Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:12:15.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The principle of ne bis in idem and the application of criminal sanctions: of scope and restrictions

ECJ 20 March 2018, Case C-524/15, Luca Menci ECJ 20 March 2018, Case C-537/16, Garlsson Real Estate SA and Others v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) ECJ 20 March 2018, Joined Cases C-596/16 and C-597/16, Enzo Di Puma v Consob and Consob v Antonio Zecca

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2018

Gianni Lo Schiavo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Notes
Information
European Constitutional Law Review , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 644 - 663
Copyright
© The Authors 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

(PhD; LLM); European Central Bank. The views expressed in this article are purely personal and they are in no way intended to represent those of the ECB or its SB Secretariat.

References

1 See generally on the principle of ne bis in idem in EU law, Van Bockel, B. (ed.), The Principle of ne bis in idem (Cambridge University Press 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Van Bockel, B., The ne bis in idem (Kluwer 2010)Google Scholar and Tomkin, J., ‘Article 50, Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence’, in S. Peers et al., The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary (Hart Publishing 2014) p. 1373 Google Scholar.

2 For a reconstruction of the Luxembourg Court case law on the ne bis in idem see D. Sarmiento, ‘Ne bis in idem in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice’, in Van Bockel (2016), supra n. 1, p. 103 ff.

3 On the protection of the ne bis in idem under the Convention see B. Van Bockel, ‘The “European” ne bis in idem Principle Substance, Sources, and Scope’, in Van Bockel (2016), supra n. 1, p. 16-19.

4 ECJ 20 March 2018, Case 524/15, Menci, ECLI:EU:C:2018:197.

5 ECJ 20 March 2018, Case 537/16, Garlsson Real Estate and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2018:193.

6 ECJ 20 March 2018, Case 596/16, Di Puma, ECLI:EU:C:2018:192.

7 ECtHR 15 November 2016, Case Nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11, A and B v Norway.

8 A.G. Opinion, Case 524/15, Menci, ECLI:EU:C:2017:667.

9 Ibid., paras. 57-62.

10 Ibid., para. 94

11 Menci judgment, supra n. 4, paras. 18-20.

12 Ibid., para. 39.

13 Ibid., paras. 41-46.

14 Ibid., paras. 62-63.

15 A.G.’s Opinion, Garlsson Real Estate, ECLI:EU:C:2017:668.

16 Ibid., para. 77.

17 Garlsson Real Estate judgment, supra n. 5, paras. 22-23.

18 Ibid., para. 43.

19 Ibid., paras. 48-49.

20 Ibid., paras. 53-57.

21 A.G.’s Opinion, Case 596/16, Di Puma, ECLI:EU:C:2017:669.

22 Ibid. para. 75.

23 Di Puma judgment, supra n. 6, para. 35.

24 Ibid., para. 45.

25 For a first reference to ne bis in idem in the Luxembourg case law see ECJ 15 March 1967, Joined Cases 18/65 and 35/65, Gutmann v Commission, EU:C:1967:6, paras. 79, 81 and 82.

26 E.g. Art. 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement. See B. Van Bockel, ‘The “European” Ne Bis in Idem Principle. Substance, Sources, and Scope’, in Van Bockel (2016), supra n. 1, p. 21-22.

27 ECJ 15 October 2002, Joined Cases C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, C-250/99 P to C-252/99 P and C-254/99 P, Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and Others v Commission, EU:C:2002:582, para. 59. See Sarmiento, supra n. 2, p. 109-110.

28 See Van Bockel (2016), supra n. 1, p. 13 ff.

29 See ‘The identity of the offences’ below.

30 On Art. 51 of the Charter see Lenaerts, K., ‘Exploring the limits of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights’, 8 EUConst (2012) p. 388 Google Scholar.

31 Ibid., p. 377-388.

32 ECJ 26 February 2013, Case C-617/10, Åklagaren v Hans Åkerberg Fransson, ECLI:EU:C:2013:105.

33 See, in this sense, Van Bockel, B. and Wattel, P., ‘New wine into old wineskins: the scope of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU after Åkerberg Fransson ’, 38 ELRev (2013) p. 880-881 Google Scholar.

34 Regulation (EU) No. 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on market abuse (market abuse regulation) and repealing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directives 2003/124/EC, 2003/125/EC and 2004/72/EC, OJ L 173, 12.6.2014.

35 Directive 2014/57/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on criminal sanctions for market abuse (market abuse directive), OJ L 173, 12.6.2014.

36 ECtHR 8 June 1976, Case Nos. 5100/71; 5101/71; 5102/71; 5354/72; 5370/72, Engel e. a. v The Netherlands, para. 82.

37 ECJ 5 June 2012, Case C-489/10, Bonda, ECLI:EU:C:2012:319.

38 Ibid., para. 44.

39 See Fransson judgment, supra n. 32, para. 36.

40 See Vervaele, J., ‘The Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) and its Ne bis in idem Principle in the Member States of the EU’, 6 REALaw (2013) p. 132-133 Google Scholar.

41 See R. Nazzini, ‘Parallel Proceedings in EU Competition Law. Ne bis in idem as a Limiting Principle’, in Van Bockel, supra n. 1, p. 131.

42 See ‘The scope of application of the ne bis in idem under the Charter’, below.

43 ECJ 13 February 1969, Case 14/68, Walt Wilhelm v Bundeskartellamt, ECLI:EU:C:1969:4, paras. 3 and 11.

44 ECJ 14 February 2012, Case C-17/10, Toshiba, ECLI:EU:C:2012:72, para. 85.

45 A.G.’s Opinion, Menci, supra n. 8, para. 103.

46 See further on the justification ‘Limitations to the ne bis in idem principle: the scope for restrictions’, below.

47 See Van Bockel (2016), supra n. 1, p. 16 ff.

48 Germany and the Netherlands have not ratified the Protocol, while the UK has not signed it. Austria, France, Portugal and Italy have ratified the Protocol, but they have added reservations to it.

49 See Sarmiento, supra n. 2, p. 113-114.

50 Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2007/C 303/02), OJ 2007, C 303/17.

51 See S. Peers and S. Prechal, ‘Article 52: Scope and Interpretation of Rights and Principles’, in Peers et al., supra n. 1, p. 1459 ff.

52 See A.G.’s Opinion, Menci, supra n. 8, para. 38 ff.

53 A and B v Norway, supra n. 7, paras. 132-134 and 147.

54 ECtHR 18 May 2017, Case No. 22007/11, Johannesson and Others v Iceland.

55 Sarmiento, supra n. 2, p. 114.

56 Ibid., p. 116.

57 See ‘Ne bis in idem in the EU legal order: rationalisation at stake?’, above.

58 Art. 52(3) last indent of the Charter.

59 Menci judgment, supra n. 4, para. 61.

60 See ‘Limitations to the ne bis in idem and the principle of res judicata: friends or foes?’, below.

61 See Menci judgment, supra n. 4, paras. 40-41.

62 See Lenaerts, supra n. 39, p. 392.

63 ECJ 27 May 2014, Case C-129/14 PPU, Spasic, EU:C:2014:586, paras. 55 and 56.

64 See Vervaele, J., ‘Schengen and Charter-related ne bis in idem protection in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: M and Zoran Spasic’, 50 CMLRev (2013) p. 1349 Google Scholar.

65 See, differently, Van Bockel and Wattel, supra n. 42, p. 880.

66 Garlsson Real Estate judgment, supra n. 5, para. 60.

67 Ibid., para. 59.

68 See Regulation 596/2014, Art. 30(1).

69 See ‘Ne bis in idem in the EU legal order: rationalisation at stake?’, above.

70 Directive 2014/57/EU, Recital 23.

71 See generally Kornezov, A., ‘ Res judicata of national judgments incompatible with EU law: Time for a major rethink?’, 51 CMLRev (2014) p. 809 Google Scholar.

72 ECJ 10 July 2014, Case 213/13, Impresa Pizzarotti, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2067, para. 62.

73 Di Puma judgment, supra n. 6, para. 35.