Advertisement

Ne bis in idem and Conflicts of Jurisdiction

  • Pier Paolo Paulesu
Chapter

Abstract

Section 10.1, deals with the meaning and the limits of the guarantee of ne bis in idem (which protects an individual who has already been acquitted or convicted with a final decision by one State from the potential to be subjected to a new criminal proceeding in another State for the same fact, with the consequent risk of a duplicate punishment) in the ECHR system (where the ne bis in idem principle represents a fundamental right of the individual) and in the Criminal Judicial Cooperation area (where the ne bis in idem guarantee can be also placed in the specific dimension of the mutual recognition). From this perspective, Sect. 10.1 deals in particular with the evolution of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice on this matter. Section 10.2 is focused on the problem of lis pendens (i.e., the simultaneous beginning of criminal proceedings for the same fact against the same person within different States), pointing out the best solutions to prevent or to resolve it.

Further Reading

  1. Aguilera Morales F, Hernan MC (2011) El principio non bis in idem a la luz dela jurisprudencia del Tribunal de justicia. Arch. pen., pp 3 ffGoogle Scholar
  2. Allegrezza S (2012) Art. 4 Prot. 7. In: Bartole S, Conforti B, Zagrebelski V (eds) Commentario breve alla Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo. Cedam, Padova, pp 897 ffGoogle Scholar
  3. Amalfitano C (2006) Conflitti di giurisdizione e riconoscimento delle decisioni penali nell’Unione europea. Giuffrè, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartsch HJ (2002) Ne bis in idem. The European perspective. Rev Int de droit pénal, pp 1163 ffGoogle Scholar
  5. Blockel BV (2010) The ne bis in idem principle. EU law, pp 217 ffGoogle Scholar
  6. Bose M (2003) Der Grudsatz “ne bis in idem” in der EU. Goltdammer’s Archiv, pp 744 ffGoogle Scholar
  7. Coffey G (2008) The principle of Ne bis in idem in criminal proceedings. Irish Crim Law J 18(1):2 ffGoogle Scholar
  8. Copain C (2013) Le principe ne bis in idem: entre hamornisation et dissonance européennes. Actualité Juridique Pénal, pp 270 ffGoogle Scholar
  9. De Amicis G (2014) Ne bis in idem e “doppio binario” sanzionatorio: prime riflessioni sugli effetti della sentenza “Grande Stevens” nell'ordinamento italiano. Dir. pen. cont. – Riv. trim. (3–4), pp 201 ffGoogle Scholar
  10. De La Cuesta JL (2002) Concurrent national and international criminal jurisdiction and the principle “ne bis in idem”. General Report Rev int droit pénal, pp 725 ffGoogle Scholar
  11. Duesberg E (2017) Das Vollstreckungselement des Art. 54 SDÜ im Spannungsfeld zwischen Europäisierung und nationalen Sicherheitsinteressen. Plädoyer fÜr einen vermittelnden Standpunkt. Zeitschrift fÜr Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, pp 66 ffGoogle Scholar
  12. Fletcher M (2003) Some developments to the ne bis in idem principles in the European Union. Mod Law Rev 66:769 ffGoogle Scholar
  13. Fletcher M (2007) The problem of multiple criminal prosecutions: buildings an effective EU response. Yearb Eur Law, pp 33 ffGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaeta P (2014) Gerarchie e antinomie di interpretazioni conformi nella materia penale: il caso del ne bis in idem. Cass pen., pp 1863 ffGoogle Scholar
  15. Galantini N (2011) Il ne bis idem nello spazio giudiziario europeo: traguardi e prospettive. www.dirittopenalecontemporaneo.it., 24 February 2011
  16. Garin A (2016) Non bis in idem et Convention européenne des droits de l’homme - Du nébuleux au clair-obscur: état des lieux d’un principe ambivalent. Rev. trim. droits de l’homme, pp 395 ffGoogle Scholar
  17. Hochmayr G (ed) (2015) “Ne bis in idem” in Europa. Praxis, Probleme und Perspektiven des Doppelverfolgungsverbots. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  18. Hochmayr G, Ligocki D (2016) Der Strafregisteraustausch in der Europäischen Union und das Recht auf Resozialisierung. Zeitschrift fÜr Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, pp 159 ffGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaiafa-Gbandi M (2017) Jurisdictional conflicts in criminal matters and their settlement within EU’s supranational settings. Eur Crim Law Rev (1), pp 30 ffGoogle Scholar
  20. Klip A, Van Der Wilt H (2002) Ne bis in idem. Rev. int. dr. pénal, pp 1095 ffGoogle Scholar
  21. Kniebuhler RM (2005) Transnationales “ne bis in idem”. Duncker & Humblot, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  22. Lelieur J (2005) La règle ne bis in idem. Thése pour le Doctorat en Droit. Université Panthéon-Sorbonne, ParisGoogle Scholar
  23. Lelieur J (2013a) “Transnationalising” ne bis in idem: how the rule of ne bis in idem reveals the principle of personal legal certainty. Utrecht Law Rev 9:198 ffGoogle Scholar
  24. Lelieur J (2013b) L’Union européenne face aux conflits de compétence pénales. Questions de droit pénal international, européen et compare. Mélanges en l’honneur du professeur Alain Fournier. Presses universitaires de Nancy - Editions universitaires de Lorraine, pp 257 ffGoogle Scholar
  25. Ligeti K (2009) Rules on the application of ne bis in idem in the EU. Is further legislative action required? Eucrim (1–2), pp 37 ffGoogle Scholar
  26. Ligeti K, Simonato M (2014) Multidisciplinary investigations into offences against the financial interests of the EU: a quest for an integrated enforcement concept. In: Galli F, Weyembergh A (eds) Do labels still matter? Blurring boundaries between administrative and criminal law. The influence of the EU. Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, pp 81 ffGoogle Scholar
  27. Lupària L (2012) La litispendenza internazionale tra ne bis in idem europeo e processo penale italiano. Giuffrè, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  28. Marletta A (2017) A new course for mutual trust in the AFSJ? Transnational ne bis in idem and the determination of the merits of the case in Kossowski. New J Eur Crim Law 8(2):108 ffGoogle Scholar
  29. Maulet L (2017) Le principe ne bis in idem, objet d’un “dialogue” contrasté entre la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne et la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. Rev. trim. droits de l’homme, pp 107 ffGoogle Scholar
  30. Mitsilegas V (2015) The symbiotic relationship between mutual trust and fundamental rights in Europe’s area of criminal justice. New J Eur Crim Law 6(4):457 ffGoogle Scholar
  31. Mock H (2009) Ne bis in idem: Strasbourg tranche en faveur de l’identité des faits. Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (Grande Chambre), Zolotoukhine c. Russie, 10 février 2009. Rev. trim. droits de l’homme, pp 867 ffGoogle Scholar
  32. Panayides P (2006) Conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings: analysis and possible improvements to the EU legal framework. Rev int de droit penal, pp 113 ffGoogle Scholar
  33. Paulesu PP (2016) Riflessioni in tema di ne bis in idem europeo, Riv dir proc, pp 638 ffGoogle Scholar
  34. Rafaraci T (2008) Procedural safeguards and the principle of ne bis in idem in the European Union. In: Bassiouni MC, Militello V, Satzger H (eds) European cooperation in penal matters: issues and perspectives. Cedam, Padova, pp 363 ffGoogle Scholar
  35. Roberts P (2002) Double Jeopardy law reform: a criminal justice commentary. Mod Law Rev, pp 393 ffGoogle Scholar
  36. Sarmiento D (2007) El principio ne bis in idem en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Comunidad Europea. In: Zapatero LA, Martin AN (eds) El principio ne bis in idem en el Derecho penal europeo e internacional. Ediciones De La Universidad De Castilla-La Mancha, Cuenca, pp 56 ffGoogle Scholar
  37. Schomburg W (2012) Criminal matters: transnational ne bis in idem in Europe – conflicts of jurisdiction – transfer of proceedings. ERA Forum 13(3):331 ffGoogle Scholar
  38. Sieber U, Brüner FH, Satzger H, Von Heintschel-Heinegg B (eds) (2011) Europaieshes Strafrecht. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  39. Spinellis D (2002) The ne bis in idem principle in “global” instruments. Rev int de droit pénal, pp 1149 ffGoogle Scholar
  40. Thorhauer NI (2015) Conflicts of jurisdiction in cross-border criminal cases in the area of freedom, security, and justice: risks and opportunities from an individual rights-oriented perspective. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 78 ffGoogle Scholar
  41. Vander Beken T, Vermeulen G, Ongena T (2002) Concurrent national and international criminal jurisdiction and the principle “ne bis in idem”. Rev int dr pénal, pp 818 ffGoogle Scholar
  42. Vervaele JAE (2004) Case law. Common Mark Law Rev 41:804 ffGoogle Scholar
  43. Vervaele JAE (2005) The transnational ne bis in idem principle in the EU. Mutual recognition and equivalent protection of human rights. Utrecht Law Rev, pp 100 ffGoogle Scholar
  44. Vervaele JAE (2006) Multilevel and multiple punishment in Europe. The ne bis in idem principle and the protection of human rights in Europe’s area of freedom, security and justice. In: van Hoek A et al (eds) Multilevel governance in enforcement and adjudication. Intersentia, Antwerpen, pp 1 ffGoogle Scholar
  45. Vervaele JAE (2013) Ne bis in idem. Towards a transnational constitutional principle in the EU? Utrecht Law Rev, pp 211 ffGoogle Scholar
  46. Viganò F (2014) Doppio binario sanzionatorio e ne bis in idem: verso una diretta applicazione dell'Art. 50 della Carta? (a margine della sentenza Grande Stevens della Corte Edu). Dir. pen. cont. – Riv. trim. (3–4), pp 219 ffGoogle Scholar
  47. Wesmeier M (2006) The principle of ne bis in idem. Rev int de droit penal, pp 121 ffGoogle Scholar
  48. Wesmeier M, Thwaites M (2006) The development of ne bis in idem into a transnational fundamental right in EU law: comments on recent developments. Eur Law Rev pp 565 ffGoogle Scholar
  49. Wasmeier M. (2014) ne bis in idem and the enforcement condition. New J Eur Crim Law pp 548 ffGoogle Scholar
  50. Weyembergh A (2004) Le principe ne bis in idem: pierre d'achoppement de l'espace pènal européen? Cahiers droiteur., pp 337 ffGoogle Scholar
  51. Weyembergh A (2013) Le Principe Non Bis In Idem: Une Contribution Essentielle De La CJUE. In: Court of Justice of the European Union (ed) The Court of Justice and the construction of Europe: analyses and perspectives on sixty years of case law. Curia, Asser Press, Springer, Luxembourg, The Hague, Heidelberg, pp 539 ffGoogle Scholar
  52. Weyembergh A, Joncheray N (2016) Punitive administrative sanctions and procedural safeguards: a blurred picture that needs to be addressed. New J Eur Crim Law 7(2):190 ffGoogle Scholar
  53. Wyngaert CV, Stessens G (1999) The international non bis in idem principle: resolving some unanswered questions. Int Comp Law Q 48:779 ffGoogle Scholar
  54. Zimmermann F (2015) Conflicts of criminal jurisdiction in the European Union. Bergen J Crim Law Crim Justice, pp 1 ffGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawUniversity of PaduaPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations