Search

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2024 9(1), 311-335 | Article | (Table of Contents) I. Setting the scene: introductory remarks. – II. The possibility to reopen a case and ne bis in idem: main theoretical issues. – III. Retrial and ne bis in idem in Europe through the lens of the Charter, the ECHR and the CISA. – IV. A focus on the ECHR: Art. 4 of Protocol 7 as a benchmark for cases reopening in Europe. – IV.1. New or newly discovered facts. – IV.2. Fundamental defects in proceedings. – IV.3. The influence on the outcome of the case. – V. Concluding remarks. | (Abstract) The principle of ne bis in idem, intrinsically linked to the concept of res iudicata, constitutes a fundamental cornerstone of criminal justice, ensuring protection against multiple prosecutions or punishments for the same offense. Nevertheless, the ever-evolving legal landscape has engendered extensive discussions concerning the potential reopening of criminal cases, particularly in light of novel evidentiary findings or fundamental procedural irregularities in the criminal proceedings at stake. This Article embarks upon a comprehensive and exhaustive inquiry into the intricate interplay between the re-examination of criminal proceedings and the ne bis in idem principle in Europe. By concentrating on key legal instruments, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA), this study aims at exploring the theoretical, legal, and human rights implications associated with such a course of action. At the heart of this analysis lies a meticulous examination of art. 4 of Protocol 7 to the ECHR, which serves as a pivotal benchmark governing the permissibility and justifiability of reopening criminal proceedings. Within this context, it will be demonstrated that, unfortunately, the interpretation of the latter provision by the Strasbourg Court – which provides for the minimum standards of protection of ne bis in idem in EU law – has not been consistent, creating potential issues concerning legal certainty and clarity that could undermine the essence of the said principle. Against this composite background, the primary objective of this Article is to illuminate the extent to which the principle of ne bis in idem may be rendered less stringent, in exceptional circumstances, to accommodate legitimate grounds warranting the reopening of criminal proceedings within the European legal framework.

L’objecte d’aquest article és analitzar com afecta la interpretació del ne bis in idem que fa el Tribunal de Justícia de la Unió Europea sobre el dret de la competència europeu. Una exegesi expansiva reforça el sistema de protecció dels drets humans a la Unió, incrementa la seguretat jurídica i afavoreix l’optimització de recursos per part de les administracions públiques; però pot perjudicar l’eficàcia del dret de la competència, que tan necessària és per a la resiliència de l’economia europea. Per dur a terme aquesta anàlisi responem tres preguntes. En primer lloc, si l’article 50 de la Carta de Drets Fonamentals de la Unió Europea, que plasma aquest principi, s’aplica a l’àmbit de la competència. Segona, com ha interpretat la jurisprudència comunitària aquest precepte. Finalment, com afecta aquesta interpretació l’eficàcia del dret de la competència europeu.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2023 8(2), 853-878 | Article | (Table of Contents) I. Dual-track proceedings and the current scope of protection. – II. The need for a clear notion of “idem”. – III. The “sufficiently close connection in substance and time”: ECtHR case-law post A and B v Norway. – IV. The “sufficiently close connection in substance and time”: the unspoken balancing act engaged in by the ECtHR and an alternative criterion to assess whether there was a duplication of proceedings. – V. Lis pendens and ne bis in idem. – VI. Conclusion. | (Abstract) This Article analyses the issue of the compatibility with the ne bis in idem principle of the double-track sanctioning systems present in various European legal orders in the light of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. In particular, after a reconstruction of the most significant case-law after the famous ruling A and B v. Norway, three main critical points are brought into focus: the divergences between the national and European case-law on the interpretation of the notion of idem factum, the difficult practical application of the close connection test between proceedings developed by the European Court of Human Rights, which can be seen as the precipitate of an unsatisfactory balancing act of opposing interests, and the possible extension of the ne bis in idem principle also to cases of lis pendens.

Drei Sozialarbeiter:innen eines Fanprojekts des Karlsruher SC weigern sich, im Strafverfahren über Vorgänge auszusagen, die ihnen im Rahmen ihrer Tätigkeit bekannt geworden sind. Sie müssen Ordnungsgelder zahlen. Darüber hinaus ermittelt die Staatsanwaltschaft wegen Strafvereitelung durch Unterlassen gegen sie. Diese Praxis verletzt jedoch das Menschenrecht, für ein und dieselbe Tat nicht mehrfach verfolgt zu werden.

Die Entscheidung des 2. Senats des BVerfG ist mit Spannung erwartet worden, jetzt ist sie da: Ein rechtskräftig Freigesprochener darf auch dann nicht wieder verfolgt werden, wenn neue Tatsachen oder Beweismittel dringende Gründe dafür ergeben, dass er wegen Mordes oder eines schweren Kriegsverbrechens verurteilt wird. Die 2021 in § 362 Nr. 5 StPO ins Gesetz geschriebene Möglichkeit, in solchen Fällen die Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens zu betreiben, ist verfassungswidrig und nichtig.

The case commentary examines the recent ruling of the Court of Justice in the Nordzucker case. This judgment is important not only for the new approach to the ne bis in idem principle in competition law (which was first established in the Bpost case, issued the same day), but also for the clarification of the concept of “idem” with respect to the territorial effects of the infringement on the territories of two member states. The judgment thus provides guidance for the extraterritorial application of EU competition law.

In this article, the author reviews the European Union law regarding market abuse from a human rights perspective. Setting the foundation for the discussion from a historical perspective on the different legislative approaches on the issue of market abuse, the article continues with the ECHR’s and CJEU’s relevant case-law on the subject. Mainly, the right to a fair trial and the ne bis in idem rule are the fundamental rights that should be looked at closely when placing the market abuse regulations under scrutiny. Certain irregularities of the legislation are outlined. Also, the article tries to point out on which aspects improvements should be pursued.

Problematika uplatňování pravidla ne bis in idem mezi správním řízením o přestupku a trestním řízením soudním vytváří řadu otázek spojených s tím, jaké další stíhání je vyloučeno, jestliže o určitém protiprávním činu již bylo jednou pravomocně rozhodnuto. Předložený článek rozebírá, za jakých podmínek je možné vést trestní stíhání o témže skutku téže osoby, o němž již bylo pravomocně rozhodnuto ve správním řízení jako o přestupku. Věnuje se podmínkám českého zákona č. 250/2016 Sb., o odpovědnosti za přestupky a řízení o nich, který umožňuje, aby správní orgán zrušil již pravomocné rozhodnutí o přestupku, nasvědčují-li okolnosti, že by skutek měl být posuzován pro pachatele přísněji jako trestný čin podle trestního zákoníku. A porovnává tuto národní úpravu s pravidly mezinárodní smlouvy, a to čl. 4 odst. 2 Protokolu č. 7 k Úmluvě o ochraně lidských práv a základních svobod, která umožňují jen za velmi restriktivních podmínek nové řízení o již jednou pravomocně rozhodnutém skutku.

The ne bis in idem principle as one of the most established legal rules, has been widely regulated by sources of national and International Law. By its very nature, it protects individuals from double punishment for the same act, regardless of its classification as a misdemeanor, criminal offence etc. Different legal traditions, together with a purely national criminal jurisdiction, led to a certain divergency among states. Moreover, such a problem has existed for a long time in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. However, regulation of this principle in the EU Law brought upon some novelties. In the end of 20th century and in the beginning of 21st century there was the process of a more detailed defining of conditions for the application of ne bis in idem principle. In parallel with that process, the European Court of Justice delivered its judgments, which clarified practical dilemmas of national courts in this particular field of law. These judgments resulted from the requests for preliminary ruling referred by national courts. In that regard, many important precedents have been adjudicated, defining essential elements for implementation of prohibition of double punishment, as for example concept of the 'same act'. On the basis of the analysis of the legal framework and relevant jurisprudence of the ECJ, we come to the conclusion that the principle ne bis in idem in the EU Law system has been interpreted extensively and this fact significantly impacts on the overcoming of formalities contained in national legal systems, which can bring about double punishment for the same act.

In this article the author proposes an analysis of the procedural mechanisms for situations in which one single criminal deed is the subject of multiple criminal trials. In this regard, a detailed examination of the Article 37 of the Criminal Code and Article 585 para. (1) d) of the Criminal Procedure Code is in order. Firstly, the author explains the historical context of the relevant legal provisions. Secondly, the author outlines the two main hypotheses taken into account by the legislator, while also establishing their scope and the procedural issues for each hypothesis. Finally, the article touches on some particular situations that cannot be resolved by using the same procedural mechanism and for which alternative solutions have been proposed.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2020 5(3), 1341-1356 | Article | (Table of Contents) I. A principle of European law. - II. Building coherence across European legal systems. - II.1. The challenging construction of compatible European standards. - II.2. The problem of the idem: what is criminal? - III. The attempted compromise. - IV. The revived schism. - V. Conclusion. | (Abstract) This Article analyses the recent divergence between the two European Courts on the application of ne bis in idem to double-track procedures from the perspective of judicial dialogue and constitutional pluralism. Although major efforts have been made towards convergence over the past decades, recent case law shows that the potential for conflict - and, possibly, incompatibility - remains wherever the incentive to follow the lead of one authority is insufficient. Pushed to find solutions by the resistance of certain national courts to their converging standards, the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice have chosen very different paths to reach a similar, but not identical, compromise solution. The Article examines the causes of this divergence and its consequences for the protection of this fundamental right in EU Member States.

În ultimul deceniu, am constatat o evoluţie cu privire la înţelegerea câmpului de aplicare a principiului ne bis in idem. Jurisprudenţa recentă a Curţii Europene a Drepturilor Omului demonstrează această afirmaţie. Prezentul studiu pune în discuţie una dintre problemele de înţelegere a principiului - cea a aplicabilităţii acestuia în cazul cumulului de calificări a infracţiunilor. Autorul analizează problema din perspectiva sistemului european al drepturilor omului și din perspectiva sistemului common-law, citând mai multe cauze relevante din jurisprudenţa Curţii Europene și din jurisprudenţa Curţii Supreme de Justiţie a Statelor Unite ale Americii.

The subject of our analysis are tax offenses in the Republic of Serbia related to abuse and subsequent loss of rights to fiscal benefits and direct grants. The article points out that tax offenses, as is the case with taxes, can only be introduced in law. For that reason, we call into question the constitutionality of the decree. Analysis of tax offenses shows that there are certain issues that could cause problems in the practical application of the decree. For instance, we believe that the definition of the tax offenses considered implies liability regardless of guilt. The state grants taxpayers the right to fiscal benefits and direct monetary payments. In the case of subsequent loss of right to fiscal benefits and direct monetary payments, we argue that it is not appropriate to apply penal measures. It is rather sufficient to initiate tax enforcement procedure.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2019 4(2), 523-561 | Article | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - I.1. The perils of parallel proceedings in EU competition law. - I.2. The classification of parallel proceedings and the resumption of proceedings following the annulment of a decision on procedural grounds as an instance of horizontal parallel proceedings. - I.3. The inadequacy of the discretionary prosecutorial restraint and the ne bis in idem principle as a limit to parallel proceedings - II. The current freedom to resume proceedings following the annulment of a decision on procedural grounds vis-à-vis a broader way to construe the ne bis in idem principle as a limit to such resumption. - II.1. The current PVC II case law or the freedom to resume proceedings following the annulment of a decision on procedural grounds. - II.2. A broader way to construe the ne bis in idem principle as a better-balanced limit to further proceedings following the annulment of a decision on procedural grounds. - III. The Commission's Rebar cartel: an endless saga. - III.1. Considerations on the case selection. - III.2. The 2002 infringement decision and its first annulment. - III.3. The 2009 readopted decision and its second annulment. - III.4. The 2018 resumption of proceedings. - III.5. The adoption of a third decision and further considerations on the outcome of the case. - IV. The ne bis in idem as a limit to further proceedings in the Rebar cartel case. - IV.1. The failure to meet the first requirement: the effective enforcement of EU competition law does not require a further resumption of the Rebar cartel case. - IV.2. The failure to meet the second requirement: the procedural defect affecting the validity of the 2009 decision was objectively attributable to the Commission and was subjectively caused in bad faith or with gross negligence. - V. Conclusions. | (Abstract) This Article analyses the risks posed by the ability of EU competition authorities to resume proceedings following the judicial annulment of an infringement decision on procedural grounds. After introducing the notion of parallel proceedings in EU competition public enforcement, a taxonomy of possible instances of parallel proceedings is presented, whose resumption following the judicial annulment of a decision on procedural grounds is categorized as horizontal parallel proceedings either at the national level or at Union level. It is argued that although the only viable way to limit the proliferation of parallel proceedings is a coherent and reliable application of the ne bis in idem principle, this approach is currently impaired by the principle's narrow construction by the CJEU in competition matters. After a critical review of the current PVC II case law, which enables an enforcer to resume proceedings and readopt a decision annulled on procedural grounds, the Article proposes a twofold test underlying a broader application of the ne bis in idem principle as a limit to this type of parallel proceedings. The test is then applied via a detailed case study of the Rebar cartel litigation, a concrete and ongoing instance of horizontal parallel proceedings at the Union level. The Article concludes that in the Rebar cartel case, the ne bis in idem principle should have prevented the Commission from resuming proceedings.

Ne bis in idem principle in Mahkamah Konstitusi procedural law (Constitutional Court– CC) found in Article 60 Paragraph (1) of CC Act, in prohibition form to return to trial norms previously reviewed. Discrete from Criminal Code and Civil Code which exact ne bis in idem elements, Article 60 Paragraph (1) has sole element within object review form. This research examines two problems: what are ne bis in idem principle characteristics, and what are the elements in the CC procedural law? The normative judicial research method used to understand ne bis in idem principle elative. Ne bis in idem adaptation in CC procedural law resulted broad philosophical shifts that unaffected Petitioners' legal standing and legality of the object that could bring against them. Based on decision systematics, CC put arguments ne bis in idem at Conclusion, so that it is not a verdict. Meanwhile, ne bis in idem principle in CC procedural law carry several norms, however CC Act only has two elements in legal object and legal subject-relationship forms. Meanwhile, the third element in legal development form is found in the CC decision. Because the legal standing of the Petitioners' and the legality of the object that can be challenged was not disturbed, the three elements did not apply accumulatively, in which the element of legal development was more determinant than the other two elements. As result, constitutionality actualization either occurs through positive decisions granted Petitioners' petition, moreover occurred in cases deemed ne bis in idem.

Tento článek nabízí kontextuální kritické postřehy při čtení knihy Domestic Judicial Treatment of European Court of Human Rights Case Law: Beyond Compliance (KOSAŘ, D. et al. Routledge, 2020) s přesahy do současných diskuzí ohledně legitimity judikatury Evropského soudu pro lidská práva. Autor vychází ze své osobní zkušenosti s fungováním Evropského soudu pro lidská práva, Nejvyššího správního soudu a Ústavního soudu a konfrontuje své postřehy se zjištěními knihy. Poukazuje na slabší momenty knihy, přidává svá pozorování a také návrhy na další výzkum, který by se mohl zaměřit zejména na práci s judikaturou Evropského soudu pro lidská práva ze strany nižších soudů.

Tento text se zaměřuje na kapitolu knihy Domestic Judicial Treatment of European Court of Human Rights Case Law: Beyond Compliance (KOSAŘ, D. et al. Routledge, 2020) věnovanou používání judikatury Evropského soudu pro lidská práva Nejvyšším správním soudem. Článek poukazuje na další důležité aspekty, které ovlivňují používání judikatury ESLP českými vrcholnými soudy. Tyto aspekty vyniknou zejména při srovnání se situací v Maďarsku a Polsku. Článek dále kriticky komentuje judikaturu Ústavního soudu při posuzování souladu zákona a mezinárodní lidskoprávní normy. Konečně, autor nabízí své situované úvahy soudce Nejvyššího správního soudu k případům, kdy se vnitrostátní soud vymezí proti rozsudku Evropského soudu pro lidská práva.

In contrast to private international law, a country's criminal authorities including court and the Public institution prosecution only apply their own country's criminal laws in the realm of international criminal law. However, it would not mean that all international criminal laws and sentences are discredited. Sometimes, domestic criminal laws require the courts to consider international criminal laws and sentences as well. For example, in an accuser’s trial in one country, they may avoid retrial or Flowing the crime committed by their nationals in overseas if the committed act is a crime in that country as well. This is very important during the preliminary investigation Process. In this Process, foreign criminal law or sentence is valid from two aspects: one is before making the final decision, and the other one is the Process of making the final decision in the form of final appointments of the court. At every Process, there are some effects on each of the mentioned measures, about which there are different opinions.

Autorica u radu daje prikaz pravne prirode sudske nagodbe kao posebnog instituta procesnog prava. Kako bi se odredila pravna priroda sudske nagodbe prethodno je nužno odrediti njezin pojam te svojstva koja čine njezinu pravnu prirodu, a to je svojstvo da se njome okončava parnica, svojstvo pravomoćne i ovršne presude i da nije moguća nova parnica o istoj pravnoj stvari. Po pravnoj prirodi sudska se nagodba razlikuje od izvansudske nagodbe kao instituta materijalnoga građanskog prava. Iako pravila procesnoga prava sadrže određene odredbe o sudskoj nagodbi ona tim procesnim pravilima nije u cijelosti uređena, posebno u pogledu pravnih sredstava za njezino pobijanje. Stoga je potrebno pored materijalnopravnih tužbi za pobijanje, predvidjeti i procesnopravno sredstvo slično prijedlogu za ponavljanje postupka. Zbog posebne pravne prirode, sudska nagodba stvara određene procesnopravne učinke po kojima se izjednačava s pravomoćnom i ovršnom sudskom presudom, što je čini posebnim i učinkovitim pravnim sredstvom rješavanja sudskih sporova.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2017 2(1), 243-250 | European Forum Insight of 18 April 2017 | (Table of Contents) I. Introduzione. - II. La pregressa giurisprudenza della Corte europea sul criterio della sufficiente connessione temporale e sostanziale tra i procedimenti penale e amministrativo. - III. Analisi dei principi di diritto enunciati nella decisione della Grande Camera. - IV. La soluzione del caso di specie. - V. Conclusioni. | (Abstract) In A and B v. Norway (judgment of 15 November 2016, nos 24130/11 and 29758/11) the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights restricted the scope of the ne bis in idem principle. Partly relaying on its previous case law, the Court upheld that Art. 4 of the Protocol no. 7 of the European Convention of Human Rights is not violated by dual proceedings conducted against an individual for the same conduct, if the proceedings are closely connected to each other in substance and in time. In A and B, the European Court also listed a number of elements to test the intensity of the connection in substance and in time.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2016 1(3), 1183-1193 | European Forum Insight of 5 January 2017 | (Table of Contents) I. A way out of the rush to prosecute: the principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust and the European ne bis in idem. - II. Has the trial been "finally disposed"? The case law of the Court of Justice and the recent clarifications provided in Kossowski. - II.1. The procedural criterion: the final nature of a decision. - II.2. The substantive criterion: the determination of the merits of the case. - III. Mutual trust is not blind: the lack of a detailed investigation as a limit to the application of the ne bis in idem principle. | (Abstract) The Insight considers the case law of the Court of Justice concerning the notion of "finally disposed", i.e. a constitutive element of the European ne bis in idem principle. In order to trigger the right not to be tried or punished twice, a national decision must be final and has to contain a sufficient determination of the merits of the case. So far, the Court of Justice has interpreted these requirements extensively, by identifying mutual recognition and mutual trust as the engines of the European ne bis in idem. Nonetheless, the Court's recent preliminary ruling in Kossowski clarifies that a lack of an adequate investigation can amount to limiting the scope of the principle at stake. Mutual trust is not blind and national judicial authorities are entitled to make a critical appraisal on the foreign authority's activity, insofar as the reasons stated in its decision closing a case evidently show the lack of a detailed investigation. Following the recent judgment Aranyosi and Căldăraru, Kossowski adds a new crack in the wall of mutual recognition and mutual trust. However, the Court shows a clear favor integrationis: these principles can be limited only in exceptional circumstances, where it is necessary to provide a cure for severe pathologies affecting the foreign decision.

Sobre la base del derecho internacional, la opinión de la jurisprudencia y los debates doctrinarios, el nuevo Código Procesal Penal de la Nación recepta un cambio de paradigma. Como consecuencia del reconocimiento de amplios derechos y facultades a la víctima, incorpora la noción de querellante autónomo y el instituto de conversión de la acción. El presente ensayo estudiará el camino que lleva a la anexión de dichas innovaciones legislativas, partiendo de la devolución del conflicto que le fue expropiado a la víctima, su autonomía, y el ingreso de un principio de oportunidad reglado. A su vez, se analizarán dos inconvenientes que trae aparejado convertir la acción: la tensión entre los intereses de la víctima y los derechos del imputado, y la doble acusación que surge cuando participa un querellante estatal.

Artykuł dotyczy procesowych skutków prawomocnych decyzji prokuratora o zakończeniu postępowania karnego w konfrontacji z stosowaniem zakazu ne bis in idem. Analiza problemu przeprowadzona została w obrębie dwóch płaszczyzn tematycznych wyznaczonych zakresem obowiązywania zakazu ne bis in idem, tzn. w warunkach krajowych i w ramach współpracy z państwami członkowskimi Unii Europejskiej. W rozważaniach przyjęto, że prawomocne decyzje prokuratorskie o zakończeniu postępowania karnego stwarzają warunki do stosowania zakazu ne bis in idem, gdy pojawia się próba ponownego wszczęcia postępowania karnego wobec tej samej osoby o ten sam czyn. Tendencja ta nie jest charakterystyczna wyłącznie dla systemu polskiego, ale widoczna jest także w ustawodawstwie karnoprocesowym innych państw członkowskich UE, budzi aprobatę w orzecznictwie Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej, ale ostrożną. W ramach współpracy karnej państw członkowskich UE dla wykładni art. 54 Konwencji wykonawczej do układu z Schengen pierwszoplanowe znaczenie ma orzecznictwo TSUE, w którym przede wszystkim wykorzystywana jest zasada wzajemnego uznawania wyroków i orzeczeń sądowych. Związek stosowania zakazu ne bis in idem z zasadą wzajemnego uznawania wyroków i orzeczeń sądowych w ramach współpracy karnej państw członkowskich UE wynika z fundamentalnej roli, jaką zasada ta pełni wobec regulacji przyjętych w Traktacie o funkcjonowaniu UE (Dział: Przestrzeń wolności, bezpieczeństwa i sprawiedliwości). W artykule wykazano, że w przyjęta w polskim systemie karnoprocesowym koncepcja klasyfikowania zakazu ne bis in idem jako ujemnej przesłanki procesowej określonej w art. 17 § 1 pkt 7 Kodeksu postępowania karnego jest rozwiązaniem optymalnym przy założeniu, że skutek res iuducata systemowo zastrzeżony jest wyłącznie dla oceny orzeczeń sądowych. Zwrócono też w odpowiednim zakresie uwagę na znaczenie kwestii tożsamości czynu jako jednego z kryteriów stosowania zakazu ne bis in idem, aprobując powielaną, zwłaszcza w orzecznictwie TSUE, tezę, że w zaistniałej sytuacji niezbędne jest ustalenie, czy czyn, którego dotyczy prawomocne orzeczenie, jest tożsamy z podstawą faktyczną śledztwa lub dochodzenia, w którym postanowienie o umorzeniu postępowania ma zostać wydane z pominięciem oceny przyjętej kwalifikacji prawnej czynu lub interesu prawnego państwa.

Celem artykułu jest porównanie zakresu zastosowania przepisów prawa karnego, prawa ochrony konkurencji oraz prawa zamówień publicznych chroniących zamawiającego przed zmowami przetargowymi. W artykule omówiono rodzaje zmów przetargowych oraz tzw. ustawienia przetargu, wskazano, które z nich mogą podlegać ocenie z punktu widzenia poszczególnych dziedzin prawa, a także przedstawiono możliwe sankcje dla przedsiębiorcy oraz osób fizycznych. Zwrócono również uwagę na aspekty proceduralne, w szczególności w zakresie możliwych do wykorzystania środków dowodowych oraz standardu dowodu opartego na poszlakach. W artykule poruszono również kwestię potencjalnej odpowiedzialności osób zarządzających za zawarcie antykonkurencyjnych porozumień przetargowych oraz oceniono zasadność tego rozwiązania w świetle zasady ne bis in idem.

In the complex procedural aftermath of Regulation 1/2003, a more systemic approach to antitrust enforcement by various authorities – EU and national, judicial and administrative – could supplement existing cooperation mechanisms with a truly integrated system of rules and decisions. This is the core argument of this article, as it examines the effects of antitrust enforcement decisions in the EU from three different but related angles.

The source of the ne bis in idem principle in European Union law is found in both the Protocol no. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention) and in the legal systems of many Member States. It is enshrined in the jurisprudence of the EU courts as a general principle of EU law. Furthermore, it has also been introduced into some international agreements concluded by the Member States, i.e. the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests and the Convention on the fight against corruption, which remain an integral part of EU legislation, as well as in the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, which has been progressively integrated into EU legislation. Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, which incorporates the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter) into EU primary law, the provision on the application of the ne bis in idem principle is now applied in the European Union in areas broader than just the scope of the three abovementioned Conventions. The significance of this principle may also be strengthened following the accession of the EU to the Convention, as has been set forth in the new Article 6(2) TEU. The ne bis in idem principle has found its own, lasting place among the rights and guarantees of undertakings in proceedings conducted by the Commission and the national competition authorities (NCAs) of the Member States aimed at prosecuting and/or sanctioning parties for agreements non-compliant with EU competition law. However, it is still not applied in proceedings against agreements having a scope which transcends EU borders, conducted by the Commission or the NCAs of Member States on the one hand, and by the competition authorities of non-member States on the other. This approach is grounded both in the provisions of the Convention and in the provisions of the Charter.

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.

El presente artículo es un producto de investigación elaborado en el proyecto incidencia de los instrumentos internacionales en materia penal que se adelanta en la Universidad Militar Nueva Granada. El documento analiza las dudas que se originan a raíz de la influencia del Estatuto de Roma de 1998, frente al principio de legalidad en su manifestación de cosa juzgada (non bis in ídem) y en la praxis que parece asumirse en la aplicación de dicho instrumento, en los casos concretos que pueden ser objeto de competencia e investigación, un poco distinta de nuestra tradición continental. En esta última parte, es importante tener en cuenta tales consecuencias, toda vez que frente al eventual ejercicio de la competencia e investigación, es cuando en realidad, se puede determinar si en virtud de la ocurrencia de una conducta, corresponde en su valoración en la CPI, a los efectos que se producen en el derecho interno.

Copyright of Bucharest University Annals - Law Series is the property of CH Beck Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper analyses the legal guarantees provided in articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights in the light of the judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights .The right to legal assistance of quality, to technical defence provided by the state, not to be forced to incriminate oneself, to appeal the sentence, to not be prosecuted more than once for the same criminal act, protection against harmful acts that affect rights and the right to the truth. These implications are what constitute the conventional guarantees of the Inter-American system that in addition are projected in innumerable specific applications that the Court has determined during the different cases judged by it and which contribute to a specific meaning in the scheme of legal guarantees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]