Advertisement

Ne bis in idem” in Spain and in Europe. Internal Effects of an Inverse and Partial Convergence of Case-Law (from Luxembourg to Strasbourg)

  • Mercedes Pérez Manzano
Chapter

Abstract

The prohibition of bis in idem contains a mandate addressed to the State of not reiterating the Ius puniendi concerning the same facts. Although this principle has won wide recognition in the international conventions for the protection of human rights, there are remarkable discrepancies among state and international courts concerning the different ways of defining the required identity—idem—and the prohibited repetition—bis—. This paper deals with the differences between the Spanish and the European standard of protection against the repetition of sanctioning only in so far as it concerns the concept of identity and the relevance of the “discounting” technique as a means of preventing the violation of the right. For that purpose, it is offered a brief presentation of internal and European case-law and subsequently it will be evaluated the consequences that the European standard brings with it.

References

  1. Cancio Meliá M, Pérez Manzano M (2015) Principios de Derecho Penal (II). In: Lascuráin Sánchez JA (ed) Introducción al Derecho Penal. Aranzadi, Cizur Menor, pp 89–122Google Scholar
  2. Cassese A et al (2013) International criminal law: cases and commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. De la Oliva Santos A et al (2007) Derecho Procesal Penal. Centro de Estudios Ramón Areces, MadridGoogle Scholar
  4. García Albero R (1995) Non bis in idem material y concurso de leyes. Cedecs, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  5. Gómez Orbaneja E (1947, 1952) Comentarios a la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal de 14 de septiembre de 1882 con la legislación orgánica y procesal complementaria. Bosch, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  6. Huerta Tocildo S (2014) El contenido debilitado del principio europeo de legalidad penal. In: García Roca J, Santolaya Machetti P (eds) La Europa de los derechos. Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, Madrid, pp 399–427Google Scholar
  7. Klip A (2016) European criminal law. Intersentia, BristolGoogle Scholar
  8. Molina Fernández F (2016) Concursos de leyes y de delitos. In: Molina Fernández F (ed) Memento Práctico Penal 2016. Francis Lefebvre, Madrid, pp 395–405Google Scholar
  9. Montero Aroca J et al (2016) Derecho Jurisdiccional III. Proceso Penal. Tirant lo Blanch, ValenciaGoogle Scholar
  10. Pérez Manzano M (2002) La prohibición constitucional de incurrir en bis in idem. Tirant lo Blanch, ValenciaGoogle Scholar
  11. Pérez Manzano M (2015) Sobre la legitimidad y la necesidad de las limitaciones a la prohibición de incurrir en bis in idem en un contexto transfronterizo europeo: a propósito de la STJ 27.05.2014 (Gran Sala), as. Zoran Spasic (C.129/14PPU). Revista Española de Derecho Europeo 54:123–153Google Scholar
  12. Pérez Manzano M (2016) La prohibición de incurrir en bis in idem en España yen Europa. Efectos internos de una convergencia jurisprudencial inversa (de Luxemburgo a Estrasburgo). In: Pérez Manzano M et al (ed) La tutela multinivel del principio de legalidad penal. Marcial Pons, Madrid, pp 149–200Google Scholar
  13. Satger H (2012) International and European criminal law. C.H. Beck/Hart/Nomos, MunichGoogle Scholar
  14. Schermers H (1987) Non bis in idem. In: Pescatore P et al (eds) Du droit international au Droit de l’Integration: Liber amicorum. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 601–611Google Scholar
  15. Sharpstin E, Fernández-Martin JM (2008) Some reflections on Schengen free movement rights and the principle of Ne bis In Idem. Camb Yearb Eur Leg Stud 10:413–448Google Scholar
  16. Specht B (1999) Die zwischenstaatliche Geltung des Grundsatzes ne bis in idem. Zugleich ein Beitrag sur Auslegung des art. 103 Abs. 3 Grundgesestz. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  17. Trechsel S (1988) Das verflixte Siebente? Bemerkungen zum 7. Zusatzprotokol zur EMRK. In: Nowak, Steurer, Tretter (eds) Fortschritt im Bewusstsein der Grund- und Menschenrechte. Festschrift für Felix Ermacora. Engel, Kehl, pp 195–211Google Scholar
  18. Van Böckel B (2010) The Ne Bis in Idem Principle in EU Law. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den RijnGoogle Scholar
  19. Vervaele JAE (2013) The application of EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) and its Ne bis in idem principle in the member states of the EU. CJEU judgment (Grand Chamber) C-617/10 of 26 February 2013. Rev Eur Admin Law 6:113–134Google Scholar
  20. Vervaele JAE (2014) Ne bis in idem: ¿un principio transnacional de rango constitucional en la Unión Europea? InDret 1. http://www.indret.com/pdf/1027.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations