Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ne bis in idem and Multiple Sanctioning Systems

  • 169 Accesses

Abstract

The ne bis in idem was not recognised in the European Convention of Human Rights until its incorporation in Article 4 of Protocol 7, which states:

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.

    Pérez Manzano (2018), p. 78; Floinn (2017), p. 79.

  2. 2.

    Vervaele (2005), p. 102; Allegrezza (2012), p. 894; Groussot and Ericsson (2016), p. 56.

  3. 3.

    ECtHR, Rinas v. Finland, § 50 [2015]; Glantz v. Finland, § 57 [2014]; Van Bockel (2012), p. 330; Viganò and Mancuso (2016), p. 375.

  4. 4.

    Trechsel (2005), p. 399; Alcácer (2013), p. 33.

  5. 5.

    Van Bockel (2012), p. 330.

  6. 6.

    ECtHR, Šimkus v. Lithuania, § 46 [2017]; Dungveckis v. Lithuania, § 41 [2016]; Carlberg v. Sweden, § 64 [2009]; Garretta v. France, § 72 [2008]; Storbråten v. Norway [2007]; Mjelde v. Norway [2007]; Manasson v. Sweden, § 5 [2003]; Smirnova and Smirnova v. Russia, § 3 [2002]; Sailer v. Austria, § 23 [2002]; W. F. v. Austria, § 23 [2002]; Franz Fischer v. Austria, § 22 [2001]; Hangl v. Austria, § 1 [2001].

  7. 7.

    ECtHR, Pirttimäki v. Finland, § 51 [2014].

  8. 8.

    ECtHR, Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy [2014].

  9. 9.

    ECtHR, Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia, § 82 [2009]; Caprioli (2018), p. 941.

  10. 10.

    Cano (2001), p. 200.

  11. 11.

    ECtHR, Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy, § 227 [2014].

  12. 12.

    ECtHR, A and B v. Norway [2016].

  13. 13.

    Paulesu (2018), p. 401; Izquierdo (2019), pp. 11–12.

  14. 14.

    ECtHR, A and B v. Norway, § 118 [2016].

  15. 15.

    ECtHR, A and B v. Norway, § 111 [2016].

  16. 16.

    ECtHR, A and B v. Norway, § 130 [2016].

  17. 17.

    ECtHR, A and B v. Norway, § 130 [2016]; Csúri and Luchtman (2018), p. 295.

  18. 18.

    ECtHR, Bragi Guðmundur Kristjánsson v. Iceland, § 48 [2021]; Prina v. Romania, § 46 [2020]; Mihalache v. Romania, § 49 [2019]; Bjarni Ármannsson v. Iceland, § 39 [2019]; Matthildur Ingvarsdottir v. Iceland, § 44 [2018]; Xheraj v. Albania, § 53 [2008].

  19. 19.

    ECtHR, Ruotsalainen v. Finland, § 41 [2009]; Nikitin v. Russia, § 35 [2004]; Gradinger v. Austria, § 53 [1995]; Whelan (2014), p. 160; Wong (2014), p. 225; Viganò and Mancuso (2016), p. 377.

  20. 20.

    UNHRC, General Comment no. 32, § 57; J. G. v. New Zealand, § 4.4 [2015]; Gerardus Strik v. Netherlands, § 7.3 [2002]; Joseph and Castan (2014), p. 518.

  21. 21.

    ECtHR, Timofeyev and Postupkin v. Russia, § 86–87 [2021]; Serazin v. Croatia, § 91 [2018]; Toth v. Croatia, § 38 [2012]; Merrills and Robertson (2001), pp. 268–269; Neagu (2012), p. 958; Harris et al. (2014), p. 970; Izquierdo (2019), p. 9.

  22. 22.

    ECtHR, Mihalache v. Romania, § 53 [2019]; Serazin v. Croatia, § 64 [2018]; Šimkus v. Lithuania, § 41 [2017]; Palmén v. Sweden, § 20 [2016]; Rinas v. Finland, § 40 [2015]; Muslija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, § 25 [2014]; Tomasovic v. Croatia, § 19 [2011]; Zolotukhin v. Russia, § 52 [2009].

  23. 23.

    ECtHR, Serazin v. Croatia, § 64 [2018]; Kadusic v. Switzerland, § 82 [2018]; Glantz v. Finland, § 48 [2014]; Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia, § 52 [2009]; Ezeh and Connors v. United Kingdom, § 100 [2003]; Balsamo (2018), pp. 113–114.

  24. 24.

    ECtHR, Balsamo v. San Marino, § 59 [2019].

  25. 25.

    ECtHR, Timofeyev and Postupkin v. Russia, § 86 [2021]; Korneyeva v. Russia, § 48 [2019]; Serazin v. Croatia, § 64 [2018]; ECtHR, A and B v. Norway, § 107 [2016]; Glantz v. Finland, § 48 [2014]; Nykänen v. Finland, § 39 [2014]; Toth v. Croatia, § 26 [2012]; Tomasovic v. Croatia, § 19 [2011]; Haarvig v. Norway [2007]; Van Bockel (2016), p. 17.

  26. 26.

    ECtHR, Engel and Others v. Netherlands, § 81–83 [1976]. See also Velkov v. Bulgaria, § 45 [2020]; Orlen Lietuva Ltd. v. Lithuania, § 60 [2019]; A and B v. Norway, § 105–107 [2016]; Žaja v. Croatia, § 86 [2016]; Boman v. Finland, § 30 [2015]; Nykänen v. Finland, § 39 [2014]; Toth v. Croatia, § 26 [2012]; A. Menarini Diagnostics Srl v. Italy, § 38 [2011]; Ruotsalainen v. Finland, § 43 [2009]; Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia, § 53 [2009]; Jussila v. Finland, § 30 [2006]; Hangl v. Austria, § 1 [2001]; Adamson v. United Kingdom, § 1 [1999]; Pierre-Bloch v. France, § 54 [1997]; Öztürk v. Germany, § 50 [1984]; Kidd (1987), pp. 858–859; McDermott (1999), p. 287; Bailleux (2014), p. 138; Ventoruzzo (2015), p. 152; Weyembergh and Joncheray (2016), pp. 195–196; Van Bockel (2018), p. 983; Błachnio-Parzych (2018), p. 379; Ligeti (2018), p. 165; Balsamo (2018), p. 114.

  27. 27.

    ECtHR, Muslija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, § 30 [2014]; Tsonyo Tsonev v. Bulgaria, § 49 [2010]; Jussila v. Finland, § 31 [2006]; Wattel (2016), p. 186; Van Bockel (2018), p. 983.

  28. 28.

    ECtHR, Navalnyy v. Russia, § 78 [2018]; Sancakli v. Turkey, § 29 [2018]; Maresti v. Croatia, § 57 [2009].

  29. 29.

    ECtHR, Benham v. United Kingdom, § 56 [1996]; Wong (2014), p. 224; Baron and Poelmann (2017), p. 816; Maugeri (2017), p. 278.

  30. 30.

    ECtHR, Timofeyev and Postupkin v. Russia, § 75 [2021]; Žaja v. Croatia, § 86 [2016]; Vernes v. France, § 25 [2011]; Kidd (1987), p. 858; De Vero and Panebianco (2007), pp. 12–13; Öberg (2014), p. 277; Van Bockel (2016), p. 40; Arslan (2019), p. 7.

  31. 31.

    ECtHR. Ruotsalainen v. Finland, § 46 [2009]; Jussila v. Finland, § 38 [2006]; Öztürk v. Germany, § 52 [1984]; Campbell and Fell v. United Kingdom, § 71 [1984]; Baron and Poelmann (2017), p. 816; Arslan (2019), p. 8.

  32. 32.

    ECtHR, Mihalache v. Romania, § 59 [2019]; Šimkus v. Lithuania, § 43 [2017]; Žaja v. Croatia, § 88 [2016]; Muslija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, § 28 [2014]; Tomasovic v. Croatia, § 22 [2011]; Maresti v. Croatia, § 59 [2009]; Ruotsalainen v. Finland, § 46 [2009]; Ezeh and Connors v. United Kingdom, § 103 [2003]; Bendenoun v. France, § 47 [1994]; Weber v. Switzerland, § 33 [1990]; Öztürk v. Germany, § 53 [1984].

  33. 33.

    ECtHR, Escoubet v. Belgium, § 37 [1999]; Benham v. United Kingdom, § 56 [1996]; Welch v. United Kingdom, § 26 [1995].

  34. 34.

    ECtHR, Serazin v. Croatia, § 84 [2018]; Šimkus v. Lithuania, § 43 [2017]; Palmén v. Sweden, § 26 [2016]; Nykänen v. Finland, § 40 [2014]; Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy, § 96 [2014]; Pirttimäki v. Finland, § 47 [2014]; Tomasovic v. Croatia, § 22 [2011]; Gardel v. France, § 43 [2009]; Maresti v. Croatia, § 59 [2009]; Ezeh and Connors v. United Kingdom, § 102 [2003]; Bendenoun v. France, § 47 [1994]; Öztürk v. Germany, § 53 [1984].

  35. 35.

    ECtHR, Mihalache v. Romania, § 59 [2019]; Milenković v. Serbia, § 35 [2016]; Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia, § 55 [2009].

  36. 36.

    ECtHR, Prina v. Romania, § 57 [2020]; Mihalache v. Romania, § 61 [2019]; Milenković v. Serbia, § 36 [2016]; Tomasovic v. Croatia, § 23 [2011]; Maresti v. Croatia, § 60 [2009]; Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia, § 56 [2009]; Grecu v. Romania, § 54 [2006]; Ezeh and Connors v. United Kingdom, § 120 [2003]; Campbell and Fell v. United Kingdom, § 72 [1984].

  37. 37.

    ECtHR, Kiiveri v. Finland, § 32 [2015]; Jussila v. Finland, § 31 [2006]; Öztürk v. Germany, § 54 [1984].

  38. 38.

    Maugeri (2017), p. 280.

  39. 39.

    Böse (2017), p. 216.

  40. 40.

    ECtHR, Nilsson v. Sweden [2005].

  41. 41.

    ECtHR. Jussila v. Finland, § 37–38 [2006].

  42. 42.

    ECtHR, Ruotsalainen v. Finland, § 47 [2009].

  43. 43.

    ECtHR, Öztürk v. Germany, § 50–54 [1984].

  44. 44.

    Van Bockel (2016), p. 47.

  45. 45.

    ECtHR, Gradinger v. Austria, § 7 [1995].

  46. 46.

    ECtHR, Gradinger v. Austria, § 8 [1995].

  47. 47.

    ECtHR, Gradinger v. Austria, § 9 [1995].

  48. 48.

    ECtHR, Gradinger v. Austria, § 55 [1995].

  49. 49.

    ECtHR, Oliveira v. Switzerland, § 7 [1998].

  50. 50.

    ECtHR, Oliveira v. Switzerland, § 10 [1998].

  51. 51.

    ECtHR, Oliveira v. Switzerland, § 11 [1998].

  52. 52.

    ECtHR, Oliveira v. Switzerland, § 26 [1998]; Neagu (2012), p. 969.

  53. 53.

    ECtHR, Franz Fischer v. Austria, § 7 [2001].

  54. 54.

    ECtHR, Franz Fischer v. Austria, § 8 [2001].

  55. 55.

    ECtHR, Franz Fischer v. Austria, § 9 [2001].

  56. 56.

    ECtHR, Franz Fischer v. Austria, § 25 [2001]. The “same essential elements” test was later applied in W. F. v. Austria, § 25–28 [2002], Sailer v. Austria, § 25–28 [2002], Hauser-Sporn v. Austria, § 42–46 [2006] and Schutte v. Austria, § 41–44 [2007] and Garretta v. France, § 92 [2008].

  57. 57.

    ECtHR, Franz Fischer v. Austria, § 29–32 [2001].

  58. 58.

    ECtHR, Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia, § 78 [2009].

  59. 59.

    ECtHR, Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (no. 2), § 603 [2020]; Nodet v. France, § 44 [2019]; Ramda v. France, § 81 [2017]; Jóhannesson and Others v. Iceland, § 45 [2017]; Šimkus v. Lithuania, § 48 [2017]; A and B v. Norway, § 108 [2016].

  60. 60.

    ECtHR, Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia, § 81 [2009].

  61. 61.

    ECtHR, Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia, § 82 [2009]; Di Federico (2011), p. 244; Carpio (2012), p. 231; Whelan (2014), p. 161; Harris et al. (2014), p. 972; Ventoruzzo (2015), p. 156; Caprioli (2018), pp. 936–937.

  62. 62.

    ECtHR, Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia, § 84 [2009].

  63. 63.

    Wattel (2016), p. 178.

  64. 64.

    Groussot and Ericsson (2016), p. 57; Ilić (2017), p. 221; Buric (2019), p. 510.

  65. 65.

    ECtHR, Goulandris and Vardinogianni v. Greece, § 49 [2022]; Galović v. Croatia, § 107 [2021]; Mihalache v. Romania, § 67–68 [2019]; Marguš v. Croatia, § 114 [2014]; Kapetanios and Others v. Greece, § 62 [2015].

  66. 66.

    ECtHR, Tsonyo Tsonev v. Bulgaria, § 6 [2010].

  67. 67.

    ECtHR, Tsonyo Tsonev v. Bulgaria, § 7 [2010].

  68. 68.

    ECtHR, Tsonyo Tsonev v. Bulgaria, § 8–10 [2010].

  69. 69.

    ECtHR, Tsonyo Tsonev v. Bulgaria, § 52 [2010].

  70. 70.

    ECtHR, Milenković v. Serbia, § 39 [2016].

  71. 71.

    ECtHR, Milenković v. Serbia, § 40 [2016].

  72. 72.

    ECtHR, Mihalache v. Romania, § 95 [2019].

  73. 73.

    ECtHR, Mihalache v. Romania, § 97 [2019].

  74. 74.

    ECtHR, Korneyeva v. Russia, § 48 [2019]; Ramda v. France, § 82 [2017]; Kapetanios and Others v. Greece, § 63 [2015]; Muslija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, § 36 [2014]; Tsonyo Tsonev v. Bulgaria, § 53 [2010]; Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia, § 107 [2009]; Trechsel (2005), p. 389; Whelan (2014), p. 160; Stuckenberg (2019), p. 471.

  75. 75.

    For instance, Sundqvist v. Finland [2005].

  76. 76.

    ECtHR, Mihalache v. Romania, § 104 [2019].

  77. 77.

    ECtHR, Mihalache v. Romania, § 114 [2019].

  78. 78.

    ECtHR, Mihalache v. Romania, § 116 [2019].

  79. 79.

    ECtHR, Mihalache v. Romania, § 115 [2019]; Šimkus v. Lithuania, § 46 [2017]; Milenković v. Serbia, § 44 [2016]; Glantz v. Finland, § 54 [2014]; Tsonyo Tsonev v. Bulgaria, § 53 [2010]; Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia, § 107 [2009].

  80. 80.

    ECtHR, Mihalache v. Romania, § 110 [2019].

  81. 81.

    ECtHR, Mihalache v. Romania, § 115 [2019].

  82. 82.

    ECtHR, Mihalache v. Romania, § 115 [2019].

  83. 83.

    ECtHR, Rinas v. Finland, § 52 [2015]; Nykänen v. Finland, § 49 [2014]; Glantz v. Finland, § 59 [2014]; Muslija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, § 37 [2014]; Van Bockel (2012), p. 331; Cassibba (2018), p. 979.

  84. 84.

    ECtHR, Korneyeva v. Russia, § 51 [2019]; Boman v. Finland, § 41 [2015]; Kiiveri v. Finland, § 43 [2015]; Tomasovic v. Croatia, § 31 [2011].

  85. 85.

    ECtHR, Bragi Guðmundur Kristjánsson v. Iceland, § 55 [2021]; Korneyeva v. Russia, § 56 [2019]; Mihalache v. Romania, § 83 [2019].

  86. 86.

    ECtHR, R. T. v. Switzerland, § 3 [2000].

  87. 87.

    ECtHR, R. T. v. Switzerland, § 3 [2000].

  88. 88.

    ECtHR, Nilsson v. Sweden [2005].

  89. 89.

    ECtHR, Maszni v. Romania, § 68 [2006].

  90. 90.

    ECtHR, Maszni v. Romania, § 69–70 [2006].

  91. 91.

    ECtHR, Kiiveri v. Finland, § 6–16 [2015]; Lucky Dev v. Sweden, § 6–12 [2014]; Glantz v. Finland, § 6–19 [2014]; Nykänen v. Finland, § 6–19 [2014].

  92. 92.

    ECtHR, Kiiveri v. Finland, § 45 [2015]; Lucky Dev v. Sweden, § 62 [2014]; Glantz v. Finland, § 61 [2014]; Nykänen v. Finland, § 51 [2014].

  93. 93.

    ECtHR, Kiiveri v. Finland, § 45 [2015]; Lucky Dev v. Sweden, § 62 [2014]; Glantz v. Finland, § 61 [2014]; Nykänen v. Finland, § 51 [2014].

  94. 94.

    ECtHR, Kiiveri v. Finland, § 49 [2015]; Lucky Dev v. Sweden, § 64 [2014]; Glantz v. Finland, § 64 [2014]; Nykänen v. Finland, § 54 [2014].

  95. 95.

    ECtHR, Boman v. Finland, § 7 [2015].

  96. 96.

    ECtHR, Boman v. Finland, § 9 [2015].

  97. 97.

    ECtHR, Boman v. Finland, § 43–44 [2015].

  98. 98.

    ECtHR, Rivard v. Switzerland, § 7 [2016].

  99. 99.

    ECtHR, Rivard v. Switzerland, § 9 [2016].

  100. 100.

    ECtHR, Rivard v. Switzerland, § 31 [2016].

  101. 101.

    ECtHR, Rivard v. Switzerland, § 31 [2016].

  102. 102.

    ECtHR, Rivard v. Switzerland, § 32 [2016].

  103. 103.

    ECtHR, Rivard v. Switzerland, § 33–34 [2016].

  104. 104.

    Rudoni (2017), p. 831.

  105. 105.

    ECtHR, A and B v. Norway, § 130 [2016].

  106. 106.

    ECtHR, A and B v. Norway, § 132 [2016]; Cassibba (2018), p. 981; Mirandola and Lasagni (2019), p. 128.

  107. 107.

    ECtHR, A and B v. Norway, § 133 [2016].

  108. 108.

    ECtHR, A and B v. Norway, § 134 [2016].

  109. 109.

    ECtHR, A and B v. Norway, § 147 [2016]; Masárová and Maslen (2017), p. 76.

  110. 110.

    ECtHR, A and B v. Norway, § 154 [2016].

  111. 111.

    ECtHR, A and B v. Norway, § 133 [2016].

  112. 112.

    ECtHR, Jussila v. Finland, § 9–10 [2006].

  113. 113.

    ECtHR, Jussila v. Finland, § 11–12 [2006].

  114. 114.

    ECtHR, Jussila v. Finland, § 38–39 [2006].

  115. 115.

    ECtHR, Jussila v. Finland, § 40 [2006].

  116. 116.

    ECtHR, Jussila v. Finland, § 41 [2006], citing Döry v. Sweden, § 37 [2002] and Pursiheimo v. Finland [2003]. See also Tommaso v. Italy, § 163 [2017].

  117. 117.

    ECtHR, Jussila v. Finland, § 42 [2006].

  118. 118.

    ECtHR, Jussila v. Finland, § 43 [2006]; Bailleux (2014), p. 142; Masera (2018), p. 51.

  119. 119.

    ECtHR, Jussila v. Finland, § 43 [2006]. See also Chap Ltd. v. Armenia, § 41–43 [2017]; Sancakli v. Turkey, § 44 [2018]; Lidgard (2012), p. 411; Bailleux (2014), p. 143; Masera (2018), p. 51.

  120. 120.

    ECtHR, Jussila v. Finland, § 48–49 [2006].

  121. 121.

    ECtHR, Kammerer v. Austria, § 27 [2010].

  122. 122.

    Andrijauskaitė (2019), p. 370.

  123. 123.

    ECtHR, A and B v. Norway, § 133 [2016]. The ECtHR has reaffirmed that civil sanctions do not belong to the traditional categories of criminal law in Suhadolc v. Slovenia [2011]; Marčan v. Croatia, § 37 [2014]; Sancakli v. Turkey, § 47 [2018].

  124. 124.

    Van Kempen and Bemelmans (2018), p. 260.

  125. 125.

    ECtHR, Jóhannesson and Others v. Iceland, § 10–14 [2017].

  126. 126.

    ECtHR, Jóhannesson and Others v. Iceland, § 15–20 [2017].

  127. 127.

    ECtHR, Jóhannesson and Others v. Iceland, § 54 [2017].

  128. 128.

    ECtHR, Jóhannesson and Others v. Iceland, § 54 [2017]; Desterbeck (2019), p. 137.

  129. 129.

    ECtHR, Jóhannesson and Others v. Iceland, § 56 [2017].

  130. 130.

    ECtHR, Matthildur Ingvarsdottir v. Iceland, § 4–7 [2018].

  131. 131.

    ECtHR, Matthildur Ingvarsdottir v. Iceland, § 13–18 [2018].

  132. 132.

    ECtHR, Matthildur Ingvarsdottir v. Iceland, § 23–32 [2018].

  133. 133.

    ECtHR, Matthildur Ingvarsdottir v. Iceland, § 58–59 [2018].

  134. 134.

    ECtHR, Matthildur Ingvarsdottir v. Iceland, § 62 [2018].

  135. 135.

    ECtHR, Matthildur Ingvarsdottir v. Iceland, § 65 [2018].

  136. 136.

    ECtHR, Bjarni Ármannsson v. Iceland, § 5 [2019].

  137. 137.

    ECtHR, Bjarni Ármannsson v. Iceland, § 10 [2019].

  138. 138.

    ECtHR, Bjarni Ármannsson v. Iceland, § 18–20 [2019].

  139. 139.

    ECtHR, Bjarni Ármannsson v. Iceland, § 53 [2019].

  140. 140.

    ECtHR, Bjarni Ármannsson v. Iceland, § 55 [2019].

  141. 141.

    ECtHR, Bjarni Ármannsson v. Iceland, § 56 [2019].

  142. 142.

    ECtHR, Bjarni Ármannsson v. Iceland, § 56 [2019].

  143. 143.

    ECtHR, Bjarni Ármannsson v. Iceland, § 58 [2019].

  144. 144.

    ECtHR, Nodet v. France, § 16–18 [2019].

  145. 145.

    ECtHR, Nodet v. France, § 22–25 [2019].

  146. 146.

    ECtHR, Nodet v. France, § 48 [2019].

  147. 147.

    ECtHR, Nodet v. France, § 48 [2019].

  148. 148.

    ECtHR, Nodet v. France, § 49 [2019].

  149. 149.

    ECtHR, Nodet v. France, § 52 [2019].

  150. 150.

    ECtHR, Nodet v. France, § 53–54 [2019].

  151. 151.

    ECtHR, Mihalache v. Romania, § 9–26 [2019].

  152. 152.

    ECtHR, Mihalache v. Romania, § 84 [2019].

  153. 153.

    ECtHR, Mihalache v. Romania, § 85 [2019].

  154. 154.

    ECtHR, Velkov v. Bulgaria, § 4–10 [2020].

  155. 155.

    ECtHR, Velkov v. Bulgaria, § 11–23 [2020].

  156. 156.

    ECtHR, Velkov v. Bulgaria, § 77 [2020].

  157. 157.

    ECtHR, Velkov v. Bulgaria, § 78–80 [2020].

  158. 158.

    ECtHR, Bajčić v. Croatia, § 4–9 [2020].

  159. 159.

    ECtHR, Bajčić v. Croatia, § 41–43 [2020].

  160. 160.

    ECtHR, Bajčić v. Croatia, § 45–47 [2020].

  161. 161.

    ECtHR, Milošević v. Croatia, § 5–7 [2021].

  162. 162.

    ECtHR, Milošević v. Croatia, § 8–11 [2021].

  163. 163.

    ECtHR, Milošević v. Croatia, § 13 [2021].

  164. 164.

    ECtHR, Milošević v. Croatia, § 31–34 [2021].

  165. 165.

    ECtHR, Milošević v. Croatia, § 38–39 [2021].

  166. 166.

    ECtHR, Milošević v. Croatia, § 40–41 [2021].

  167. 167.

    ECtHR, Milošević v. Croatia, § 42–43 [2021].

  168. 168.

    ECtHR, W. A. v. Switzerland, § 65 [2021]; Sabalić v. Croatia, § 99 [2021]; Mihalache v. Romania, § 130 [2019]; Kadusic v. Switzerland, § 84 [2018]; Nikolay Stepanovich and Ivan Stepanovich Goncharovy v. Russia [2008]; Xheraj v. Albania, § 53 [2008]; Radchikov v. Russia, § 42–43 [2007]; Bratyakin v. Russia [2006]; Harris et al. (2014), p. 973; Zagrebelsky et al. (2016), p. 225; Viganò and Mancuso (2016), p. 378; Van Bockel (2018), p. 988.

  169. 169.

    ECtHR, Sabalić v. Croatia, § 99 [2021]; Mihalache v. Romania, § 130–138 [2019]; Fadin v. Russia, § 30–37 [2006]; Nikitin v. Russia, § 46–49 [2004].

  170. 170.

    ECtHR, Nikitin v. Russia, § 9–16 [2004].

  171. 171.

    ECtHR, Nikitin v. Russia, § 17–18 [2004].

  172. 172.

    ECtHR, Nikitin v. Russia, § 31 [2004].

  173. 173.

    ECtHR, Nikitin v. Russia, § 39–49 [2004]. See also W. A. v. Switzerland, § 69 [2021].

  174. 174.

    ECtHR, Xheraj v. Albania, § 53 [2008].

  175. 175.

    ECtHR, Kiselev v. Russia, § 26 [2009]; Xheraj v. Albania, § 53 [2008]; Radchikov v. Russia, § 45 [2007].

  176. 176.

    ECtHR, Kiselev v. Russia, § 26 [2009]; Bratyakin v. Russia [2006].

  177. 177.

    ECtHR, Xheraj v. Albania, § 54 [2008].

References

  • Alcácer R (2013) El derecho a no ser sometido a doble procesamiento: discrepancias sobre el “bis in idem” en el Tribunal Europeo de Derecho Humanos y en el Tribunal Constitucional. Justicia administrativa: Revista de derecho administrativo (61):25–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Allegrezza S (2012) Art. 4 Prot. 7. In: Bartole S, De Sena P, Zagrebelsky V (eds) Commentario breve alla Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo e delle libertà fondamentali. Cedam, pp 894–905

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrijauskaitė A (2019) Exploring the penumbra of punishment under the ECHR. N J Eur Crim Law 10(4):363–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Arslan M (2019) Procedural guarantees for criminal and administrative criminal sanctions: a study of the European Convention on Human Rights. Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailleux A (2014) The fiftieth shade of grey. Competition law, ‘criministrative law’ and ‘fairly fair trials’. In: Galli F, Weyembergh A (eds) Do labels still matter?: Blurring boundaries between administrative and criminal law. The influence of the EU. Université de Bruxelles, pp 137–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Balsamo A (2018) The content of fundamental rights. In: Kostoris RE (ed) Handbook of European criminal procedure. Springer, pp 99–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron J, Poelmann E (2017) Tax penalties: minor criminal charges? Intertax 45(12):816–821

    Google Scholar 

  • Błachnio-Parzych A (2018) Solutions to the accumulation of different penal responsibilities for the same act and their assessment from the perspective of the ne bis in idem principle. N J Eur Crim Law 9(3):366–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Böse M (2017) The consecutive application of different types of sanctions and the principle of ne bis in idem: the EU and the US on different tracks? In: Ligeti K, Franssen V (eds) Challenges in the field of economic and financial crime in Europe and the US. Hart

    Google Scholar 

  • Buric Z (2019) Ne bis in idem in European criminal law: moving in circles topic 4: criminal law and procedure. ECLIC 3:507–520

    Google Scholar 

  • Cano T (2001) Non bis in idem, prevalencia de la vía penal y teoría de los concursos en el Derecho administrativo sancionador. Revista de administración pública (156):191–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Caprioli F (2018) Editoriale del Dossier “Giudicato penale, principio di legalità, principio di colpevolezza.”. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal 4(3):933–952

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpio D (2012) Europeización y Reconstitución del non bis in idem. Efectos en España de la STEDH Sergey Zolotukhin v. Rusia de 10 de febrero de 2009. In: Mir Puig S, Corcoy M (eds) Constitución y sistema penal. Marcial Pons, pp 223–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassibba FS (2018) I limiti oggettivi del ne bis in idem in Italia tra fonti nazionali ed europee. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal 4(3):953–1002

    Google Scholar 

  • Csúri A, Luchtman M (2018) Procedural safeguards for heads of business in light of the ECrHR and CJEU case law. In: Ligeti K, Angelo M (eds) Punitive liability of heads of business in the EU: a comparative study. Cedam, pp 273–304

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vero G, Panebianco G (2007) Delitti e pene nella giurisprudenza delle corti europee. Giappichelli

    Google Scholar 

  • Desterbeck F (2019) Ne bis in idem and tax offences: how Belgium adapted its legislation to the recent case law of the ECtHR and the CJEU. Eucrim (2):135–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Federico G (2011) EU competition law and the principle of ne bis in idem. Eur Public Law 17(2):241–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Floinn M (2017) The concept of idem in the European Courts: extricating the inextricable link in European double jeopardy law. Columbia J Eur Law 24(1):75–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Groussot X, Ericsson A (2016) Ne bis in idem in the EU and ECHR legal orders. A matter of uniform interpretation? In: Van Bockel B (ed) Ne bis in idem in EU law. Cambridge University Press, pp 53–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris D, O’Boyle M, Bates E, Buckley C (2014) Harris, O’Boyle, and Warbrick: law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilić GP (2017) Observations on the ne bis in idem principle in light of the European Court of Human Rights’ Judgment: Milenkovic v. Serbia. J East-Eur Crim Law (1):217–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Izquierdo C (2019) Preferencia aplicativa y diálogo judicial. Indret: Revista para el Análisis del Derecho (1):1–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph S, Castan M (2014) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: cases, materials, and commentary, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidd CJF (1987) Disciplinary proceedings and the right to a fair criminal trial under the European Convention on Human Rights. Int Comp Law Q 36(4):856–872

    Google Scholar 

  • Lidgard H (2012) Due process in European competition procedure: a fundamental concept or a mere formality? In: Cardonnel P, Rosas A, Wahl N (eds) Constitutionalising the EU Judicial System: essays in honour of Pernilla Lindh. Hart, pp 403–421

    Google Scholar 

  • Ligeti K (2018) Fundamental rights protection between Strasbourg and Luxembourg. In: Ligeti K, Robinson G (eds) Preventing and resolving conflicts of jurisdiction in EU criminal law. Oxford University Press, pp 160–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Masárová Ľ, Maslen M (2017) Ne bis in idem Principle, double jeopardy guarantee and their application in the fields of punishment and sanctioning: differences, merits and demerits. Societas et Iusrisprudentias 5(3):60–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Masera L (2018) La nozione costituzionale di materia penale. Giappichelli

    Google Scholar 

  • Maugeri AM (2017) The concept of criminal matter in the European Courts case law. In: Sicurella R, Mitsilegas V, Parizot R, Lucifora A (eds) General principles for a common criminal law framework in the EU. A guide for legal practitioners. Giuffrè, pp 275–293

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott PA (1999) Res Judicata and Double Jeopardy. Bloomsbury Professional

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrills JG, Robertson AH (2001) Human rights in Europe, 4th edn. Juris Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirandola S, Lasagni G (2019) The European ne bis in idem at the crossroads of administrative and criminal law. Eucrim (2):126–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Neagu N (2012) The ne bis in idem principle in the interpretation of European Courts: towards uniform interpretation. Leiden J Int Law 25(4):955–977

    Google Scholar 

  • Öberg J (2014) The definition of criminal sanctions in the EU. Eur Crim Law Rev 3(3):273–299

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulesu PP (2018) Ne bis in idem and conflicts of jurisdiction. In: Kostoris RE (ed) Handbook of European criminal procedure. Springer, pp 393–421

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez Manzano M (2018) Ne bis in idem in Spain and in Europe. Internal effects of an inverse and partial convergence of case-law (from Luxembourg to Strasbourg). In: Pérez Manzano M, Lascuraín JAL, Mínguez Rosique M (eds) Multilevel protection of the principle of legality in criminal law. Springer, pp 75–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudoni R (2017) Sul ne bis in idem convenzionale: le irriducibili aporie di una giurisprudenza casistica. Quaderni costituzionali 37(4):825–849

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuckenberg C-F (2019) Double jeopardy and ne bis in idem in common law and civil law jurisdictions. In: Brown DK, Turner JI, Weisser B (eds) The Oxford handbook of criminal process. Oxford University Press, pp 457–475

    Google Scholar 

  • Trechsel S (2005) Human rights in criminal proceedings. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Bockel B (2012) The ne bis in idem principle in the European Union legal order: between scope and substance. ERA Forum 13(3):325–347

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Bockel B (2016) The European ne bis in idem principle. Substance, sources and scope. In: Van Bockel B (ed) Ne bis in idem in EU law. Cambridge University Press, pp 13–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Bockel B (2018) Right not to be tried or punished twice. In: Van Dijk P, Van Hoof F, Van Rijn A, Zwaak L (eds) Theory and practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, 5th edn. Intersentia, pp 981–990

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Kempen PH, Bemelmans J (2018) EU protection of the substantive criminal law principles of guilt and ne bis in idem under the Charter of Fundamental Rights: underdevelopment and overdevelopment in an incomplete criminal justice framework. N J Eur Crim Law 9(2):247–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Ventoruzzo M (2015) When market abuse rules violate human rights: Grande Stevens v. Italy and the different approaches to double jeopardy in Europe and the US. Eur Bus Organ Law Rev 16(1):145–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Vervaele JAE (2005) The transnational e bis in idem principle in the EU. Mutual recognition and equivalent protection of human rights. Utrecht Law Rev 1(2):100–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Viganò F, Mancuso EM (2016) Art. 4 Prot. N. 7. In: Ubertis G, Viganò F (eds) Corte di Strasburgo e giustizia penale. Giappichelli, pp 374–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Wattel P (2016) Ne bis in idem and tax offences in EU law and ECHR law. In: Van Bockel B (ed) Ne bis in idem in EU law. Cambridge University Press, pp 167–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyembergh A, Joncheray N (2016) Punitive administrative sanctions and procedural safeguards: a blurred picture that needs to be addressed. N J Eur Crim Law 7(2):366–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Whelan P (2014) The criminalization of European Cartel Enforcement: theoretical, legal, and practical challenges. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong C (2014) Criminal sanctions and administrative penalties: the quid of the ne bis in idem principle and some original sins. In: Galli F, Weyembergh A (eds) Do labels still matter?: Blurring boundaries between administrative and criminal law. The influence of the EU. Université de Bruxelles, pp 219–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Zagrebelsky V, Chenal R, Tomasi L (2016) Manuale dei diritti fondamentali in Europa. Il Mulino

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Austral University of Chile, Puerto Montt, Chile

    Javier Ignacio Escobar Veas

Authors
  1. Javier Ignacio Escobar Veas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Escobar Veas, J.I. (2023). Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights. In: Ne bis in idem and Multiple Sanctioning Systems. Legal Studies in International, European and Comparative Criminal Law, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16556-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16556-6_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-16555-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-16556-6

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation