‘Transnationalising’ Ne Bis In Idem: How the Rule of Ne Bis In Idem Reveals the Principle of Personal Legal Certainty

Lelieur, Juliette

doi:10.18352/ulr.250

Cited by 17 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Central remain articles 8 and 19 of the Regulation which report the reasons for non-recognition and non-execution of the freezing and confiscation order. Among the reasons enumerated refer to: the opposition of the provision al ne bis in idem (Lelieur, 2013), the existence of rules on the determination or limitation of criminal liability relating to freedom of the press and/or freedom of expression in other media and the existence in some situations that can be characterized as exceptional and for serious reasons based on objective and specific elements that the execution of the confiscation order remains a clear violation of a right already established by CFREU (Mak, 2012;Saffian, Düsterhau, 2014;Lebrun, 2016). In the case of a confiscation order, the hypothesis of proceedings in absentia as well as the non-participation is not attributable to the recipient of the order.…”

Section: Regulation (Eu) 2018/1805 and Protection Of Human Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

European criminal cooperation: Confiscation and protection of human rights in the post Brexit period

Phil¹

2023

YIECPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work tries to analyze the international cooperation models in the field of seizure and confiscation that are defined in a limited space through the Conventions of the Council of Europe of 1990 and 2005. We proceed with the latest Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 as well as with the agreement on trade and cooperation of 24 December 2020. Note the points of reference and analysis of all three models and operating schemes on the protection of human rights. We also focused on the post-Brexit situation where the United Kingdom, despite its exit from the Union hall, will have to comply with the standards of protection of rights as established by Union law, interpreted by the CJEU and with the aim of continuing the criminal cooperation with the other Member States of the Union.

show abstract

Section: Regulation (Eu) 2018/1805 and Protection Of Human Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

European criminal cooperation: Confiscation and protection of human rights in the post Brexit period

Phil¹

2023

YIECPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Article 6(3) TEU stipulates that fundamental rights enshrined in the ECHR constitute general principles of EU law. Moreover, according to the explanations relating to Article 52 CFR, the objective of Article 52 (3) is to ensure consistency between CFR and ECHR jurisprudence by establishing the principle that: "[i]n so far as this Charter contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the meaning and scope of those rights shall be the same as those laid down by the said Convention. This provision shall not prevent Union law providing more extensive protection."…”

Section: Acknowledgementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 At European level, the universally recognised principle is codified through important human rights instruments 2 underpinned by the principle of legal certainty. 3 Repeated ordeals in consequence of multiple criminal proceedings and multiple punishments exceeds the requirements of justice. 4 ECtHR and CJEU judicial assessments of verdict finality (bis) are compounded by dual enforcement measures in criminal proceedings and administrative proceedings (criminal in nature).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An interpretative analysis of the European ne bis in idem principle through the lens of ECHR, CFR and CISA provisions: Are three streams flowing in the same channel?

Coffey

2023

New Journal of European Criminal Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ne bis in idem principle (procedural defence) proscribes multiple criminal proceedings and punishments for the same criminal offence/conduct, which is predicated on a final verdict of acquittal or conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction. Incorporated as a fundamental human right through Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 annexed to the ECHR and fundamental right safeguarded through Article 50 CFR, the principle is conjoined with the right to free movement of persons through Article 54 CISA. An evaluation of the characteristics, substance, rationale, scope, and limitations associated with the autonomous procedural defence reveals corresponding purposes. CJEU and ECtHR jurisprudence have delineated the scope and limitations of the procedural defence and the two European courts have reciprocally influenced their respective case law. Definitive and practical judicial guidelines on the application of the principle facilitate consistency of approach by diverse national legal systems consistent with the principle of legality. The article provides an interpretative analysis of the procedural defence and associated jurisprudence of the two European courts that aim to ensure consistency of approach by national legal systems notwithstanding the applicability of the margin of appreciation and the principle of subsidiarity. The article concludes with an evaluation of the narrow same criminal offence criterion ( idem crimen) commensurate with broader proscribed conduct ( idem factum) criterion that is pivotal to the application of the procedural defence and evidently the most litigated aspect of the ne bis in idem principle. The main issue causing tensions between the different streams of case law seems to be the question of the combination of distinct types of proceedings (administrative and criminal), and there is a reciprocal influence of the ECHR and CJEU on this issue.

show abstract

“…Для достижения поставленной цели автором были использованы работы признанных ученых в области международного права, таких как В. Б. ван Бокель [28], Ф. Кассезе [32], Дж. Лельё [33], Д. С. Рудштейн [34], В. П. Дж. Вилс [37], национальные [6; 7; 9-14; 18; 23-25] и международные [3-5; 8; 16; 17; 26; 35] нормативные правовые акты, а также правоприменительная практика международных судебных органов [1; 15; 22; 27; 29-31; 36].…”

unclassified

The non bis in idem Principle — Theory, History and Application in International Law and the Law of the Eurasian Economic Union

Seitimova

2022

Journal of International Law and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article considers the prohibition of double jeopardy, codifi ed in Roman law as the non bis idem principle. The author discusses the origins of the principle, its historic and modern meaning and its role for national legal systems and international law. Various approaches are reviewed to the interpretation of the nature and the limits of the non bis in idem principle, with reference to the case law of the European Court on Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union. Special attention is given to the application of the principle in competition law. An argument is made that an economic entity may not be penalised simultaneously by the decisions of the Eurasian Economic Commission and the national antimonopoly body of a Member State.

show abstract

‘Transnationalising’ Ne Bis In Idem: How the Rule of Ne Bis In Idem Reveals the Principle of Personal Legal Certainty

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

European criminal cooperation: Confiscation and protection of human rights in the post Brexit period

European criminal cooperation: Confiscation and protection of human rights in the post Brexit period

An interpretative analysis of the European ne bis in idem principle through the lens of ECHR, CFR and CISA provisions: Are three streams flowing in the same channel?

The non bis in idem Principle — Theory, History and Application in International Law and the Law of the Eurasian Economic Union

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About