Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Multilevel Protection of the Principle of Legality in Criminal Law

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.

Former Law Clerk at the Spanish Constitutional Court (1998–2007), Professor of Criminal Law at Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Pérez Manzano (2002), pp. 89 ff.; Pérez Manzano (2015), p. 10.

  2. 2.

    Pérez Manzano (2002), pp. 87 ff. Cancio Meliá, Pérez Manzano (2015) pp. 89 ff.

  3. 3.

    Gómez Orbaneja (1947), p. 286; De la Oliva Santos et al. (2007), p. 208. Montero Aroca et al. (2016).

  4. 4.

    García Albero (1995), pp. 64 ff.

  5. 5.

    Pérez Manzano (2016), pp. 155–166.

  6. 6.

    ECtHR Judgement of 10 February 2015, Kiiveri v. Finland, par. 38: “According to the Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 7, which itself refers back to the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgements, a “decision is final ‘if, according to the traditional expression, it has acquired the force of res judicata. This is the case when it is irrevocable, that is to say when no further ordinary remedies are available or when the parties have exhausted such remedies or have permitted the time-limit to expire without availing themselves of them’”. This approach is well entrenched in the Court’s case-law (see, for example, Nikitin v. Russia, no. 50178/99, § 37, ECHR 2004-VIII; and Horciag v. Romania (Dec.), no. 70982/01, 15 March 2005)”.

  7. 7.

    ECtHR Judgement of 23 October 1995, Gradinger v. Austria, par. 53.

  8. 8.

    ECtHR Judgement of 29 May 2001, Franz Fischer v Austria, par. 22.

  9. 9.

    See ECtHR Judgement of 13 November 2012, Margus v. Croatia. See also Trechsel (1988) pp. 195 ff., Schermers (1987) pp. 601 ff., Specht (1999) and Huerta Tocildo (2014) pp. 399 ff.

  10. 10.

    Judgement of 10 February 2009.

  11. 11.

    Par. 55.

  12. 12.

    Judgement of 30 July 1998.

  13. 13.

    “26. That is a typical example of a single act constituting various overlapping offences (concours idéal d’infractions). The characteristic feature of this notion is that a single criminal act is split up into two separate offences, in this case the failure to control the vehicle and the negligent causing of physical injury. In such cases, the greater penalty will usually absorb the lesser one. / There is nothing in that situation which infringes Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 since that provision prohibits people being tried twice for the same offence, whereas in cases concerning a single act constituting various offences (concours idéal d’infractions) one criminal act constitutes two separate offences”. ECtHR Judgement of 2 July 2002, Götktan v. France, par. 50–51; ECtHR Judgement of 24 June 2006, Gauthier v. France, par. 2.

  14. 14.

    See ECtHR Judgement of 30 May, W.F. v Austria, pars. 26–28; ECtHR Judgement of 6 June 2002, Sailer v. Austria, par. 25–27; Admission’s Decisions of 8 April 2003, Manasson v. Sweden, par. 5; ECtHR Judgement of 11 December 2007, Haarvig v. Norwege.

  15. 15.

    See par. 82.

  16. 16.

    Par. 83.

  17. 17.

    For example, in ECtHR Judgement of 25 June 2009, Maresti v. Croatia, par. 63; ECtHR Judgement of 18 October 2011, Tomasovic v. Croatia; ECtHR Judgement of 14 January 2014, Muslija v. Bosnia & Herzegovina, par. 34; ECtHR Judgement of 4 March 2014, Grande Stevens & Others v. Italia—case FIAT—.

  18. 18.

    Par. 27.

  19. 19.

    See Vervaele (2013), p. 222.

  20. 20.

    Par. 39 & 40.

  21. 21.

    ECJ Judgement of 5 May 1966—Joined Cases 18/65 y 35/65—. See Sharpstin, Fernández-Martin (2008), Satger (2012), Cassese et al. (2013), Klip (2016).

  22. 22.

    Vervaele (2013), p. 116.

  23. 23.

    ECJ Judgement of 13 February 1969, (C-14/68).

  24. 24.

    See ECJ Judgement of 14 December 1972, Boehringer v. Commission, (C-7/72) par. 2.

  25. 25.

    ECJ Judgement of 7 January 2004 (Joined Cases C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00 P, C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P and C-219/00 P) par. 398.

  26. 26.

    Van Böckel (2010), pp. 161 ff., 232.

  27. 27.

    ECJ Judgement of 14 February 2012 (C-17/10).

  28. 28.

    Par. 84.

  29. 29.

    Pars. 86 ff.

  30. 30.

    Also Vervaele (2014), p. 14.

  31. 31.

    “Art. 54: A person whose trial has been finally disposed of in one Contracting Party may not be prosecuted in another Contracting Party for the same acts provided that, if a penalty has been imposed, it has been enforced, is actually in the process of being enforced or can no longer be enforced under the laws of the sentencing Contracting Party”. “Art. 56: If a further prosecution is brought in a Contracting Party against a person whose trial, in respect of the same acts, has been finally disposed of in another Contracting Party, any period of deprivation of liberty served in the latter Contracting Party arising from those acts shall be deducted from any penalty imposed. To the extent permitted by national law, penalties not involving deprivation of liberty shall also be taken into account”.

  32. 32.

    Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States. “ Art. 3: Grounds for mandatory non-execution of the European arrest warrant. The judicial authority of the Member State of execution (…) shall refuse to execute the European arrest warrant in the following cases: … 2. if the executing judicial authority is informed that the requested person has been finally judged by a Member State in respect of the same acts provided that, where there has been sentence, the sentence has been served or is currently being served or may no longer be executed under the law of the sentencing Member State”.

  33. 33.

    “Art. 50. Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence: ‘No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law’.

  34. 34.

    A panoramic view in Klip (2016), pp. 293–296; Satger (2012), pp. 132–140.

  35. 35.

    See Pérez Manzano (2015), pp. 123–153; Pérez Manzano (2016), pp. 176–192.

  36. 36.

    ECJ Judgement of 9 March 2006 (C-436/04), par. 42; ECJ Judgements of 28 September 2006, Gasparini & Others (C-467/04), par. 54 and Van Straaten (C-150/05), par. 48.

  37. 37.

    ECJ Judgement of 18 July 2007 (C-288-05), pars. 32 and 34.

  38. 38.

    ECJ Judgement of 16 November 2010, Mantello (C-261/09), pars. 40 and 51.

  39. 39.

    ECJ Judgement 26 February 2013 (C-617/2010). See Vervaele (2013), p. 119.

  40. 40.

    See par. 32 ff.

  41. 41.

    See point 96, Opinion of AG Cruz Villalón, delivered on 12 June 2012 (C-617/10).

  42. 42.

    Point 93.

  43. 43.

    Pérez Manzano (2002), pp. 88–131.

  44. 44.

    ECtHR Judgement of 10 February 2009, Zolotukhin v Russia, par. 83.

  45. 45.

    See ECJ Judgement of 26 Mars 2006, Van Esbroeck, (C-436-04). In general about the concurrency of crimes see Molina Fernández (2016) pp. 395 ff.

  46. 46.

    Pérez Manzano (2002), p. 93.

  47. 47.

    On the negative effects of this understanding in a framework of non-harmonized criminal legislation and with no obligatory criteria for the assignment of competences in criminal matters between the different state jurisdictions, see Vervaele (2013), p. 222; Pérez Manzano (2015), pp. 81, 82.

  48. 48.

    See par. 27.

  49. 49.

    See ECtHR Judgements of 20 May 2014, Häkkä v. Finland, par. 48 and Glantz v. Finland, par. 59; ECtHR Judgement of 27 January 2015, Rinas v. Finland, pars. 55 ff.

References

  • 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 89–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A et al (2013) International criminal law: cases and commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De la Oliva Santos A et al (2007) Derecho Procesal Penal. Centro de Estudios Ramón Areces, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • García Albero R (1995) Non bis in idem material y concurso de leyes. Cedecs, Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 399–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Klip A (2016) European criminal law. Intersentia, Bristol

    Google Scholar 

  • Molina Fernández F (2016) Concursos de leyes y de delitos. In: Molina Fernández F (ed) Memento Práctico Penal 2016. Francis Lefebvre, Madrid, pp 395–405

    Google Scholar 

  • Montero Aroca J et al (2016) Derecho Jurisdiccional III. Proceso Penal. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez Manzano M (2002) La prohibición constitucional de incurrir en bis in idem. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 54:123–153

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 149–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Satger H (2012) International and European criminal law. C.H. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 601–611

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 10:413–448

    Google Scholar 

  • Specht B (1999) Die zwischenstaatliche Geltung des Grundsatzes ne bis in idem. Zugleich ein Beitrag sur Auslegung des art. 103 Abs. 3 Grundgesestz. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 195–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Böckel B (2010) The Ne Bis in Idem Principle in EU Law. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 6:113–134

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Campus Cantoblanco, 28049, Madrid, Spain

    Mercedes Pérez Manzano

Authors
  1. Mercedes Pérez Manzano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mercedes Pérez Manzano .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Mercedes Pérez Manzano

  2. Faculty of Law, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Juan Antonio Lascuraín Sánchez

  3. Faculty of Law, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Marina Mínguez Rosique

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pérez Manzano, M. (2018). “Ne bis in idem” in Spain and in Europe. Internal Effects of an Inverse and Partial Convergence of Case-Law (from Luxembourg to Strasbourg). In: Pérez Manzano, M., Lascuraín Sánchez, J., Mínguez Rosique, M. (eds) Multilevel Protection of the Principle of Legality in Criminal Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63865-2_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63865-2_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-63864-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-63865-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation