A Reasoned approach to prohibiting the bis in idem
-
-
[1] Université Aix-Marseille, France.
-
- Localización: Eucrim: the European Criminal Law Associations' fórum, ISSN 1862-6947, Nº. 4, 2021 (Ejemplar dedicado a: Fresh Perspectives on Unresolved Problems in European Criminal/Adminstrative Law), págs. 266-273
- Idioma: inglés
- Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
- Dialnet Métricas: 1 Cita
-
Resumen
The ne bis in idem protection in Art. 50 CFR restricts the ability of EU and national enforcement authorities to prosecute or punish the same defendant for the same criminal offence more than once. Under the Member States’ legal traditions, the notion of “same offence“ or idem requires a triple identity: of the offenders, the material facts, and the protected legal interests. A broader notion of idem that only requires a double identity is laid down in Art. 54 CISA, which entails the prohibition of double prosecution of the same offender for the same “material acts”. The CJEU’s case law is inconsistent: sometimes the Court requires double identity, thus giving effect to Art 54 CISA (as far as intra-state judicial cooperation is concerned), while requiring triple identity in other cases, in particular in the area of competition law. With the Menci judgment the CJEU aligned the interpretation of the notion “same offence” in Art. 50 CFR to “same acts” in Art. 54 CISA, and hence based it on the double identity test. The two pending cases C-117/20 bpost and C-151/20 Nordzucker e.a., both relating to the area of parallel competition proceedings, cast a new light on the interpretation of the idem concept. With two opinions rendered on 2 September 2021, AG Bobek proposed a unified triple identity test. He argued that the CJEU should reverse its jurisprudence based on double identity because it gives rise to legal uncertainty. The present article argues that the AG failed to suggest a viable solution to interpret the idem notion in accordance with ECtHR case law. It is suggested not to get rid of the broader standard of protection against double jeopardy in the EU when justified but to supplement the requirement of “same acts” with the familiar conditions for extracontractual liability, including the conduct, its effects, and casual link.
