Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Jurisdictional Conflicts in Criminal Matters and Their Settlement Within EU’s Supranational Settings

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Enforcement and Effectiveness of the Law - La mise en oeuvre et l’effectivité du droit

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 30))

  • 420 Accesses

Abstract

This paper discusses the fundamental issues surrounding the assignment of jurisdiction in criminal matters and the resolution of jurisdictional conflicts within the supranational setting of the EU. After delving into the interests that lie behind jurisdictional conflicts in criminal matters and their resolution in general, it highlights the settlement models for conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal matters at the national and the international level, and subsequently analyses, comparatively, the EU approach. With regard to the latter, it discusses the notion of the fundamental right based on the ne bis in idem principle enshrined in Article 50 of the CFR as well as the current state of affairs on the basis of the Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA, criticising the existing EU model and opting for a future one for preventing and resolving jurisdictional conflicts in the EU based on firm criteria and the territoriality principle with very slim exceptions.

The text has been published in EuCLR 2017/1, 30 et seq.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Manoledakis (2000), pp. 42, 45 et seq. (in Greek).

  2. 2.

    See e.g. Satzger (2012), p. 44 et seq.

  3. 3.

    See e.g. Kaiafa-Gbandi et al. (2016), p. 43 et seq. (in Greek).

  4. 4.

    See e.g. Androulakis (2012), p. 6 et seq. (in Greek).

  5. 5.

    See Manoledakis (2004), p. 29 (in Greek).

  6. 6.

    See respectively in Tsatsos (2007), p. 55 et seq. and esp.103 et seq. (in Greek).

  7. 7.

    See in a comparative perspective with the federal criminal law system of the US Kaiafa-Gbandi (2016), p. 55 et seq.

  8. 8.

    For principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction see Satzger (2012), p. 20 et seq. and with regard to the EU framework Böse (2014a), p. 45 et seq.; Zimmermann (2014), p. 70 et seq.

  9. 9.

    See rel. Zimmermann (2014), p. 70 et seq. and 135–136.

  10. 10.

    Zimmermann (2014), p. 175.

  11. 11.

    See especially the analysis of Böse (2014a), p. 44 et seq.; cf. Zimmermann (2014), p. 175 et seq.

  12. 12.

    In this direction Anagnostopoulos (2008), p. 168 et seq. (in Greek).

  13. 13.

    Zimmermann (2014), pp. 205–206.

  14. 14.

    See respectively Abrahms et al. (2016), p. 96.

  15. 15.

    Kaiafa-Gbandi (2016), p. 110 et seq.

  16. 16.

    See respectively Meyer (2013), p. 443.

  17. 17.

    Meyer (2013), p. 443.

  18. 18.

    For the relevant international treaties see Böse (2014c), p. 357 et seq.

  19. 19.

    Relevant provisions can also be found in two conventions of the Council of Europe (the European Convention on the International Validity of the Criminal Judgments, Hague 28.5.1970, and the European Convention on the Transfer of Criminal Proceedings, Strasburg 15.5.1972) which include similar provisions to Articles 54-55 CISA as mentioned below. However, these conventions have not been widely accepted and their ratification pace is rather slow among signing parties, while major states have not yet sanctioned them. On the other hand, the International Convent on Civil and Political Rights, although arguably introducing the ne bis in idem principle transnationally and unrestrictedly (see Anagnostopoulos (2008), p. 160 et seq.), is—according to the prevailing view (see e.g. van den Wyngaert and Stessens (1999), p. 781 et seq.; Trechsel (2005), p. 385 et seq.)—not to be seen as a basis for the principle’s international restricted validity.

  20. 20.

    See e.g. Gless (2011), p. 154 et seq.

  21. 21.

    In the latter case, however, the exception does not apply if the acts materialized to some extent in the territory of the party that delivered the judgment.

  22. 22.

    An exception to the exception—and thus an implementation of the rule—applies when a concerned party has requested a co-signee to launch prosecution for the same acts or has extradited the defendant according to Article 55 §4 CISA.

  23. 23.

    See respectively Anagnostopoulos (2010), p. 1128; Hecker (2012), p. 467; Plöckinger and Leidenmühler (2003), pp. 82–83.

  24. 24.

    See respectively Anagnostopoulos (2008), pp. 168–169.

  25. 25.

    Anagnostopoulos (2008), p. 169.

  26. 26.

    Anagnostopoulos (2008), p. 169; Nestler (2004), p. 341 et seq., 349 et seq.; Vogel (2004), p. 40 et seq.

  27. 27.

    Cf. Böse (2014c), p. 361 et seq.

  28. 28.

    See e.g. Kaiafa-Gbandi (2016), p. 38 et seq.

  29. 29.

    See e.g. Asp (2016), pp. 13–14 and 20 et seq.

  30. 30.

    See respectively Kaiafa-Gbandi (2010), p. 357 et seq.

  31. 31.

    Asp (2016), p. 112.

  32. 32.

    Anagnostopoulos (2008), pp. 173–174 (in Greek).

  33. 33.

    Areios Pagos (in Plenum) 11/2011.

  34. 34.

    See authors under fn. 24.

  35. 35.

    ECJ C-129/27.5.2014, Spasic.

  36. 36.

    Böse (2014b), pp. 146–147.

  37. 37.

    Böse (2014b), p. 147.

  38. 38.

    See European Criminal Policy Initiative (2013), pp. 430–431, 433 et seq., proposing requirements that safeguard individuals’ rights to offset this development.

  39. 39.

    Asp (2016), pp. 91–93.

  40. 40.

    See, e.g., Article 4 of the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests; Article 9 §1c, d, e FD 2002/475/JHA; Article 10 §§1b, 2 Directive 2011/36/EU; Article 12 §§1b, 2b Directive 201340/EU.

  41. 41.

    See respectively FD 2009/948/JHA, as well as e.g. Article 4 the 1995 Convention on the Protection of the European Communities’ Financial Interests; Article 9 of the FD 2008/919/JHA on combating terrorism.

  42. 42.

    See http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/doclibrary/corporate/newsletter/eurojust%20news%20issue%2014%20(january%202016)%20on%20conflicts%20of%20jurisdiction/eurojustnews_issue14_2016-01.pdf and http://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/conferences/vilnius2016/eurojustguidelines.pdf.

  43. 43.

    See on the existing EU legal framework the criticism of Böse (2014c), p. 337 et seq., 346 et seq.; Zimmermann (2014), p. 305 et seq.

  44. 44.

    Böse (2014b), p. 124.

  45. 45.

    Böse (2014c), p. 357.

  46. 46.

    See, albeit, the significant differences to a federal system in Tsatsos (2007), p. 55 et seq. and esp. 103 et seq.

  47. 47.

    See Articles 258 and 260 TFEU granting leeway to sanction Member States for not abiding by EU rules.

  48. 48.

    See e.g. Ambos (2011), §4; Biehler et al. (2003), Bitzilekis et al. (2006), p. 250 et seq., 493 et seq.; Böse et al. (2014), p. 381 et seq.; Eickert (2004), ELI (2017), Fuchs (2006), p. 112 et seq.; Gropp (2012), p. 41 et seq.; Hein (2002), Klip (2005), p. 79 et seq.; Lagodny (2001), Lelieur-Fischer (2006), Schünemann (2006), Sinn (2012), p. 575 et seq.; Thomas (2002), Vander Beken et al. (2002), Zimmermann (2014), p. 369 et seq. For a systematical presentation of the different models proposed to date for the prevention and/or settlement of jurisdictional conflicts in criminal matters and their critical evaluation, see esp. Zimmermann (2014), p. 320 et seq.

  49. 49.

    This is not the case under Article 13 FD 2009/948/JHA.

  50. 50.

    To the latter, for example, through a judicial review of settlement decisions that may be filed by suspects or by the Member States themselves.

  51. 51.

    See e.g. Schünemann (2006), p. 257 et seq.; Bitzilekis et al. (2006), p. 493.

  52. 52.

    For rather flexible (and therefore not preferable) proposed models, see Böse et al. (2014), p. 381 et seq.; and Zimmermann (2014), p. 369 et seq. and 449–451, where the consultation process and the exceptions it entails cannot safeguard the foreseeability by the suspect/defendant of the criminal act and its punishment. Zimmermann accepts even a new adjudication of a case when special state interests apply (pp. 450–451), while Böse et al propose numerous prospects for the transfer of proceedings (p. 443 et seq.).

  53. 53.

    Bitzilekis et al. (2006), p. 493. Additional criteria to territoriality (e.g. center of criminal activity, etc.) could also be decisive in deciding competent State when multiple associated offences are committed by the same person or when multiple offenders of associated crimes are subject to the jurisdiction of more Member States.

  54. 54.

    In this direction the model of Schünemann (2006), p. 257 et seq.

  55. 55.

    See in this direction Bitzilekis et al. (2006), p. 493.

  56. 56.

    See in this direction Schünemann (2006), pp. 258–259.

  57. 57.

    See in this respect esp. Zimmermann (2014), p. 228 et seq.; Helenius (2014), p. 163 et seq.; cf. Asp (2016), p. 156 et seq.

  58. 58.

    In this direction Schünemann (2006), pp. 258–259.

  59. 59.

    See Blomsa (2012), p. 464 et seq.

  60. 60.

    See the interesting proposal of Böse et al. (2014), pp. 381–383, who formulate the following general rule: “Article 1 para 2: Criminal liability under the law of a Member State is subject to the condition that the person is aware (intent) or should be aware (negligence) of the circumstances that make that member State’s criminal law applicable”.

  61. 61.

    See the vague notion of “affecting” the territory of a state, used in certain legal orders.

  62. 62.

    See model in Schünemann (2006), p. 257 et seq.

  63. 63.

    See, however, the wide possibilities acknowledged for the transference of proceedings in the proposal of Böse et al. (2014), p. 411 et seq. It should be stressed, though, that the wider the transference possibility, the flimsier the safeguarding of the criminal act foreseeability.

  64. 64.

    So Schünemann (2006), pp. 258–259 et seq. Transference of proceedings should also be exceptionally possible upon request of the defendant for reasons serving his/her interests.

  65. 65.

    See esp. Articles 12, 13 in the Model Rules in Böse et al. (2014), pp. 444–445.

  66. 66.

    See thorough argumentation in Zimmermann (2014), pp. 206–208.

  67. 67.

    See fn. 66.

References

  • Abrahms N, Sun Beale S, Klein RS (2016) Federal criminal law and its enforcement, 6th edn. West Academic Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K (2011) Internationales Strafrecht, vol 3. Aufl. C.H. Beck

    Google Scholar 

  • Anagnostopoulos I (2008) Ne bis in idem, European and International Perspectives (in Greek)

    Google Scholar 

  • Anagnostopoulos I (2010) Ne bis in idem in der Europäischen Union, Offene Fragen. In: Neumann U, Herzog F (eds) Festschrift für W. Hassemer. Verlagsgruppe Hüthig-Jehle-Rehm, pp 1121–1140

    Google Scholar 

  • Androulakis N (2012) Fundamentals of criminal procedure, 4th edn. (in Greek)

    Google Scholar 

  • Asp P (2016) The procedural criminal law cooperation in the EU. Förlag

    Google Scholar 

  • Biehler A, Kniebühler R, Lelieur-Fischer J, Stein S (eds) (2003) Freiburg proposal on concurrent jurisdictions and the prohibition of multiple prosecutions in the European Union, Freiburg im Breisgau: Ed. iuscrim, Max-Planck-Inst. für Ausländisches und Internat. Strafrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitzilekis N, Kaiafa-Gbandi M, Symeonidou-Kastanidou E (2006) Alternative thoughts on the regulation of transnational criminal proceedings in the EU. In: Schünemann B (ed) A programme for European criminal justice. C.H. Beck

    Google Scholar 

  • Blomsa J (2012) Mens rea and defences in European criminal law. Intersentia

    Google Scholar 

  • Böse M (2014a) Fundamental freedoms of the Union. In: Böse M, Meyer F, Schneider A (eds) Conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal matters in the European Union, vol II. Nomos, pp 43–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Böse M (2014b) Fundamental rights of the EU-charter. In: Böse M, Meyer F, Schneider A (eds) Conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal matters in the European Union, vol II. Nomos, pp 107–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Böse M (2014c) Models and instruments for solving conflicts of jurisdiction. In: Böse M, Meyer F, Schneider A (eds) Conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal matters in the European Union, vol II. Nomos, pp 335–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Böse M, Meyer F, Schneider A (2014) Model Rules and Explanation. In: Böse M, Meyer F, Schneider A (eds) Conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal matters in the European Union, vol II. Nomos, pp 381–438

    Google Scholar 

  • Eickert A (2004) Transstaatliche Strafverfolgung: Ein Beitrag zur Europäisierung, Internationaölisierung und Fortentwicklung des Grundsatzes ne bis in idem. Springer

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • European Criminal Policy Initiative (2013) A Manifesto on European criminal procedure law. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 11:430–446

    Google Scholar 

  • European Law Institute ELI (2017) Draft legislative proposals for the prevention and the resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal matters in the Europan union. https://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/p_eli/Publications/Conflict_of_Jurisdiction_in_Criminal_Law_FINAL.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs H (2006) Zuständigkeitsordnung und materielles Strafrecht. In: Schünemann B (ed) Ein Programm für die europäische Strafrechtspflege. Carl Heymanns Verlag, pp 112–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Gless S (2011) Internationales Strafrecht, Grundriss für Studium und Praxis. Helbing & Lichtenhahn

    Google Scholar 

  • Gropp W (2012) Kollision transnationaler Strafegewalten nulla prosecution transnationalis sine lege. In: Sinn A (ed) Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitender Kriminalität. V&R Uni Press, pp 41–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Hecker B (2012) Europäisches Strafrecht, 4th edn. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Hein L (2002) Zuständigkeitskonflikte im internationalen Strafrecht. Ein europäisches Lösungsmodell, Juristische Reihe Tenea/www.jurawelt.com; Vol 11

  • Helenius D (2014) Straffrättslig jurisdiktion

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiafa-Gbandi M (2010) Harmonization of criminal procedure on the basis of common principles: the EU’s challenge for a Rule-of-Law transnational crime control. In: Finjaut C, Ouwerkerk J (eds) The future of police and judicial cooperation in the European Union. Brill, pp 357–402

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiafa-Gbandi M (2016) The EU and the US criminal law as two-tier models. Sieps – Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiafa-Gbandi M, Bitzilekis N, Symeonidou-Kastanidou E (2016) Criminal sanctions, 2nd edn. (in Greek)

    Google Scholar 

  • Klip A (2005) Substantive criminal law in the European Union. Maklu Uitgevers België

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagodny O (2001) Empfiehlt es sich eine europäische Gerichtskompetenz für Strafgewaltkonflikte vorzusehen?, Gutachten im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums der Justiz. https://www.uni-salzburg.at/fileadmin/oracle_file_imports/460066.PDF

  • Lelieur-Fischer J (2006) Comments on the Green Paper on Conflicts of Jurisdiction and the principle of ne bis in idem in criminal proceedings. https://www.mpicc.de/files/pdf2/comments_green_paper_nebisinidem.pdf

  • Manoledakis I (2000) Reflections on a common European criminal law judicial area. In: Manoledakis I (ed) Reflections on the future of criminal law (in Greek)

    Google Scholar 

  • Manoledakis I (2004) Criminal law, general theory (in Greek)

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer F (2013) Comparative analyses. In: Böse M, Meyer F, Schneider A (eds) Conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal matters in the European Union, vol I. Nomos, pp 411–464

    Google Scholar 

  • Nestler C (2004) Europäisches Strafprozessrecht. ZStW 116:331–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plöckinger O, Leidenmühler F (2003) Zum Verbot doppelter Strafverfolgung nach Art. 54 SDÜ 1990. In: Wistra, pp 81–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Satzger H (2012) International and European criminal law. C.H. Beck

    Google Scholar 

  • Schünemann B (ed) (2006) A programme for European criminal justice. C.H. Beck

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinn A (2012) Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitender Kriminalität. Universitätsverlag, Osnabrück

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas H (2002) Das Recht auf Einmaligkeit der Strafverfolgung. Vom nationalen zum internationalen ne bis in idem, Nomos

    Google Scholar 

  • Trechsel S (2005) Human rights in criminal proceedings. OUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsatsos D (2007) The notion of democracy in the European Sympoliteia (in Greek)

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Wyngaert C, Stessens G (1999) The international Non bis in idem Principle: Resolving some of the answered questions. ICLQ 48:779–804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vander Beken T, Vermeulen G, Steverlynck S, Thomaes S (2002) Finding the best place to prosecute. Maklu, Antwerpen

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel J (2004) Perspektiven des Internationalen Strafprozessrechts

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann F (2014) Strafgewaltkonflikte in der Europäischen Union, Ein Regelungsvorschlag zur Wahrung materieller und prozessualer strafrechtlicher Garantien sowie staatlicher Strafinteressen. Nomos

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Institute for Transparency, Corruption and Financial Crime, Law Faculty, Aristotle University Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Maria Kaiafa-Gbandi

Authors
  1. Maria Kaiafa-Gbandi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Kaiafa-Gbandi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, Universidad de Montevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay

    Nicolás Etcheverry Estrázulas

  2. International Academy of Comparative Law, Paris, France

    Diego P. Fernández Arroyo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer international Pubishing Switzerland AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Kaiafa-Gbandi, M. (2018). Jurisdictional Conflicts in Criminal Matters and Their Settlement Within EU’s Supranational Settings. In: Etcheverry Estrázulas, N., Fernández Arroyo, D. (eds) Enforcement and Effectiveness of the Law - La mise en oeuvre et l’effectivité du droit. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 30. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93758-8_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93758-8_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-93757-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-93758-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation