
NE BIS IN IDEM AS A MODERN GUARANTEE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN EUROPE
Summary: 1. Introduction to ne bis in idem in Criminal Proceedings. – 2. The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: The First Step towards the Europeanisation of ne bis in idem in All Types of Proceedings. – 3. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: A Step Forward or a ‘copy’ of the Convention? – 4. The Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement: Recognition of ne bis in idem at the Inter-state Level. – 5. The European Convention on Extradition: Ne bis in idem in the Traditional Scheme on Extradition. – 6. Legislative Instruments in the Field of Mutual Recognition of Judicial Decisions in Criminal Proceedings: Ne bis in idem in the Modern Scheme of Co-operation in Criminal Matters. – 7. Conclusions.
Abstract
Background: The principle ne bis in idem is a traditional principle relevant to criminal proceedings in European states. While in the past, crime had a primarily national dimension, these days, it has an international dimension as well. The Europeanisation of law also occurred in criminal law, including criminal proceedings. Thus, an understanding of ne bis in idem as a modern guarantee involving the international dimension is needed.
Methods: The basic sources used for the elaboration of the paper are scholarly sources (monographs, textbooks, studies, and scientific papers, etc.), legislative instruments (international agreements, etc.), and case-law (of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union). The materials used here also include the available explanatory memorandums. The author uses traditional methods of legal scientific (jurisprudential) research – general scientific methods as well as special methods of legal science (jurisprudence). The general scientific methods used in the paper are predominantly logical methods, namely, the method of analysis, the method of synthesis, and the method of analogy, as well as the descriptive method. The descriptive method has been used to familiarise the reader with the current legal regulation of ne bis in idem. The method of analysis has been used as regards relevant provisions and case-law. The method of synthesis has also been used, as has the method of analogy. The special methods of legal science used here predominantly include methods belonging to a group of interpretative methods, namely, the teleological method, the systematic method, the historical method, and the comparative method. The teleological method has been used as regards the explanation of the purpose of legislative instruments. The systematic method has been used in the classification of the principle of ne bis in idem. The historical method has been used as regards the genesis and historical aspects of ne bis in idem. The comparative method has been used to examine the relationship between legislative instruments.
Results and Conclusions: The principle of ne bis in idem is one of the oldest norms in western civilisation. Since the Europeanisation of law also occurred in criminal law, including criminal proceedings, the principle of ne bis in idem became a part of international legal documents. The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 7, introduced a new right – the ‘right not to be tried or punished twice’. In addition, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which is the first bill of rights developed explicitly for the EU, also introduced the principle of ne bis in idem as the ‘right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence’. However, its understanding in the Charter has no additional significance. In principle, it is the same. Despite the fact the primary purpose of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement is to facilitate the free movement of persons between member states of the EU by removing internal border controls, several measures have been introduced which focus on police and judicial co-operation, including the principle of ne bis in idem, in the provision entitled ‘Application of the ne bis in idem principle’. This provision is considered the most developed expression of an internationally applicable ne bis in idem. Ne bis in idem also occurs in extradition proceedings and surrender proceedings. Its operation under the European Convention on Extradition prevents the double prosecution of the same person for the same offence in different jurisdictions. As regards the new procedural system introduced by the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant, based on the surrender proceedings as a special kind of criminal proceedings, there is no absolute obligation to execute the European arrest warrant. The Framework Decision, in its core text, includes grounds for non-execution of the arrest warrant in the executing state – and one of them is the principle of ne bis in idem.
This publication contains some results of research that has previously appeared in the following of my publications, which were substantively updated:
L Klimek, European Arrest Warrant (Springer Cham 2015)
<https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07338-5>;
L Klimek, Mutual Recognition of Judicial Decisions in European Criminal Law (Springer Cham 2017) <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44377-5>;
L Klimek, ‘Transnational application of the Ne bis idem principle in Europe’ (2011) 5(3) Notitiae ex Academia Bratislavensi Iurisprudentiae 12-33;
L Klimek, Judikatúra Súdneho dvora Európskej únie vo veciach trestných [transl.: Case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Criminal Matters] (Wolters Kluwer 2018);
L Klimek, Judikatúra Súdneho dvora Európskej únie vo veciach zneužívania trhu a súvisiacich trestnoprávnych otázok [transl.: Case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Matters of Market Abuse and Related Criminal Issues] (Wolters Kluwer 2020).
About Authors
Libor Klimek
Docent, JUDr., PhDr., PhDr., PhD., Dr. h. c., Associate Professor at the Department of Criminal Law, Faculty of Law, Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica, Slovakia libor.klimek@umb.sk https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3826-475X
Corresponding author, responsible for writing, conceptualization, methodology, resources, formal analysis, writing, review, editing, and project administration. Competing interests: The author has no competing interests. Disclaimer: The author declares that his opinion and views expressed in this manuscript are free of any impact of any organizations.
Funding: The contribution was elaborated as a part of the research project VEGA No. 1/0004/20 ‘Implementation of Mutual Recognition of Judicial Decisions in Criminal Matters into the Legal Order of the Slovak Republic’ [Slovak: Zavedenie vzájomného uznávania justičných rozhodnutí v trestných veciach do právneho poriadku Slovenskej republiky], funded by the Scientific Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic and the Slovak Academy of Sciences. The funding was awarded to the Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic.
Managing editor – Dr. Serhii Kravtsov. English Editor – Dr. Sarah White.
Copyright: © 2022 L Klimek. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
References
1. Bantekas I, Nash S, International Criminal Law (2nd edn, Cavendish Publishing 2003) 236-237.
2. Biehler G, Procedures in International Law (Springer 2008) 255.
3. Chalmers D, Davies G, Monti G, European Union Law (4th edn, Cambridge University Press 2019) 615.
4. Conway G, ‘Ne Bis in Idem in International Law’ (2003) 3 International Criminal Law Review 221, 243.
5. Cryer R, Friman H, Robinson D, Wilmshurst E, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2010) 93.
6. Dembour MB, Who Believes in Human Rights? Reflections on the European Convention (Cambridge University Press 2006) 20.
7. Digest of Justinian, Book XLVIII (48). English translation: SP Scott, The Civil Law: Including the Twelve Tables, the Institutes of Gaius, the Rules of Ulpian, the Opinions of Paulus, the Enactments of Justinian, and the Constitutions of Leo (Central Trust 1932, Vol 11) 17 (reprinted by The Lawbook Exchange, 2001).
8. EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights, Commentary of Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2006) 15, 384.
9. Draft Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, CHARTE 4473/00, CONVENT 49, 45.
10. Funta R, Golovko L, Juriš F, Európa a európske právo [transl: Europe and European Law], (2nd edn, Brno 2020) 194.
11. Klimek L, Judikatúra Súdneho dvora Európskej únie v konaní o európskom zatýkacom rozkaze [transl: Case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in European Arrest Warrant Proceedings] (Wolters Kluwer 2018).
12. Klimek L, Judikatúra Súdneho dvora Európskej únie vo veciach trestných [transl: Case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Criminal Matters] (Wolters Kluwer 2018).
13. Klimek L, Judikatúra Súdneho dvora Európskej únie vo veciach zneužívania trhu a súvisiacich trestnoprávnych otázok [transl: Case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Matters of Market Abuse and Related Criminal Issues] (Wolters Kluwer 2020).
14. Klimek L, ‘Transnational application of the Ne bis idem principle in Europe’ (2011) 5(3) International Criminal Law Review 18.
15. Klimek L, ‘Trestnoprávne záruky Charty základných práv Európskej únie: krok vpred alebo “nový obal” Dohovoru o ochrane ľudských práv a základných slobôd?’ [transl.: Criminal Guaranties of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: Step Ahead or “New Label” of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?], in V Marková (ed), Aktuálne otázky trestného práva v teórii a praxi, Zborník príspevkov vedeckej konferencie na Akadémii policajného zboru v Bratislave konanej dňa 19. marca 2015 [transl: Current Issues of Criminal Law in Theory and Practice, Proceedings of the Scientific Conference at the Academy of Police Force in Bratislava held on 19 March 2015] (Academy of Police Force in Bratislava 2015) 339-349.
16. Łazowski A, Nash S, ‘Detention’, in N Keijyer, E van Sliedregt (eds), The European Arrest Warrant in Practice (TMC Asser Press 2009) 40.
17. Mitsilegas V, EU Criminal Law After Lisbon (Hart Publishing 2018) 154.
18. Rudstein DS, Double Jeopardy: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution (Greenwood Publishing Group 2004) 3.
19. Smith RKM, Textbook on International Human Rights (7th edn, Oxford University Press 2017) 117.
20. Sure L, ‘The Practical Applications of Ne Bis in Idem in International Criminal Law’, in Y Sienho (ed),International Crime and Punishment: Selected Issues, Vol. 2 (University Press of America 2004) 172.
21. Turošík M, Roman Law (Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica 2013) 66.
22. van Bockel B, The ne bis in idem Principle in EU Law (Cambridge University Press 2016) 25, 68, 134.
23. van Dijk P, van Hoof F, van Rijn A, Zwaak L, Theory and practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (5th edn, Intersentia 2017) 723.
24. Vennemann N, ‘The European Arrest Warrant and Its Human Rights Implications’ (2003) 63 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 103.
25. Zetterquist O, ‘The Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Res Publica’, in G di Federico (ed), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: From Declaration to Binding Document (Springer 2011) 3.
Reviews for article
Add a Review
How to cite it?
-
L Klimek ‘Ne bis in idem as a Modern Guarantee in Criminal Proceedings in Europe’ 2022 4(16) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 101-117. https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-5.4-a000439