Search

Aimed at establishing an effective and consistent enforcement of market abuse regulation, the regime introduced by Regulation (EU) No. 596/2014 (‘MAR’) and Directive 2014/57/EU (‘MAD II’) relies on a mix of criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, both of which are subject to the principles of double jeopardy and due process. In the light of a few cases decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’), the features of this regime are, however, unclear, and it is doubtful whether the current framework is adequate to achieve its goals. This article criticizes the decision to criminalize market abuse at the EU level and argues that a credible EU supervisory system is better served by an enforcement system based on administrative sanctions. Moreover, the article discusses the solution offered by the ECtHR to the trade-off between efficiency and fairness in administrative proceedings and proposes an allocation of prosecution and decision-making to independent bodies within the same supervisory authority as a means to better balance efficiency and fairness.

The accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights is currently being renegotiated, but this remains a rocky and time-consuming process. Mostly relying on doctrinal method, the authors examine various methods advocated in legal theory as a means to ensure a coherent protection of human rights in Europe in the absence of an institutional agreement. The authors focus their attention on the further development of autonomous concepts in the case law of two the European supranational courts as a prerequisite for successful application of the status quo method. The principle of ne bis in idem is selected as a case in point. Finally, authors formulate proposals for approaches regarding autonomous concepts to be utilized by the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.

Our purpose here is to compare the protection against insider trading in Brazil and the European Union law, specifically the way insider trading is sanctioned in these two jurisdictions. We highlight the different compositions between administrative and criminal sanctions found in the two systems and their implications for the fundamental rights and personal rights (in case of Brazil) of those held liable for the practice of insider trading. The possible cumulation of punishments imposed by criminal courts and administrative regulatory bodies raise the question whether there might be a violation of the ne bis in idem principle. The response to that question is different in each system. We will start by briefly taking stock of the genesis and evolution of anti-insider trading regulation in Brazil and in the EU in order to comprehend the different rationales for the prohibition of insider trading in the two jurisdiction, so as to understand the reasons behind their divergencies and convergencies. Nuestro propósito aquí es comparar la protección contra el uso de información privilegiada en Brasil y la ley de la Unión Europea, específicamente la forma en que se sanciona el uso de información privilegiada en estas dos jurisdicciones. Destacamos las diferentes composiciones entre sanciones administrativas y penales encontradas en los dos sistemas y sus implicaciones para los derechos fundamentales y los derechos de la personalidad (en el caso de Brasil) de los responsables por la práctica del uso de información privilegiada. La posible acumulación de sanciones impuestas por los tribunales penales y los órganos reguladores administrativos plantea la cuestión de si podría haber una violación del principio ne bis in idem. La respuesta a esa pregunta es diferente en cada sistema. Comenzaremos revisando brevemente la génesis y evolución de la regulación sobre el uso de información privilegiada en Brasil y en la UE con el fin de comprender las diferentes razones de la prohibición del uso de información privilegiada en ambas jurisdicciones con el fin de comprender las razones detrás de sus diferencias y convergencias. Nosso objetivo aqui é comparar a proteção contra insider trading no Brasil e na União Europeia, especificamente a maneira como o insider trading é sancionado nessas duas jurisdições. Destacaremos as diferentes combinações entre sanções administrativas e criminais encontradas nos dois sistemas e suas implicações para os direitos fundamentais e da personalidade (no caso do Brasil) dos responsáveis pela prática de abuso de informação privilegiada. A possível acumulação de punições impostas por tribunais criminais e órgãos reguladores administrativos levanta a questão de saber se pode haver uma violação do princípio ne bis in idem. A resposta a essa pergunta será diferente em cada sistema. Começaremos fazendo um breve balanço da gênese e da evolução da regulamentação sobre uso de informações privilegiadas no Brasil e na UE, a fim de compreender as diferentes razões para a proibição do insider trading nas duas jurisdições de forma a entender os motivos por trás de suas divergências e convergências.

This article discusses the recent developments in the case laws of the European Courts on the principle of ne bis in idem at the interface between criminal and administrative law, in particular with regard to the legitimacy of double-track enforcement systems. It is argued that both, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), have aligned not only in lowering their previously more protective standards, but also in laying down new rules that, though partially converging, remain highly unclear. Through an analysis of the case law following the ECtHR’s judgment in A and B v Norway and the three CJEU 2018 decisions in Menci, Garlsson and Di Puma and Zecca, it is demonstrated that the uncertainty generated as to the precise conditions under which dual criminal and administrative proceedings are permissible leads to unforeseeable outcomes. The potential consequences, most importantly, also tend to put pressure on other aspects of this fundamental guarantee, as well as on the standard of protection of other fundamental rights that to date are considered as given. Against this background, we will discuss at last whether the slight differences in the approach adopted by the CJEU to that of the ECtHR could reveal a silent effort on its part to take a more right-friendly stance.

The paper portrays the new European Union extradition system, established by the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States of 2002. In the introductory remarks, the author explains the formation and development of the traditional extradition procedure, depicts relevant legal sources, and points to its flaws, which boil down to tardiness and inefficiency. The main author's standpoint is that the European arrest warrant is based on mutual trust in the member-states' legal systems, and that it depoliticizes the extradition procedure by transforming interstate cooperation into cooperation between member - states' law enforcement authorities. On these grounds, the author determines the nature of this new legal institute, that introduces radical changes into the paradigm of the classical extradition, and explains its main features as well as the scope of application. Further on, the paper explores the conditions for issuance of the European arrest warrant, which are proscribed by negative formulations - as absolute and relative obstacles for extradition. Finally, the author explains the standardized formal elements of the European arrest warrant content, which should make its application easier and more expeditious.

Sve važnije mjesto u okvirima Europske unije ima pravosudna suradnja u kaznenim stvarima. Kroz mehanizme te suradnje Uniju se nastoji pretvoriti u jedinstveno područje “slobode, sigurnosti i pravde”. Važno je mjesto u okvirima tog procesa i prihvaćanje zajedničkih standarda u primjeni načela ne bis in idem. S obzirom na različitost u pravnom uređenju i primjeni načela u domaćim pravnim porecima država članica, ovo nije ni malo lak zadatak. Nakon uvodnih napomena o načelu i prikazu pravnih izvora u kojima je u europskom pravu regulirano, u radu se daje pregled prakse Europskog suda koji ima ključnu ulogu u definiranju načela i standarda za njegovu jedinstvenu primjenu u prostoru Unije. Završno se u kratkom osvrtu analizira usklađenost hrvatskog prava sa zahtjevima transnacionalnog europskog ne bis in idem., The principle of ne bis in idem is recognized as a fundamental human right, both in national and international law. However, in both these legal dimensions, its application is limited to the national context. In the EU, for years now a transnational dimension of the principle has been developed. The author gives an overview of the legal sources of transnational ne bis in idem in European criminal law. This is followed by the analysis of jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, which shows an interesting link between the first pillar and the third pillar of the EU law. The final part of the article gives an analysis of the compatibility of Croatian law with transnational European ne bis in idem., Der Grundsatz ne bis in idem ist sowohl im nationalen Recht als auch im Internationalen Recht als grundlegendes Menschenrecht anerkannt. Dennoch ist seine Anwendung in beiden Rechtsgebieten auf den nationalen Kontext beschränkt. In der Europäischen Union wird seit Jahren die transnationale Dimension dieses Grundsatzes entwickelt. Der Autor bietet einen Überblick über die Rechtsquellen des transnationalen ne bis in idem im europäischen Strafrecht. Danach folgt eine Analyse der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofes, die eine interessante Beziehung zwischen der ersten und dritten Säule des Gemeinschaftsrechts aufzeigt. Im abschließenden Teil des Beitrags wird die Harmonisierung des kroatischen Rechts mit den Anforderungen des transnationalen europäischen ne bis in idem untersucht