de Derecho Penal y Ciencias Penales. Google Scholar
  96. Schwartz, V. E., et al. (1999). Reining in punitive damages “Run wild”: proposals for reform by courts and legislatures. Brooklyn Law Review, 65, 1003.Google Scholar
  97. Sebok, A. J. (2007). Punitive damages: from myth to theory. Iowa Law Review, 92, 957.Google Scholar
  98. Seltzer, R. A. (1983). Punitive damages in mass tort litigation: addressing the problem of fairness, efficiency and control. Fordham Law Review, 52, 37.Google Scholar
  99. Sharkey, L. M. (1996). Judge or jury: who should assess punitive damages. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 64, 1089.Google Scholar
  100. Sharkey, C. M. (2003). Punitive damages as societal damages. Yale Law Journal, 113, 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Silva Sánchez, J. M. (2001). La expansión del Derecho penal. Aspectos de la política criminal en las sociedades postindustriales. Madrid: Civitas.Google Scholar
  102. Silva Sánchez, J. M. (2002). La responsabilidad penal de las personas jurídicas en el Convenio del Consejo de Europa sobre cibercriminalidad, Cuadernos de Derecho Judicial 9.Google Scholar
  103. Siniscalco, M. (1983). Depenalizzaione e garanzia. Bolonia: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  104. Stella, F. (2003). Giustizia e Modernità: la protezione dell’innocente e la tutela delle vittime (IIIth edn.). Milano: Giuffré.Google Scholar
  105. Sunstein, C. R. (2002). Punitive damages. How juries decide. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Sunstein, C. R., Kahneman, D., & Schkade, D. (1998). Assessing punitive damages (with notes on cognition and valuation in law). Yale Law Journal, 107, 2071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Tettenborn, A. (2004). Punitive damages—a view from England. San Diego Law Review, 41, 1551.Google Scholar
  108. Tiedemann, K. (1988). Die “Bebüssung” von Unternehmen nach dem 2 Gesetz zur Bekämpfung der Wirtschaftskrimimalität, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 41.Google Scholar
  109. Toy, A. J. (1991). Statutory punitive damage caps and the profit motive: an economic perspective. Emory Law Journal, 40, 303.Google Scholar
  110. Trug, G. (2010). Zu den Folgen des Einführung eines Unternehmensstrafrechts, Wistra 7.Google Scholar
  111. Vaquero López, C. (2011). Sobre la posibilidad de reconocimiento en España de “daños punitivos” como consecuencia de la infracción del Derecho comunitario de la competencia. In L. A. Velasco San Pedro (Ed.), La aplicación privada del Derecho de la competencia. Valladolid: Lex Nova.Google Scholar
  112. Welke, W. A. (2008). Die repersonalisierung des Rechtskonflikts. Zum gegenwärtigen Verhältnis von Straf- und Zivilrecht, Frankfurt a.m. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  113. Wells, C. (1993). Corporations and criminal responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  114. Wheeler, M. E. (1983). The constitutional case for reforming punitive damages procedures. Virginia Law Review, 69, 269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Wilcox, V. (2009). Punitive damages in England. In H. Koziol & V. Wilcox (Eds.), Punitive damages: common law and civil law perspectives. Wien: Springer.Google Scholar
  116. Wohlers, W. (2000). Delikstypen des Präventionsstrafrechts-zur Dogmatik moderner Gefährdungsdelikte. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  117. Zipursky, B. C. (2005). A theory of punitive damages. Texas Law Review, 84, 105.Google Scholar
  118. Zugaldía Espinar, J. M. (2008). La responsabilidad penal de empresas, fundaciones y asociaciones. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Derecho penal, Facultad de DerechoValladolid University (SPAIN)ValladolidSpain

Personalised recommendations