963:, the CJEU was concerned with whether a decision by a public prosecutor to terminate criminal proceedings and close an investigation against a defendant, without any penalty and a condition that it may be reopened upon the emergence of new essential evidence, may be considered a âfinal decision.â If so, questions were raised if such a decision could prevent further prosecution in another member state. Accordingly, the public prosecutorsâ office of Hamburg accused Kossowski of the criminal offense of extortion with aggravating factors. Kossowski fled in a vehicle belonging to the victim during his proceedings in Germany when he was subsequently stopped, arrested, and sentenced in Poland. The Polish court opened the same charges against him according to its national law but closed the case in the absence of sufficient evidence and considered the termination as final, leading to the potential continuation of the case in Germany. Despite still being wanted in Germany, the Hamburg court refused to open proceedings out of concern of doubling prosecution in violation of Article 54 of CISA. Thus, the CJEU heard an appeal brought forth by the Hamburg Public Prosecutorâs Office contending that the German law was still applicable given the substantial evidence of its proceeding, finding the Polish decision of termination to be overreaching in barring the respective German trial.
402:. The two applicants, represented through aliases Mr. A and Mr. B, were charged for failing to report taxes. The first applicantâMr. Aâwas indicted for violating section 12-1(1) of the Tax Assessment Act of 1980 (ligningsloven) for failing to declare tax transactions with Software Innovation AS in 2008. In 2009, following his failure to pay an outstanding tax due without an appeal, the Follo District Court (tingrett) convicted Mr. A of aggravated tax fraud, sentencing him to a yearâs imprisonment due to his failure to declare. The second applicantâMr. Bâsimilarly failed to declare his tax return for the tax year 2002 but was given an amendment to his tax assessment and penalty in 2008 by the Tax Administration under the criminal investigation. While the second applicant paid the tax due along with the penalty, the public prosecutor indicted him for violating section 12-1 as well given his failure to declare his full income on his tax return in 2002. Like Mr. A, Mr. B was charged for aggravated tax fraud and sentenced to a yearâs imprisonment in 2009. Given the criminal and tax penalties of their respective cases, the two applicants contended that their rights relevant to
926:
discontinue prosecution as an option under the administration of criminal justice. Nevertheless, settlement acts regarding penalties for unlawful conduct still constitute a legal exercise by the state to punish an individual. If the applicant complies with obligations by the public prosecutor, which GözĂŒtok and BrĂŒgge did, an additional penalty or prosecution from another
Schengen member state is redundant and violates the protections against a duplication of trial under Article 54. Because of the devolvement of power into national courts under CISA, harmonization of criminal procedures (e.g., Dutch âtransactieâ) is not required. That said, the Court clarified that mutual trust and compliance amongst the member states was necessary to ensure the
418:, the Court generally had to acknowledge national sensitivities to defining the âcriminal natureâ of an act. This reiterated the first principle of the Engel criteria. Secondly, the Court addressed the chronology of the two proceedings and found that a âfinal decisionâ resulting from a single proceeding was irrelevant when there did not exist a duplication of proceedings. Instead, this would constitute a combination of proceedings, meaning they were complementary. Finally, to avoid misinterpreting administrative proceedings that were criminal in nature, the ECtHR would assess the proceedingsâ compliance with Article 4 through a single-track procedure onwards, which could enable âparallel strands of legal regulationâ with the national government.
902:, the applicant was in possession of illicit hashish products, which the Dutch government cited to pursue criminal proceedings against him. These conditions were also drawn to the attention of German authorities through a German bank alerting them of unusually large sums of money. This led to the discovery of narcotic sales, which the German Regional Court in Aachen tried and sentenced him for. GözĂŒtok appealed the decision against the Aachen court, which they terminated under Article 54 of CISA. However, under the termination, questions remained over whether the Dutch âtransactieâ under Dutch law served as a final disposition that barred the German courts from taking further action. Similarly, under
858:, which it passed. As for the former prong related to its punitive purpose, the CJEU held that the cited violation of Article 27(9) by the AGCM had a purpose not just to punish unlawful conduct related to competition practices but to deprive an entity from continuing to pursue its unfair commercial advantage. As for the latter prong related to the degree of severity, the CJEU noted that bearing in mind the maximum potential penalty contingent on relevant provisions, the 5 million euro fine constituted a criminal punishment. While in technical terms, the penalties were under administrative code, they were inherently criminal and cited twice, demonstrating the utility of the Engel criteria in
217:, which sometimes are not tried under criminal courts at the national level despite their âcriminal nature.â Accordingly, Section 2 of Article 4 establishes the right for the accused to present newly discovered evidence to higher tribunal for review. While there exist guarantees against punishment or prosecution twice under the ECHR, post-trial discovery can warrant a change in the outcome of a case. This also includes significant procedural errors that may affect the fairness or outcome of a case. However, reopening a case through the ECtHR can only occur when critical pieces of evidence were not sufficiently adduced or discussed, necessitating a referral to the
1104:. Since a final judgment was administered in Slovenia, an additional penalty that could be enforced could no longer be applicable since a decision had already been made in the national system of an EU member state. Moreover, the CJEU affirmed that a bilateral extradition treaty could not trump or annul the provisions of Article 54 of CISA and Article 50 of the Charter. However, the Court clarified that it would not have the capacity to bar extradition bilaterally assuming offense were committed outside of the subject matter or relevant time period of prosecution, upholding the âsufficiently close connectionâ tenet proscribed through the ECtHR. Accordingly,
834:
Braunschweig in
Germany imposed a fine of 1 billion euros through a final decision on the same grounds of the misinformation related to Volkswagenâs pollutant emissions levels. Due to the final decision characteristic of the decision at Braunschweig, VWAG surrendered its right to bring action against the decision as it had appealed in Italy, leaving Volkswagen with its 1 billion euro fine alongside a pending case dealing with a similar case matter. Once the decision was reached in 2019, VWGI and VWAG contended that their rights according to
745:, which is employed in the ECtHR to determine the criminal nature of a penalty. Conversely, the major exception between the two courts is the decision-making in cross-border proceedings, in which ECtHR rulings may only apply within a given State while CJEU rulings may apply across relevant contracting states. Moreover, since the EU derives its legal functioning from legal cooperation mechanisms within the member states, it maintains more flexibility in its interpretation of
310:
the Engel
Criteria, thus not constituting a break of Article 6. Regarding the national standards of the Engel Criteria, while the ECtHR agreed that Kremzow had separate criminal charges, the disciplinary consequences were distinguished, and the Disciplinary Court did not âconvictâ him for the aforementioned criminal charges. Thus, the duty of the Disciplinary Court in Austria was tasked with dealing with the repercussions of Kremzowâs actions as a defendant but also as a
671:, the presiding judges commented that limiting the scope of the offenses based on different legal classification undermined the rights of the individual guaranteed under Article 4. Moreover, the Court found that the administrative judgment was autonomously and inherently final when criminal proceedings began a week after against Zolotuhkin. As noted, the Russian legal system did not recognize a breach in the
906:, the applicant, who was a German national, was charged by Belgian prosecuting officials for intentionally assaulting and wounding a Belgian national, Leliaert. While proceedings were ongoing in a Belgian criminal court, BrĂŒgge had already reached a conclusion in a settlement with the German judicial authority, thus raising questions over a duplication of proceedings across Schengen Agreement member states.
531:, the applicant faced criminal and administrative punishment based on the same offense but at a regional and national level. The applicant was convicted of driving under the influence and death by negligence, resulting in fines and imprisonment first under Article 81 of the Criminal Code and then Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act in Austria. After failing to appeal his convictions under the
339:
he was charged for petty tax fraud due to the illegally cheaper fuel alongside his admission to refueling the vehicle himself. Ruotsalainen was charged the difference between the tax in administrative proceedings brought against him from the same event. When domestic authorities refused to grant a reduction in the tax charge, Ruotsalainen brought the case before the
294:, the applicant, who was a retired judge sentenced for murder and unlawful possession of a firearm, appealed to the ECtHR based on the âcriminal natureâ of his disciplinary proceedings. These disciplinary penalties included the deprivation of his former privileges as a judge, such as his pension rights. Thus, he claimed that his rights relevant to
780:
Swedish government with administrative tax penalties. Subsequently, Fransson was tried for failing to report sizable employerâs contributions in taxes, culminating to a criminal offense due to the copious amounts of money not reported and the significant impact of his failure to declare. Accordingly, Fransson brought the matter to the
829:, the CJEU handled whether an administrative fine by a national consumer protection authority against a company could become criminal in nature when addressing unfair commercial practices and consumer protection under Directive 2005/29/EC. In 2016, the Italian Competition Markets Authority (AGCM) fined both
975:
the merits of the case.â In such, the requirement is not fulfilled when a prosecuting authority failed to undertake a thorough investigation, refused to proceed based on the defendantâs ability to give a statement, or failed to provide substantial hearsay witness testimony. Accordingly, this applies in
1026:
was violated given the existence of âinextricably linkedâ facts. Regardless of the legal classification, affirming the criminal nature of the acts, the punishable acts of importation in Norway and exportation in
Belgium of the same narcotic drugs constitutes âthe same acts,â which are protected under
1014:
in the frame of material acts. The defendant, a
Belgian national, was tried and sentenced in Norway for importing illicit narcotics. Van Esbroeck was conditionally released and escorted back to Belgian whereupon his return he was tried and convicted for exporting the aforementioned illicit narcotics.
833:
5 million euros on the basis of unfair commercial practices in the automobile industry by distorting their pollutant emissions levels on their vehiclesâ interfaces. While VWGI and VWAG were still involved in proceedings with the
Italian Regional Administrative Court, the Public Prosecutorâs Office of
624:
provides a clause pursuant to protections against re-trials under
Article 50 § 1, the penalties brought against Zolotukhin were an administrative charge under minor disorderly acts and a criminal charge, constituting separate offenses in Russiaâs dual-track system. However, Zolotukhin complained that
354:
and the second, although administrative technically, had a âcriminal natureâ due to its intent to punish and dissuade a repeated offense. While both penalties were handled separately, they converged towards the same criminal subject matter. Thus, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of
338:
relevant to the criminal nature of national administrative proceedings and penalties. The applicant, a
Finnish national, was stopped by the police in 2001 during a road check when police found Ruotsalainen to be driving with leniently taxed fuel that was illegal given his type of vehicle. Thereafter,
474:
judgment that dealt with an alleged duplication of criminal offenses under a change in international war crimes law. The applicant, a
Croatian national, was tried by the Osijek Military Prosecutor in 1993 on the grounds of serious offense against civilians through the Croatian army in 1991. However,
974:
since it realized that the Polish termination was not considered âfinalâ to invoke
Article 54. Thus, reopening proceedings in Germany would not constitute a duplication of proceedings. A fundamental facet of Article 54 is the requirement of a decision made âafter a determination has been made as to
925:
principle such that once the applicant fulfills outlined obligations or negotiations with the public prosecutors, the discontinuation of proceedings constitutes a procedure that cannot be tried again in another member state. The CJEU underscored the initial legal ability of the public prosecutor to
615:
The applicant, Sergey Zolotukhin, served as a Russian soldier and took his girlfriend into military property without permission, acted threateningly, and used obscene insulting language toward the police officers who arrested him in 2002. On 4 January 2002, the Gribanovskiy District Court, where he
799:
was not breached since the initial tax penalty did not constitute a criminal penalty and left the discretion to the national court. Firstly, the CJEU posited that an invocation of Article 50 necessitated the main proceeding to be of criminal nature, which contested Franssonâs petition. Second, the
487:
decided that the termination of the proceedings was in fact in violation of the General Amnesty Act. This was due to the severity of MarguĆĄâ actions during the warâkilling four persons and seriously wounding a childâon top of his cited offenses as a member of the reserve forces following his duty.
413:
The primary task of the ECtHR was to examine whether the invocation of section 12-1(1) of the Tax Assessment Act and the aggravated tax fraud charge were both criminal, which would jeopardize the protections of Mr. A and Mr. B. First, the ECtHR acknowledged that due to the optional ratification of
309:
Ultimately, the ECtHR concluded that application was inadmissible and upheld the indictment decided by the Vienna Court of Appeal acting as Disciplinary Court (Oberlandesgericht als Disziplinargericht). The ECtHR decided that the disciplinary proceedings did not reach a criminal level according to
779:
was tested if it could be invoked to prevent criminal proceedings for tax evasion contingent on an existing administrative tax penalty. Accordingly, Fransson was tried in Sweden by tax authorities on the grounds that he falsified his value added tax and income tax. Thus, he had been fined by the
142:
In other words, national courts cannot proceed against the responsible parties of crimes within the tribunal's jurisdiction if the international tribunal has already pronounced sentence for the same crimes. However, the ICTY and the ICTR can judge alleged criminals already sentenced by national
1076:
at the request of American authorities. Upon arrest, HF mentioned that he had been imprisoned in Slovenia for the offense of âattacking information systemsâ and fully served his sentence. Thus, upon calls for extradition, the Higher Regional Court of Munich had doubts towards the application of
724:
respectively. When cases pertain to a duplication of proceedings or penalties between several member states, especially pertaining to extradition, CISA and EAW become critical instruments, as discussed infra. Moreover, given the judicial framework of the EU, the CJEU has the potential to invoke
496:
While the Court found there to be no violation of Article 6 given the lack of proof of the judgeâs partiality in initial proceedings, the Court found that the invocation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to be non-applicable. The Court did acknowledge that both sets of proceedings handled the same
434:
principle, or duplication of proceedings. The substance and the chronological closeness of proceedings were not intended to be mutually exclusive but to be assessed conjunctively to justify the relevance of both cases and guarantee the protections of individuals from unduly delay over prolonged
259:
protections. The three criteria are as follows to determine if a penalty is of âcriminal natureâ: (1) the national classification of the offense, (2) the criminal nature of the offense, and (3) the severity of the penalty. If penalties are primarily intended to compensate for the shortfall and
488:
Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled that amnesty could not be granted, leading him to be tried and imprisoned for war crimes. Subsequently, MarguĆĄ appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction on the grounds that the second set of proceedings dealt with a broader scope since a
123:
principle has a peculiar meaning, especially in comparison to European supranational law. The ICC jurisdiction is complementary to national law, and Article 20 of the Rome Statute specifies that even if the principle remains in general terms, it cannot be taken in consideration if there is
620:. Following, on 23 January 2002, the District Court tried him in a criminal case, which cited him violating Article 213 § 2(b) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for âdisorderly acts, including resisting a public official dealing with a breach of public order.â While the
546:
The Court determined that despite the administrative action in the procedures, they were criminal in nature based on the fact that Gradingerâs fine was accompanied with a prison sentence contingent on his default on payment. Thus, Gradingerâs case fulfilled the initial prong of the
425:
could only be violated in dual proceedings when there existed âcomplementary responses to socially offensive conductsâ that were integrated in a way to demonstrate a âcoherent wholeâ of indictments from the original criminal and administrative facets of the penalties. Moreover,
492:
violation was applied. Thus, MarguĆĄ brought his application to the ECtHR in 2009 on the grounds of his rights under Article 6 to a fair trial and Article 4 to not be tried or punished twice were violated such that the subject of the 1997 and 2007 proceedings were the same.
800:
CJEU emphasized that Article 50 can treat administrative penalties and criminal penalties exclusively for the same cited act so long as the administrative penalty does not reach criminal consequences. Finally, like the ECtHR has determined in matters in
1512:
853:
under Article 50 were breached. The Courtâs premise laid on the idea that the imposed administrative fine constituted a criminal penalty due to its punitive purpose and higher degree of severity. The nature of the penalty was tested through the
812:, which it failed to demonstrate. Ultimately, the CJEU concluded the matter to be relevant to the Swedish courtâs decision so long as whatever issued penalties are âeffective, proportionate, and dissuasiveâ according to its national standards.
987:
principle: (1) a final decision in proceedings from one member state must bar further prosecution and penalty in another member state and (2) a decision must be delivered âafter a determination has been made as to the merits of the case.â
260:
encourage future compliance, they may not be considered criminal according to the severity and purpose principles of the Engel Criteriaâas seen in certain cases related to tax withholding. Through the application of these criteria, the
551:
and could be assessed for potential violations of the dual-track criminal and administrative sentence. Due to the inherently criminal nature of the two proceedings regarding the same offense, the Court determined that his rights under
1537:
150:
the judiciary of the state is not considered impartial or the domestic trial is considered to be a pretense to protect the accused from the legal action of international justice or is considered to be unfair on some fundamental legal
435:
proceedings. The Court ruled in both applicantsâ cases that their respective criminal and administrative proceedings had proportionate and foreseeable cumulative penalties. Thus, the Court ruled there had not been a violation of
632:
The Court similarly decided that despite the initial administrative proceedings, the guilty finding and detention under the Code of Administrative Offenses constituted a âcriminal nature,â satisfying the first of the
825:
1696:
1648:
1672:
1624:
1600:
846:
had been violated. By contending the matter to the CJEU, VWGI and VWAG posited that the administrative fines reached a criminal level, therefore hindering their protections from punishment twice.
497:
offense. Yet, the Court noted that contemporary granting of amnesties for war crimes was unacceptable and that the decisions taken in Croatia aligned with the fundamentals in the Conventionâ
246:
617:
128:
226:
593:
589:
502:
498:
295:
264:
can ensure that states do not circumvent human rights protections through non-criminal punitive measures at the national level and harmonize criminal proceedings at the ECtHR.
82:
1101:
839:
796:
785:
776:
573:
471:
218:
1244:
193:. Section 1 of Article 4 outlines the procedure relevant to rights against being prosecuted or punished twice in criminal proceedings. Thus, trials involving breaches of
1108:
affirmed the supremacy of the Schengen Area and the EU over bilateral treaties in matters related to fundamental rights under extradition processes and double jeopardy.
90:
687:, the ECtHR has revolutionized its approach to determining the criminal nature of multiple offenses in contracting states with dual-track procedures such as Russia.
1498:
255:
This is critical to assess when penalties that are not considered criminal at the national scale should be treated as âcriminalâ for the purposes of invoking
716:. Since the scope of the Charter is relevant to EU member states, cases related to cross-border double jeopardy and third-party affairs are clarified under
1082:
1031:. While the CJEU reiterated that definitive assessment would ultimately be under the jurisdiction of the respective national courts, the same offense in
132:
1464:
625:
the detention tied to his disorderly acts and his criminal sentence culminated in double penalty under the same offense, breaching his rights under
679:
since both proceedings were not legally classified as criminal. Thus, the Court ruled that there had been a violation of Zolotukhinâs rights under
1731:
637:. In this landmark case, the Court decided to synthesize approaches it had used in past to determine whether the same offense had been invoked in
85:
guarantees the right to be free from double jeopardy; however, it does not apply to prosecutions by two different sovereigns (unless the relevant
1052:
729:, altering the fundamental approach to member states discretion in related proceedings. Granted certain exceptions, the wording and scope of the
781:
705:
601:
398:
was a landmark case since it established the âsubstance and time connectionâ requirement relevant to assessing a duplication of proceedings in
1089:
could be potentially ruled out given its exclusion of considerations of judgments from other Member States, that being Slovenia in this case.
651:, whether the lower courts had produced several offenses in separate proceedings from the same conduct (concours ideal dâinfractions) seen in
1726:
350:
The ECtHR decided that both penalties imposed upon Ruotsalainen were criminal in nature with the first contingent upon the classification of
888:
884:
792:. By doing so, he implied that the initial administrative tax penalty was criminal in nature, subjecting him to trial and punishment twice.
979:
whereby the Polish courts failed to gather substantial evidence to fully administer proceedings and potential penalties to the defendant.
543:
on the premise that the administrative and criminal proceedings pursued against him were based on identical facts from the same offense.
302:
were relevant in raising his disciplinary proceedings. If the Court deemed the disciplinary charges criminal in nature, his rights under
789:
734:
680:
664:
626:
585:
553:
540:
506:
440:
415:
407:
360:
344:
174:
1065:
713:
178:
894:, the CJEU dealt with legality of the preclusion of further prosecution given the discontinuation of criminal proceedings in another
1097:
843:
717:
709:
1551:
1072:. The defendant, whose alias is HF, was a Serbian national who was put into custody in Germany following a red notice issued by
1221:"The European Convention on Human Rights and its protocols - Manual for Human Rights Education with Young people - www.coe.int"
1220:
1364:
52:
to the effect that no legal action can be instituted twice for the same cause of action. It is a legal concept originating in
605:
430:
set the precedent of requiring âsufficiently close connection in substance and in timeâ between proceedings according to the
340:
281:
261:
170:
1015:
An appeal was then brought before the Belgian Court of Cassation and the preceding court on the grounds that Van Esbroeckâs
1006:
784:
on the grounds that his rights to not be tried and punished twice for a criminal offense had been violated according to
197:
can only be commenced contingent on the criminal nature of the tried act, the duplication of proceedings seen via the
959:
817:
Case C-27/22, Volkswagen Group Italia S.p.A., Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. Associazione Cittadinanza Attiva Onlus
1388:
1316:
580:
or same offense principleâand harmonized the procedural laws for multiple prosecutions in contracting states in the
288:
has become a principal issue when assessing if the disciplinary proceedings also have reached a criminal nature. In
1122:
1601:"Volkswagen Group Italia S.p.A., Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. Associazione Cittadinanza Attiva Onlus (2023)"
1245:"Reopening of cases following judgments of the Court - Human Rights Intergovernmental Cooperation - www.coe.int"
930:(effective application) of Article 54 and protect individualsâ enshrined rights under Article 54 of CISA. Thus,
484:
75:
659:
653:
330:
1061:
767:
721:
1340:
1436:
1412:
1268:
1069:
647:
621:
568:
527:
1010:, the CJEU assessed the relevant criterion for the application of the âsame acts or offenseâ criteria of
641:. These approaches included whether the lower courts had penalized the applicant for the âsame conductâ (
505:. Thus, the renewed indictment against MarguĆĄ concerning war crimes was compliant to Article 2 and 3 and
1292:
612:
related to charges and procedures with the same offenses regardless of their national legal assessment.
290:
483:
other than crimes against humanity, charges brought against MarguĆĄ were dropped. However, in 2007, the
465:
390:
351:
855:
809:
742:
634:
548:
314:. Since the disciplinary proceedings were treated as a separate matter from his criminal penalties,
299:
242:
489:
210:
86:
1175:
663:. The Court decided to change its approach toward the interpretation of âoffenseâ according to
616:
was first tried, found Zolotukhin guilty of an administrative offense under Article 148 of the
581:
830:
1060:
principle outlined in Article 54 of CISA with Article 50 of the Charter could preclude the
946:
by establishing the preclusion of further prosecution at the national level within the EU.
476:
284:
have involved applicants with both criminal offenses along with disciplinary proceedings,
124:
unwillingness or incapability of the existence of the supranational court's jurisdiction.
65:
57:
1538:"CJEU Clarifies Scope of Ne Bis in Idem Principle Involving Sentences by Third Countries"
1576:
1168:
190:
49:
1720:
895:
480:
311:
1189:
114:
1480:"Ne bis in idem in European Law: A Difficult Exercise in Constitutional Pluralism"
1365:"The European ne bis in idem at the Crossroads of Administrative and Criminal Law"
849:
In response, the Court agreed with the applicants that their rights pertaining to
421:
Since the Court separated the criminal and administrative procedures of the case,
618:
Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Soviet Federative Republic (RSFSR)
135:
Statute both state that the principle can be enforced mainly to clarify that the
1117:
186:
61:
1465:"Guide on Article 4 Protocol no. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice"
1096:
should be upheld, thereby precluding the extradition to the U.S. in light of
657:, and whether there existed âessential elementsâ in both proceedings seen in
1479:
733:
principle are identically applied to the corresponding fundamental right in
53:
535:
principle in the Austrian legal system, Gradinger brought an appeal to the
1552:"The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 20 years later"
1073:
250:
App no. 5100/71; 5101/71; 5102/71; 5354/72; 5370/72 (ECtHR, 8 June 1976)
831:
Volkswagen Group Italia (VWGI) and Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (VWAG)
722:
Article 3(2) of the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision (EAW FD)
718:
Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA)
214:
182:
89:
or other agreement between the countries expresses a prohibition). The
509:
was inherently out of the scope of the case and hence not applicable.
229:, which includes during war and times of national public emergencies.
175:
Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights
139:
tribunal's sentences are "stronger" than the ones in domestic courts.
347:
were breached since he was penalized twice for the fuel tax offense.
117:
establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) states that the
343:. According to his complaint, he cited that his rights pursuant to
221:. Finally, Section 3 of Article 4 prevents the full protections of
536:
45:
205:
conceptâas discussed infra. Questions pertaining to the scope of
584:. It also established the precedent of âcriminal procedureâ in
379:
App nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11 (ECtHR, 15 November 2016)": -->
1081:
under the relevant law to prevent the extradition. Given the
741:
in the CJEU includes instruments from the ECtHR such as the
1045:
Case C-435/22 PPU, Generalstaatsanwaltschaft MĂŒnchen (2023)
503:
Article 3 (prohibition of degrading treatment and torture)
16:
No legal action can be instituted twice for the same cause
1083:
bilateral extradition treaty between the U.S. and Germany
826:
Volkswagen Group Italia and Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft
375:
App nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11 (ECtHR, 15 November 2016)
737:. For example, the criteria to determine violations of
588:
to take into account broader application related to
83:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
1225:
Manual for Human Rights Education with Young people
1170:
A Text-book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian
804:contingent on the criminal nature of a proceeding,
74:, 'previously acquitted/convicted') in some modern
1167:
866:The âBisâ (Duplication of Proceedings) Requirement
759:Case C-617/10, Ă
klagaren v. Hans Ă
kerberg Fransson
710:Article 50 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
367:The âBisâ (Duplication of Proceedings) Requirement
913:rights under Article 54 of CISA were violated in
1174:(3 ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge UP. pp.
181:have ratified this optional protocol other than
91:Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
1019:rights were violated under Article 54 of CISA.
280:Since considerable cases that have reached the
1035:prevented his re-trial and second punishment.
921:. The CJEU confirmed the applicability of the
479:, which applied to criminal offenses from the
237:To determine the criminality of an offense in
147:the sentence defined the crimes as "ordinary".
56:, but it is essentially the equivalent of the
1513:"Ćœupanijsko drĆŸavno odvjetniĆĄtvo u Puli-Pola"
706:Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
667:, favoring a broader, liberal approach. From
8:
1577:"Ă
klagaren v. Hans Ă
kerberg Fransson (2013)"
1556:European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
1269:"Engel and Others v. The Netherlands (1976)"
69:
201:concept, and the same offense seen via the
118:
104:
94:
38:
30:
22:
1697:"Generalstaatsanwaltschaft MĂŒnchen (2023)"
1249:Human Rights Intergovernmental Cooperation
983:therefore confirmed two key tenets of the
735:Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 under the ECHR
563:App no. 14939/03 (ECtHR, 10 February 2009)
454:App no. 4455/10 (ECtHR, 27 May 2014)": -->
1190:"Full list - Treaty Office - www.coe.int"
992:The âIdemâ (The Same Offense) Requirement
938:served as principal cases to bolster the
521:App no. 15963/90 (ECtHR, 23 October 1995)
513:The âIdemâ (The Same Offense) Requirement
276:App no. 16417/90 (ECtHR, 7 November 1990)
1158:
1134:
1062:extradition of a third-country national
572:was a landmark case brought before the
143:courts if both of the following occur:
966:In its decision, the Court ruled that
691:Court of Justice of the European Union
325:App no. 13079/03 (ECtHR, 16 June 2009)
318:was not applicable in Kremzowâs case.
171:European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
1458:
1456:
795:In response, the CJEU concluded that
7:
1215:
1213:
1211:
1209:
909:The Court ultimately ruled that the
872:Cases C-187/01 and C-385/01, GözĂŒtok
450:App no. 4455/10 (ECtHR, 27 May 2014)
1499:"EU Charter of Fundamental Rights"
48:as 'not twice in the same ', is a
44:) which translates literally from
14:
1106:Generalstaatsanwaltschaft MĂŒnchen
1056:, the CJEU addressed whether the
1053:Generalstaatsanwaltschaft MĂŒnchen
1022:In response, the CJEU ruled that
298:were violated, implying that the
1317:"Ruotsalainen v. Finland (2009)"
790:Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 ECHR
416:Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 ECHR
408:Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 ECHR
209:have been developed relevant to
896:Schengen Agreement member state
753:The Criminal Nature Requirement
268:The Criminal Nature Requirement
248:Engel and Others v. Netherlands
1732:Legal doctrines and principles
590:âcriminal chargeâ of Article 6
475:with the establishment of the
156:European Court of Human Rights
1:
1437:"Zolotukhin v. Russia (2009)"
1413:"Gradinger v. Austria (1995)"
1145:, UN HRC CCPR/C/31/D/204/1986
1039:The Schengen Nature Condition
898:under Article 54 of CISA. In
712:, which is applicable in all
131:Statute and Article 9 of the
1727:Legal rules with Latin names
862:procedure through the CJEU.
608:have broadened the usage of
227:Article 15 of the Convention
1625:"GözĂŒtok and BrĂŒgge (2003)"
1293:"Kremzow v. Austria (1990)"
998:Case C-436/04, Van Esbroeck
808:additionally relied on the
681:Article 4 of Protocol No. 7
665:Article 4 of Protocol No. 7
586:Article 4 of Protocol No. 7
554:Article 4 of Protocol No. 7
541:Article 4 of Protocol No. 7
507:Article 4 of Protocol No. 7
477:General Amnesty Act in 1996
441:Article 4 of Protocol No. 7
406:were violated according to
361:Article 4 of Protocol No. 7
345:Article 4 of Protocol No. 7
245:taken from its judgment in
93:employs a modified form of
64:jurisdictions, and similar
1748:
1389:"MarguĆĄ v. Croatia (2014)"
1341:"A and B v. Norway (2016)"
574:Grand Chamber of the ECtHR
241:, the Court refers to the
1123:List of legal Latin terms
1102:Article 50 of the Charter
840:Article 50 of the Charter
797:Article 50 of the Charter
786:Article 50 of the Charter
777:Article 50 of the Charter
499:Article 2 (right to life)
951:Case C-486/14, Kossowski
700:The legal basis for the
627:Article 4 Protocol No. 7
485:Supreme Court of Croatia
225:under the conditions of
165:The legal basis for the
71:autrefois acquit/convict
1166:Buckland, W.W. (1963).
323:Ruotsalainen v. Finland
844:Article of the 54 CISA
675:principle relevant to
594:âpenaltyâ of Article 7
576:, which broadened the
539:citing a violation of
119:
105:
95:
70:
39:
31:
23:
1673:"Van Esbroeck (2006)"
1497:European Commission.
296:Article 6 of the ECHR
1092:The CJEU ruled that
970:was not violated in
622:Russian Constitution
561:Zolotukhin v. Russia
519:Gradinger v. Austria
352:Finnish criminal law
334:tested the scope of
28:(sometimes rendered
306:would be violated.
1649:"Kossowski (2016)"
1441:hudoc.echr.coe.int
1417:hudoc.echr.coe.int
1393:hudoc.echr.coe.int
1345:hudoc.echr.coe.int
1321:hudoc.echr.coe.int
1297:hudoc.echr.coe.int
1273:hudoc.echr.coe.int
1098:Article 54 of CISA
725:direct effect via
704:principle for the
439:idem according to
274:Kremzow v. Austria
127:Article 10 of the
87:extradition treaty
60:doctrine found in
1141:For example, see
768:Ă
kerberg Fransson
490:Geneva Convention
448:MarguĆĄ v. Croatia
373:A and B v. Norway
243:âEngel criteria,â
189:, and, formerly,
169:principle in the
103:Rome Statute and
1739:
1711:
1710:
1708:
1707:
1693:
1687:
1686:
1684:
1683:
1669:
1663:
1662:
1660:
1659:
1645:
1639:
1638:
1636:
1635:
1621:
1615:
1614:
1612:
1611:
1597:
1591:
1590:
1588:
1587:
1573:
1567:
1566:
1564:
1563:
1548:
1542:
1541:
1533:
1527:
1526:
1524:
1523:
1509:
1503:
1502:
1494:
1488:
1487:
1484:HAL Open Science
1478:Turmo, Araceli.
1475:
1469:
1468:
1460:
1451:
1450:
1448:
1447:
1433:
1427:
1426:
1424:
1423:
1409:
1403:
1402:
1400:
1399:
1385:
1379:
1378:
1376:
1375:
1361:
1355:
1354:
1352:
1351:
1337:
1331:
1330:
1328:
1327:
1313:
1307:
1306:
1304:
1303:
1289:
1283:
1282:
1280:
1279:
1265:
1259:
1258:
1256:
1255:
1241:
1235:
1234:
1232:
1231:
1217:
1204:
1203:
1201:
1200:
1186:
1180:
1179:
1173:
1163:
1146:
1139:
462:
461:
457:
387:
386:
382:
122:
108:
98:
73:
42:
34:
26:
1747:
1746:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1705:
1703:
1701:curia.europa.eu
1695:
1694:
1690:
1681:
1679:
1677:curia.europa.eu
1671:
1670:
1666:
1657:
1655:
1653:curia.europa.eu
1647:
1646:
1642:
1633:
1631:
1629:curia.europa.eu
1623:
1622:
1618:
1609:
1607:
1605:curia.europa.eu
1599:
1598:
1594:
1585:
1583:
1581:curia.europa.eu
1575:
1574:
1570:
1561:
1559:
1550:
1549:
1545:
1535:
1534:
1530:
1521:
1519:
1517:curia.europa.eu
1511:
1510:
1506:
1496:
1495:
1491:
1477:
1476:
1472:
1462:
1461:
1454:
1445:
1443:
1435:
1434:
1430:
1421:
1419:
1411:
1410:
1406:
1397:
1395:
1387:
1386:
1382:
1373:
1371:
1363:
1362:
1358:
1349:
1347:
1339:
1338:
1334:
1325:
1323:
1315:
1314:
1310:
1301:
1299:
1291:
1290:
1286:
1277:
1275:
1267:
1266:
1262:
1253:
1251:
1243:
1242:
1238:
1229:
1227:
1219:
1218:
1207:
1198:
1196:
1188:
1187:
1183:
1165:
1164:
1160:
1155:
1150:
1149:
1140:
1136:
1131:
1114:
1094:non bis in idem
1087:non bis in idem
1079:non bis in idem
1058:non bis in idem
1048:
1041:
1029:non bis in idem
1024:non bis in idem
1017:non bis in idem
1012:non bis in idem
1002:
994:
968:non bis in idem
955:
944:non bis in idem
942:requirement of
923:non bis in idem
911:non bis in idem
880:
868:
860:non bis in idem
851:non bis in idem
836:non bis in idem
821:
802:non bis in idem
773:non bis in idem
763:
755:
747:non bis in idem
739:non bis in idem
731:non bis in idem
727:non bis in idem
702:non bis in idem
698:
696:Legal Framework
693:
673:non bis in idem
610:non bis in idem
565:
556:were violated.
533:non bis in idem
523:
515:
463:
459:
455:
453:
452:
423:non bis in idem
404:non bis in idem
400:non bis in idem
388:
384:
380:
378:
377:
369:
357:non bis in idem
336:non bis in idem
327:
316:non bis in idem
304:non bis in idem
286:non bis in idem
278:
270:
257:non bis in idem
239:non bis in idem
235:
223:non bis in idem
207:non bis in idem
195:non bis in idem
187:the Netherlands
167:non bis in idem
163:
161:Legal Framework
158:
120:non bis in idem
111:
96:non bis in idem
66:peremptory plea
58:double jeopardy
54:Roman civil law
32:non-bis in idem
24:Non bis in idem
17:
12:
11:
5:
1745:
1743:
1735:
1734:
1729:
1719:
1718:
1713:
1712:
1688:
1664:
1640:
1616:
1592:
1568:
1543:
1536:Wahl, Thomas.
1528:
1504:
1489:
1470:
1452:
1428:
1404:
1380:
1356:
1332:
1308:
1284:
1260:
1236:
1205:
1181:
1157:
1156:
1154:
1151:
1148:
1147:
1133:
1132:
1130:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1120:
1113:
1110:
1047:
1042:
1040:
1037:
1001:
995:
993:
990:
954:
948:
879:
869:
867:
864:
856:Engel criteria
820:
814:
810:Engel criteria
762:
756:
754:
751:
743:Engel criteria
697:
694:
692:
689:
635:Engel criteria
564:
558:
549:Engel criteria
522:
516:
514:
511:
451:
445:
376:
370:
368:
365:
326:
320:
300:Engel criteria
277:
271:
269:
266:
234:
233:Engel Criteria
231:
211:administrative
162:
159:
157:
154:
153:
152:
148:
110:
101:
50:legal doctrine
40:ne bis in idem
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1744:
1733:
1730:
1728:
1725:
1724:
1722:
1702:
1698:
1692:
1689:
1678:
1674:
1668:
1665:
1654:
1650:
1644:
1641:
1630:
1626:
1620:
1617:
1606:
1602:
1596:
1593:
1582:
1578:
1572:
1569:
1557:
1553:
1547:
1544:
1539:
1532:
1529:
1518:
1514:
1508:
1505:
1500:
1493:
1490:
1485:
1481:
1474:
1471:
1466:
1459:
1457:
1453:
1442:
1438:
1432:
1429:
1418:
1414:
1408:
1405:
1394:
1390:
1384:
1381:
1370:
1366:
1360:
1357:
1346:
1342:
1336:
1333:
1322:
1318:
1312:
1309:
1298:
1294:
1288:
1285:
1274:
1270:
1264:
1261:
1250:
1246:
1240:
1237:
1226:
1222:
1216:
1214:
1212:
1210:
1206:
1195:
1194:Treaty Office
1191:
1185:
1182:
1177:
1172:
1171:
1162:
1159:
1152:
1144:
1138:
1135:
1128:
1124:
1121:
1119:
1116:
1115:
1111:
1109:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1090:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1075:
1071:
1070:third country
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1054:
1046:
1043:
1038:
1036:
1034:
1030:
1025:
1020:
1018:
1013:
1009:
1008:
999:
996:
991:
989:
986:
982:
978:
973:
969:
964:
962:
961:
952:
949:
947:
945:
941:
937:
933:
929:
924:
920:
916:
912:
907:
905:
901:
897:
893:
892:
887:
886:
877:
873:
870:
865:
863:
861:
857:
852:
847:
845:
841:
837:
832:
828:
827:
818:
815:
813:
811:
807:
803:
798:
793:
791:
787:
783:
778:
775:principle in
774:
770:
769:
760:
757:
752:
750:
748:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
723:
719:
715:
714:member states
711:
707:
703:
695:
690:
688:
686:
682:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
661:
660:Franz Fischer
656:
655:
650:
649:
644:
640:
636:
630:
628:
623:
619:
613:
611:
607:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
570:
562:
559:
557:
555:
550:
544:
542:
538:
534:
530:
529:
520:
517:
512:
510:
508:
504:
500:
494:
491:
486:
482:
481:Yugoslav Wars
478:
473:
472:Grand Chamber
469:
468:
458:
449:
446:
444:
442:
438:
433:
429:
424:
419:
417:
411:
409:
405:
401:
397:
396:
393:
383:
374:
371:
366:
364:
362:
359:according to
358:
353:
348:
346:
342:
337:
333:
332:
324:
321:
319:
317:
313:
312:civil servant
307:
305:
301:
297:
293:
292:
287:
283:
275:
272:
267:
265:
263:
258:
254:
251:
249:
244:
240:
232:
230:
228:
224:
220:
219:Grand Chamber
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
160:
155:
149:
146:
145:
144:
140:
138:
134:
130:
125:
121:
116:
107:
102:
100:
97:
92:
88:
84:
79:
77:
72:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
43:
41:
35:
33:
27:
25:
19:
1704:. Retrieved
1700:
1691:
1680:. Retrieved
1676:
1667:
1656:. Retrieved
1652:
1643:
1632:. Retrieved
1628:
1619:
1608:. Retrieved
1604:
1595:
1584:. Retrieved
1580:
1571:
1560:. Retrieved
1558:. 2021-06-30
1555:
1546:
1531:
1520:. Retrieved
1516:
1507:
1492:
1483:
1473:
1444:. Retrieved
1440:
1431:
1420:. Retrieved
1416:
1407:
1396:. Retrieved
1392:
1383:
1372:. Retrieved
1368:
1359:
1348:. Retrieved
1344:
1335:
1324:. Retrieved
1320:
1311:
1300:. Retrieved
1296:
1287:
1276:. Retrieved
1272:
1263:
1252:. Retrieved
1248:
1239:
1228:. Retrieved
1224:
1197:. Retrieved
1193:
1184:
1169:
1161:
1143:A.P. v Italy
1142:
1137:
1105:
1093:
1091:
1086:
1078:
1066:Member State
1057:
1051:
1049:
1044:
1033:Van Esbroeck
1032:
1028:
1023:
1021:
1016:
1011:
1007:Van Esbroeck
1005:
1003:
997:
984:
980:
976:
971:
967:
965:
958:
956:
950:
943:
939:
935:
931:
927:
922:
918:
914:
910:
908:
903:
899:
890:
883:
881:
875:
871:
859:
850:
848:
835:
824:
822:
816:
805:
801:
794:
772:
766:
764:
758:
746:
738:
730:
726:
701:
699:
684:
676:
672:
668:
658:
652:
646:
642:
638:
631:
614:
609:
597:
577:
567:
566:
560:
545:
532:
526:
524:
518:
495:
466:
464:
447:
436:
431:
427:
422:
420:
412:
403:
399:
394:
391:
389:
372:
356:
349:
335:
331:Ruotsalainen
329:
328:
322:
315:
308:
303:
289:
285:
279:
273:
256:
252:
247:
238:
236:
222:
206:
202:
198:
194:
166:
164:
141:
136:
126:
115:Rome Statute
112:
109:UN tribunals
80:
37:
29:
21:
20:
18:
1118:Extradition
1068:to another
928:effet utile
643:idem factum
598:Zolotukhin,
215:tax affairs
78:countries.
1721:Categories
1706:2024-05-14
1682:2024-05-13
1658:2024-05-13
1634:2024-05-13
1610:2024-05-13
1586:2024-05-13
1562:2024-05-13
1522:2024-05-13
1446:2024-05-13
1422:2024-05-13
1398:2024-05-13
1374:2024-05-13
1350:2024-05-13
1326:2024-05-13
1302:2024-05-13
1278:2024-05-13
1254:2024-05-13
1230:2024-05-13
1199:2024-05-13
1153:References
685:Zolotukhin
677:Zolotukhin
669:Zolotukhin
645:) seen in
639:Zolotukhin
569:Zolotukhin
437:non bis in
62:common law
1369:eucrim.eu
981:Kossowski
977:Kossowski
972:Kossowski
960:Kossowski
648:Gradinger
600:both the
528:Gradinger
179:EU States
76:civil law
1112:See also
1074:Interpol
806:Fransson
683:. Since
654:Oliveira
604:and the
596:. Since
1064:from a
932:GözĂŒtok
915:GözĂŒtok
900:GözĂŒtok
885:GözĂŒtok
428:A and B
291:Kremzow
183:Germany
1463:ECHR.
1000:(2006)
953:(2016)
936:BrĂŒgge
919:BrĂŒgge
904:BrĂŒgge
891:BrĂŒgge
878:(2003)
876:BrĂŒgge
838:under
819:(2023)
771:, the
761:(2013)
470:was a
467:MarguĆĄ
191:the UK
177:. All
151:basis.
137:ad hoc
106:ad hoc
1176:695â6
1129:Notes
940:âbisâ
782:Court
606:ECtHR
578:idemâ
537:ECtHR
392:A and
341:ECtHR
282:ECtHR
262:ECtHR
46:Latin
1100:and
934:and
917:and
889:and
874:and
842:and
788:and
720:and
602:CJEU
592:and
501:and
456:edit
381:edit
213:and
203:idem
133:ICTR
129:ICTY
113:The
81:The
1050:In
1004:In
985:bis
957:In
882:In
823:In
765:In
708:is
582:CoE
525:In
432:bis
199:bis
173:is
36:or
1723::
1699:.
1675:.
1651:.
1627:.
1603:.
1579:.
1554:.
1515:.
1482:.
1455:^
1439:.
1415:.
1391:.
1367:.
1343:.
1319:.
1295:.
1271:.
1247:.
1223:.
1208:^
1192:.
1085:,
749:.
629:.
443:.
410:.
363:.
185:,
99:.
1709:.
1685:.
1661:.
1637:.
1613:.
1589:.
1565:.
1540:.
1525:.
1501:.
1486:.
1467:.
1449:.
1425:.
1401:.
1377:.
1353:.
1329:.
1305:.
1281:.
1257:.
1233:.
1202:.
1178:.
460:]
395:B
385:]
253:.
68:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.