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

  • Maria Kaiafa-Gbandi
Conference paper
Part of the Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law book series (GSCL, volume 30)


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.


  1. Abrahms N, Sun Beale S, Klein RS (2016) Federal criminal law and its enforcement, 6th edn. West Academic PublishingGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambos K (2011) Internationales Strafrecht, vol 3. Aufl. C.H. BeckGoogle Scholar
  3. Anagnostopoulos I (2008) Ne bis in idem, European and International Perspectives (in Greek)Google Scholar
  4. 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 1121–1140Google Scholar
  5. Androulakis N (2012) Fundamentals of criminal procedure, 4th edn. (in Greek)Google Scholar
  6. Asp P (2016) The procedural criminal law cooperation in the EU. FörlagGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. StrafrechtGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. BeckGoogle Scholar
  9. Blomsa J (2012) Mens rea and defences in European criminal law. IntersentiaGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 43–106Google Scholar
  11. 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 107–168Google Scholar
  12. 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 335–366Google Scholar
  13. 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 381–438Google Scholar
  14. Eickert A (2004) Transstaatliche Strafverfolgung: Ein Beitrag zur Europäisierung, Internationaölisierung und Fortentwicklung des Grundsatzes ne bis in idem. SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. European Criminal Policy Initiative (2013) A Manifesto on European criminal procedure law. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 11:430–446Google Scholar
  16. 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. Scholar
  17. Fuchs H (2006) Zuständigkeitsordnung und materielles Strafrecht. In: Schünemann B (ed) Ein Programm für die europäische Strafrechtspflege. Carl Heymanns Verlag, pp 112–116Google Scholar
  18. Gless S (2011) Internationales Strafrecht, Grundriss für Studium und Praxis. Helbing & LichtenhahnGoogle Scholar
  19. Gropp W (2012) Kollision transnationaler Strafegewalten nulla prosecution transnationalis sine lege. In: Sinn A (ed) Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitender Kriminalität. V&R Uni Press, pp 41–64Google Scholar
  20. Hecker B (2012) Europäisches Strafrecht, 4th edn. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  21. Hein L (2002) Zuständigkeitskonflikte im internationalen Strafrecht. Ein europäisches Lösungsmodell, Juristische Reihe Tenea/; Vol 11
  22. Helenius D (2014) Straffrättslig jurisdiktionGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 357–402Google Scholar
  24. Kaiafa-Gbandi M (2016) The EU and the US criminal law as two-tier models. Sieps – Swedish Institute for European Policy StudiesGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaiafa-Gbandi M, Bitzilekis N, Symeonidou-Kastanidou E (2016) Criminal sanctions, 2nd edn. (in Greek)Google Scholar
  26. Klip A (2005) Substantive criminal law in the European Union. Maklu Uitgevers BelgiëGoogle Scholar
  27. Lagodny O (2001) Empfiehlt es sich eine europäische Gerichtskompetenz für Strafgewaltkonflikte vorzusehen?, Gutachten im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums der Justiz.
  28. Lelieur-Fischer J (2006) Comments on the Green Paper on Conflicts of Jurisdiction and the principle of ne bis in idem in criminal proceedings.
  29. 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
  30. Manoledakis I (2004) Criminal law, general theory (in Greek)Google Scholar
  31. 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 411–464Google Scholar
  32. Nestler C (2004) Europäisches Strafprozessrecht. ZStW 116:331–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Plöckinger O, Leidenmühler F (2003) Zum Verbot doppelter Strafverfolgung nach Art. 54 SDÜ 1990. In: Wistra, pp 81–88Google Scholar
  34. Satzger H (2012) International and European criminal law. C.H. BeckGoogle Scholar
  35. Schünemann B (ed) (2006) A programme for European criminal justice. C.H. BeckGoogle Scholar
  36. Sinn A (2012) Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitender Kriminalität. Universitätsverlag, OsnabrückGoogle Scholar
  37. Thomas H (2002) Das Recht auf Einmaligkeit der Strafverfolgung. Vom nationalen zum internationalen ne bis in idem, NomosGoogle Scholar
  38. Trechsel S (2005) Human rights in criminal proceedings. OUPGoogle Scholar
  39. Tsatsos D (2007) The notion of democracy in the European Sympoliteia (in Greek)Google Scholar
  40. Van den Wyngaert C, Stessens G (1999) The international Non bis in idem Principle: Resolving some of the answered questions. ICLQ 48:779–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vander Beken T, Vermeulen G, Steverlynck S, Thomaes S (2002) Finding the best place to prosecute. Maklu, AntwerpenGoogle Scholar
  42. Vogel J (2004) Perspektiven des Internationalen StrafprozessrechtsGoogle Scholar
  43. Zimmermann F (2014) Strafgewaltkonflikte in der Europäischen Union, Ein Regelungsvorschlag zur Wahrung materieller und prozessualer strafrechtlicher Garantien sowie staatlicher Strafinteressen. NomosGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Institute for Transparency, Corruption and Financial Crime, Law FacultyAristotle University ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations