Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Criminal Proceedings in Europe: Between Bis In Idem and Lis Pendens

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
EU Criminal Justice

  • 983 Accesses

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the main issues concerning conflicts of jurisdiction within the EU, also from an italian perspective. The reason of conflicts of jurisdiction’s increase lies in the non-full application of the territoriality criterion, but especially in the transformation of criminality: the opening of borders and free movement of people, as well as the using of IT tools, can cause a fragmentation, among different countries, in the commission of crimes. The discussion on the overlap of proceedings for the same facts involving the same person revolves around various sources of law. Because of interpretative difficulties, many questions regarding conflicts of jurisdiction are still under debate, also in the national and supranational case-law.

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 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Paulesu (2017), pp. 480 f.; Procaccino (2016), p. 268; Luparia (2012) passim; Galantini (2011), pp. 3 f. In this regard, the main reference point in Italian case-law is: Cass., Sez. un, 28.06.2005, Donati, in Cass. pen. 2006, 28 ff.

  2. 2.

    Amalfitano (2009), pp. 1293 ff.

  3. 3.

    Among others, see: Cass., sez. VI, 24.11.1995, Sara, Cass. pen. 1997, 66; Cass., sez. I, 7.12.1995, D’Agostino, Giust. pen. 1997, II, 98; Cass., sez. VI, 7.1.2008, n. 1180, CED Cass. n. 238228.

  4. 4.

    Cass., sez. V, 14.10.1996, Colecchia, Cass. pen. 1998, 114; Cass., sez. VI, 15.11.1999, Moceri, Cass. pen. 2001, 3056; Cass., sez. VI, 7.1.2008, n. 1180, C.E.D. Cass., n. 238228.

  5. 5.

    For instance, Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, 26.07.1995; Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 (2) (c) of the Treaty on European Union on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union, 26.05.1997.

  6. 6.

    In particular, Joint action of 21.12.1998 adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on making it a criminal offence to participate in a criminal organisation in the Member States of the European Union; Council Framework Decision of 13.06.2002 on combating terrorism (2002/475/JHA); Council Framework decision of 24.02.2005 on attacks against information systems (2005/222/JHA).

  7. 7.

    Paulesu (2017), p. 458.

  8. 8.

    Mancuso (2012), pp. 403 ff.; Normando (2015), pp. 521 ff.

  9. 9.

    Paulesu (2017), p. 457.

  10. 10.

    Paulesu (2017), p. 463; Nascimbene (2018), pp. 3 ff.

  11. 11.

    On this provision, see in particular: Allegrezza (2012), pp. 894 ff.

  12. 12.

    Procaccino (2016), p. 269.

  13. 13.

    Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders Applicative Convention of Schengen Treaty.

  14. 14.

    In this regards, among others, see Corte Cost., 30.04.2008, n. 129.

  15. 15.

    For an interesting overview, see Galantini (2011), pp. 1 ff.

  16. 16.

    In particular, see Mazzacuva (2013), pp. 1899 ff.

  17. 17.

    Procaccino (2016), p. 275.

  18. 18.

    Dova (2016), p. 2.

  19. 19.

    CJEU, 26.02.2013, Ă…kerberg Fransson (C-617/10).

  20. 20.

    ECHR, Gr. Ch., 9.06.1976, Engel and others v. The Netherlands; Gr. Ch., 1.02. 1984, Oetzuerk v. Germany.

  21. 21.

    ECHR, 4.03.2014, Grande Stevens v. Italy; later, among others, see ECHR, 20.05.2014, Nykanen v. Finland.

  22. 22.

    Legislative Decree (D.lgs.) 24.02. 1998, n. 58.

  23. 23.

    Procaccino (2016), p. 288; Paulesu (2017), p. 465; De Amicis (2014), pp. 201 ff.

  24. 24.

    CJEU, 15.04.2015, Burzio (C-497/14).

  25. 25.

    Cass., sez. un., 28.3.2013, n. 37424, in www.penalecontemporaneo.it.

  26. 26.

    Cass., sez. III, 14.1.2015, n. 31378, in www.penalecontemporaneo.it.

  27. 27.

    Procaccino (2016), pp. 295 ff.

  28. 28.

    Among others, see: ECHR, 8.11.2007, Stitic v. Croatia; 9.5. 1977, X v. Switzerland.

  29. 29.

    ECHR, 20.5.2014, Nykanen v. Finland §§ 47, 49; 10.2.2015, Kiiveri v. Finland; 27.11.2014, Lucky Dev v. Sweden.

  30. 30.

    ECHR., 15.11.2016, A and B v. Norway; on the same criteria, for a different outcome, see later 18.05.2017, Jóhannesson and others v. Island; Viganò (2016), pp. 1 ff.

  31. 31.

    Corte cost., 24.01.2018, n. 43; Galluccio (2018), pp. 234 ff.

  32. 32.

    CJEU, GC, 20.03.2018, C-524/15, Menci; C-537/16, Garlsson Real Estate and others.; C-597/16, Di Puma, Zecca; see Nascimbene (2018), pp. 2 ff.

  33. 33.

    Dova (2016), pp. 2 ff.

  34. 34.

    ECHR, 20.05.2014, Nykänen v. Finland.

  35. 35.

    ECHR, 3.10.2002, Zigarella v. Italy; see later ECHR, GC, 10.02.2009, Zolotukhin v. Russia; see Mancuso and Viganò (2016), p. 379.

  36. 36.

    Allegrezza (2012), pp. 899 f.

  37. 37.

    ECHR, 30.07.1998, Oliveira v. Switzerland; per una soluzione compromissoria, ECHR, 29.05.2001, Fischer v. Austria; 30.05.2002, W. F. c, Austria; 6.6.2002, Sailer v. Austria.

  38. 38.

    The case-law in this area is varied: in particular, possible differences as to the historical fact may lie in the criminal intention or the aim pursued (ECHR, 14.09.2004, Rosenquist v. Sweden), or on an aggravating circumstance (ECHR, 2.9.2004, Bachmaier v. Austria).

  39. 39.

    ECHR, GC, 10.02.2009, Zolotukhin v. Russia, cit.

  40. 40.

    ECHR, 23.6.2015, Butnaru er Bejan, Piser v. Romania; see also ECHR, 4.3.2014, Grande Stevens v. Italia; 20.5.2014, Nykanen v. Finland.

  41. 41.

    CJEU, 09.03.2006, Van Esbroeck (C-436/04).

  42. 42.

    Corte Cost., 31.5.2016, n. 200; Zirulia (2016), pp. 1 f.; see also Corte Cost., 12.05.2016, n. 102.

  43. 43.

    CJEU, 11.02.2003, Gözütok (C-187/01) and Brügge (C-385/01).

  44. 44.

    CJEU, 10.3.2005, Miraglia (C-469/03); more recently, see CJEU, GC, 29/06/2016, Kossowski (C-486/14).

  45. 45.

    In particular, see ECHR, 18.05.2004, Somogy v. Italia (later, in Italy see L. 28.04.2014, n. 67).

  46. 46.

    CJEU, 28.9.2006, Van Straten (C-150/05).

  47. 47.

    CJEU, 28.09.2006, Gasparini (C-467/04). On this topic, see: CJEU, GC, 5.12.2017, Taricco (C-42/17); Paulesu (2017), pp. 475 f.

  48. 48.

    CJEU., 22.12.2008, Turansky (C-491/07); later see 16.11.2010, Mantello (C-261/09), concerning the European Arrest Warrant.

  49. 49.

    CJEU, 5.6.2014, M. (C-398/12).

  50. 50.

    CJEU, 5..07.2002, Kretzinger (C-288/05).

  51. 51.

    CJEU, 11.12.2008, Bourquain (C-297/07).

  52. 52.

    CJEU., 27.05.2014, Spasic (C-129/2014).

  53. 53.

    Paulesu (2017), p. 48.

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Amalfitano C (2009) La risoluzione dei conflitti di giurisdizione in materia penale nell’Unione europea. Dir. pen. proc. 10:1293–1303

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. contemp:201–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Dova M (2016) Ne bis in idem e reati tributari: a che punto siamo? www.penalecontemporaneo.it. 09.02.2016, pp 1–16

  • Galantini N (2011) Il ne bis in idem nello spazio giudiziario europeo: traguardi e prospettive. www.penalecontemporaneo.it. 22.02.2011, pp 1–7

  • Galluccio A (2018) Ne bis in idem e reati tributari: la Consulta restituisce gli atti al giudice a quo perchĂ© tenga conto del mutamento giurisprudenziale intervenuto con la sentenza A. e B. c. Norvegia. Dir pen contemp: 13.03.2018, 234–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Luparia L (2012) La litispendenza internazionale. Tra ne bis in idem europeo e processo penale italiano. GiuffrĂ©, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Mancuso EM (2012) Il giudicato nel processo penale. Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Mancuso EM, Viganò F (2016) In: Ubertis G, Viganò F (eds) Diritto a non essere giudicato due volte. Giappichelli, Torino

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzacuva F (2013) La materia penale e il “doppio binario” della Corte europea: le garanzie al di lĂ  delle apparenze. Riv. it. dir. proc. pen:1899–1940

    Google Scholar 

  • Nascimbene B (2018) Ne bis in idem, diritto internazionale e diritto europeo. www.penalecontemporaneo.it. pp 1–13

  • Normando R (2015) Esecuzione penale. In: Kalb L (ed) IV Impugnazioni, Esecuzione penale. Rapporti giurisdizionali con autoritĂ  straniere, in Spangher G, Marandola A, Garuti G, Kalb L (dir) Procedura penale. Teoria e pratica del processo. Utet, Torino, pp 504–551

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulesu PP (2017) Ne bis in idem e conflitti di giurisdizione. In: Kostoris RE (ed) Manuale di procedura penale europea. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 457–494

    Google Scholar 

  • Procaccino A (2016) Il ne bis in idem dalla “certezza del diritto” alla certezza del “diritto soggettivo”. In: Gaito A, Chinnici D (eds) Regole europee e processo penale. Cedam, Padova, pp 267–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Viganò F (2016) La Grande Camera della Corte di Strasburgo su ne bis in idem e doppio binario sanzionatorio. www.penalecontemporaneo.it. 18.11.2016, pp 1–5

  • Zirulia S (2016) Ne bis in idem: la Consulta dichiara l’illegittimitĂ  dell’art. 649 c.p.p. nell’interpretazione datane dl diritto vivente italiano (ma il processo Eternit bis prosegue. www.penalecontemporaneo.it. 24.07.2016, pp 1–2

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy

    Lucia Parlato

Authors
  1. Lucia Parlato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucia Parlato .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Catania, Catania, Italy

    Tommaso Rafaraci  & Rosanna Belfiore  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Parlato, L. (2019). Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Criminal Proceedings in Europe: Between Bis In Idem and Lis Pendens. In: Rafaraci, T., Belfiore, R. (eds) EU Criminal Justice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97319-7_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97319-7_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97318-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97319-7

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation