NE BIS IN IDEM IN EUROPEAN CRIMINAL LAW – MOVING IN CIRCLES?

Zoran Burić
{"title":"NE BIS IN IDEM IN EUROPEAN CRIMINAL LAW – MOVING IN CIRCLES?","authors":"Zoran Burić","doi":"10.25234/ECLIC/9015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Current article takes a closer look at the dialogue between the Strasbourg and the Luxembourg courts on the interpretation of the ne bis in idem principle and analyses how it influenced the (non)acceptance of the possibility to conduct both, criminal and administrative penal proceedings, against the same person for the same acts. It starts with the pre-Zolotukhin jurisprudence of the European Court for Human Rights and analyses how the Luxembourg interpretation of Article 54 CISA had a major influence on the change in the way the Strasbourg court perceived the possibility to conduct both, criminal and administrative penal proceedings, against the same person for the same acts. It further explores how the Luxembourg court followed the way indicated by Zolotukhin and accepted the stance of the Strasbourg court on the possibility of duplication of criminal and administrative penal proceedings against the same person for the same acts under the ne bis in idem protection afforded to individuals by Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Finally, it analyses whether the recent shift in the Strasbourg court’s jurisprudence, which was also followed by the Luxembourg court, means that the ne bis in idem principle in European criminal law has, on the question of the duplication of criminal and administrative penal proceedings, basically come to the positions which were dominant in the pre-Zolotukhin jurisprudence.","PeriodicalId":246552,"journal":{"name":"EU AND MEMBER STATES – LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EU AND MEMBER STATES – LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25234/ECLIC/9015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Current article takes a closer look at the dialogue between the Strasbourg and the Luxembourg courts on the interpretation of the ne bis in idem principle and analyses how it influenced the (non)acceptance of the possibility to conduct both, criminal and administrative penal proceedings, against the same person for the same acts. It starts with the pre-Zolotukhin jurisprudence of the European Court for Human Rights and analyses how the Luxembourg interpretation of Article 54 CISA had a major influence on the change in the way the Strasbourg court perceived the possibility to conduct both, criminal and administrative penal proceedings, against the same person for the same acts. It further explores how the Luxembourg court followed the way indicated by Zolotukhin and accepted the stance of the Strasbourg court on the possibility of duplication of criminal and administrative penal proceedings against the same person for the same acts under the ne bis in idem protection afforded to individuals by Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Finally, it analyses whether the recent shift in the Strasbourg court’s jurisprudence, which was also followed by the Luxembourg court, means that the ne bis in idem principle in European criminal law has, on the question of the duplication of criminal and administrative penal proceedings, basically come to the positions which were dominant in the pre-Zolotukhin jurisprudence.
欧洲刑法中的观点论——兜圈子?
本文更仔细地考察了斯特拉斯堡法院和卢森堡法院之间就“一事不再理”原则的解释进行的对话,并分析了这一原则如何影响(不)接受对同一人就同一行为提起刑事和行政刑事诉讼的可能性。本报告从欧洲人权法院在zolotukhin案之前的判例开始,分析卢森堡对《欧洲人权法》第54条的解释如何对斯特拉斯堡法院改变对同一人因同一行为提起刑事和行政诉讼的可能性产生重大影响。它进一步探讨卢森堡法院如何遵循Zolotukhin所指出的方式,并接受斯特拉斯堡法院的立场,即根据《欧洲联盟基本权利宪章》第50条对个人的“一事同理”保护,对同一个人的同一行为提出重复的刑事和行政诉讼的可能性。最后,本文分析了最近斯特拉斯堡法院判例的转变(卢森堡法院也紧随其后)是否意味着,在刑事和行政刑事诉讼程序重复的问题上,欧洲刑法中的一事不再理原则基本上回到了在佐洛图欣之前的判例中占主导地位的立场。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信