Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Positiva jurisdiktionskonflikter de lege lata och de lege ferenda

Olsson, Sofia LU (2013) LAGF03 20131
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Straffrätten har länge ansetts vara en intern angelägenhet som begränsar de brottsbekämpande myndigheternas möjligheter att vidta åtgärder utanför statens egna gränser. Vid gränsöverskridande brottslighet, eller i de fall som en medborgare i stat A begår brottsliga handlingar i stat B, blir brottet ofta av intresse för mer än en stat. En stats rätt att utreda, döma och utföra exekutiva åtgärder bestäms av dess nationella lagstiftning vilket ofta får konsekvensen att två eller fler stater har jurisdiktion över samma brottsliga handlingar. Principen om ne bis in idem hindrar en stat från att utreda brottslighet och döma en person baserat på ett händelseförlopp som redan prövats i sak av en annan stat. Principen om ömsesidigt erkännande... (More)
Straffrätten har länge ansetts vara en intern angelägenhet som begränsar de brottsbekämpande myndigheternas möjligheter att vidta åtgärder utanför statens egna gränser. Vid gränsöverskridande brottslighet, eller i de fall som en medborgare i stat A begår brottsliga handlingar i stat B, blir brottet ofta av intresse för mer än en stat. En stats rätt att utreda, döma och utföra exekutiva åtgärder bestäms av dess nationella lagstiftning vilket ofta får konsekvensen att två eller fler stater har jurisdiktion över samma brottsliga handlingar. Principen om ne bis in idem hindrar en stat från att utreda brottslighet och döma en person baserat på ett händelseförlopp som redan prövats i sak av en annan stat. Principen om ömsesidigt erkännande innebär för straffrättens del att en stat måste respektera en lagakraftvunnen dom, detta medför att ett forumval görs genom att en stat redan hunnit döma över ett visst brott. Men vilken stat ska ges företräde att döma när ingen stat hunnit längre i processen än till utredningsstadiet?
Syftet med den här uppsatsen har varit att diskutera tänkbara alternativ till hur man i framtiden kan lösa jurisdiktionskonflikter. För att göra detta har jag fått titta närmre på hur en jurisdiktionskonflikt löses inom EU och hur de behöriga institutionerna som har till uppgift att lösa sådana konflikter växt fram. Inom EU har Eurojust i uppdrag att medla i jurisdiktionskonflikter, men detta medlingsförfarande kan föregås av direkta samråd mellan de behöriga myndigheterna i de inblandade medlemsstaterna. I min undersökning har jag tittat på relevanta EU-dokument från Kommissionen och Rådet.
Avslutningsvis har jag undersökt tre olika alternativ till det system som råder i dagsläget. De tre alternativen är framtagna av Hans-Holger Herrnfeld och presenteras i boken Choice of forum in cooperation against EU financial crime. Det första alternativet behandlar möjligheten att lagstifta om territorialitetsprincipen på EU-nivå, företräde att utöva jurisdiktion föreslås ges till den stat i vilken brottsligheten begåtts. Det andra alternativet gäller möjligheten att ge befogenheter till ett EU-organ att ta bindande beslut om var åtal ska ske. Alternativ tre innebär ett inrättande av en europeisk åklagarkammare i enlighet med art. 86 FEUF. I min mening uppstår problem när de behöriga myndigheterna inte lyckas nå samförstånd trots diskussionerna. I dagsläget har Eurojust inga befogenheter att lösa jurisdiktionskonflikten eller ta bindande beslut för medlemsstaterna. I extremfallet innebär detta att en jurisdiktionskonflikt som inte blir löst inte heller går att koncentrera till en medlemsstat med följden att de berörda staternas myndigheter får fortsätta med sina respektive förfaranden som omfattas av den nationella behörigheten. Jag anser att den mest tillfredställande kompletteringen vore att stärka Eurojust som organ. Genom att utöka dess kompetens till att även kunna fatta bindande beslut för medlemsstaterna i de fall de inte lyckas nå samförstånd täcker man, i min mening, upp för eventuella luckor i systemet. (Less)
Abstract
Criminal law is often considered to be an internal state matter, but while the authorities of a state’s competence to exercise jurisdiction is bound by the national borders this doesn’t stop the criminals. Problems may arise when criminals and organized gangs are moving across borders to commit crimes in a number of different states. A states competence to exercise jurisdiction is determined by the domestic law. This means that cases of multiple jurisdictions are quite frequent. Questions concerning which state should be given the right to exercise its jurisdiction arise. Because of the principle of ne bis in idem it is not possible for one state to investigate or adjudicate over an offence that has already been subject of a final... (More)
Criminal law is often considered to be an internal state matter, but while the authorities of a state’s competence to exercise jurisdiction is bound by the national borders this doesn’t stop the criminals. Problems may arise when criminals and organized gangs are moving across borders to commit crimes in a number of different states. A states competence to exercise jurisdiction is determined by the domestic law. This means that cases of multiple jurisdictions are quite frequent. Questions concerning which state should be given the right to exercise its jurisdiction arise. Because of the principle of ne bis in idem it is not possible for one state to investigate or adjudicate over an offence that has already been subject of a final judgement in another state. The principle of mutual recognition which is a fundamental concept within the EU means that a state must acknowledge a judgement which has been concluded in another member state. But which state should be given precedence to exercise jurisdiction when two or more states are in the investigative phase of the same offence?
The purpose of this essay is to discuss future mechanisms for conflict resolution over jurisdiction. To be able to do this I will have to take a closer look at how conflicts over jurisdiction are settled today. I also study the development and structure of Europol and Eurojust. When a conflict over jurisdiction is confirmed, the involved states competent authorities is obliged to exchange information between each other through direct consultation. If the states can not reach a decision through the consultation it is possible for them to request Eurojust to enter the process as a mediator. In my study I have examined relevant EU-documents from the Commission and the Council.
Finally, I discuss possible future mechanisms for conflict resolution based on three drafts made by Hans-Holger Herrnfeld in Choice of forum in cooperation against EU-financial crime. First I look at the possibility to take legislative action at EU-level. According to this, the state in which the majority of the crime occured should be given precedence to prosecute based on the territorial principle. The second suggestion touches upon the possibility to strengthen the competence of Eurojust to make binding decisions on choice of forum when the consulting authorities cannot reach a decision. It also debate the more far reaching concept of installing a mechanism for allocation of jurisdiction which requires to be taken at the EU-level in every case of a choice to be made between concurrent jurisdiction. In the third and last motion the merits and flaws of establishing an office of a European public prosecutor under art. 86 FEUF are discussed. I think that the biggest problem of the current mechanism is when the authorities doesn’t reach a decision on which State should prosecute. At the present time, Eurojust does not have the competence to make binding decisions which means that when consensus has not been reached, the competent authorities of the member states should be able to continue the criminal proceedings for any criminal offence which falls whithin their national jurisdiction. In my opinion the most satisfactory solution would be the one where Eurojust is given competence to make binding decisions in the event that a conflict over jurisdiction is not settled by the competent authorities or with Eurojusts mediation. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Olsson, Sofia LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20131
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Straffrätt, Criminal law, EU-rätt, EU law
language
Swedish
id
3800391
date added to LUP
2013-09-11 14:28:03
date last changed
2013-09-11 14:28:03
@misc{3800391,
  abstract     = {Criminal law is often considered to be an internal state matter, but while the authorities of a state’s competence to exercise jurisdiction is bound by the national borders this doesn’t stop the criminals. Problems may arise when criminals and organized gangs are moving across borders to commit crimes in a number of different states. A states competence to exercise jurisdiction is determined by the domestic law. This means that cases of multiple jurisdictions are quite frequent. Questions concerning which state should be given the right to exercise its jurisdiction arise. Because of the principle of ne bis in idem it is not possible for one state to investigate or adjudicate over an offence that has already been subject of a final judgement in another state. The principle of mutual recognition which is a fundamental concept within the EU means that a state must acknowledge a judgement which has been concluded in another member state. But which state should be given precedence to exercise jurisdiction when two or more states are in the investigative phase of the same offence?
	The purpose of this essay is to discuss future mechanisms for conflict resolution over jurisdiction. To be able to do this I will have to take a closer look at how conflicts over jurisdiction are settled today. I also study the development and structure of Europol and Eurojust. When a conflict over jurisdiction is confirmed, the involved states competent authorities is obliged to exchange information between each other through direct consultation. If the states can not reach a decision through the consultation it is possible for them to request Eurojust to enter the process as a mediator. In my study I have examined relevant EU-documents from the Commission and the Council.
	Finally, I discuss possible future mechanisms for conflict resolution based on three drafts made by Hans-Holger Herrnfeld in Choice of forum in cooperation against EU-financial crime. First I look at the possibility to take legislative action at EU-level. According to this, the state in which the majority of the crime occured should be given precedence to prosecute based on the territorial principle. The second suggestion touches upon the possibility to strengthen the competence of Eurojust to make binding decisions on choice of forum when the consulting authorities cannot reach a decision. It also debate the more far reaching concept of installing a mechanism for allocation of jurisdiction which requires to be taken at the EU-level in every case of a choice to be made between concurrent jurisdiction. In the third and last motion the merits and flaws of establishing an office of a European public prosecutor under art. 86 FEUF are discussed. I think that the biggest problem of the current mechanism is when the authorities doesn’t reach a decision on which State should prosecute. At the present time, Eurojust does not have the competence to make binding decisions which means that when consensus has not been reached, the competent authorities of the member states should be able to continue the criminal proceedings for any criminal offence which falls whithin their national jurisdiction. In my opinion the most satisfactory solution would be the one where Eurojust is given competence to make binding decisions in the event that a conflict over jurisdiction is not settled by the competent authorities or with Eurojusts mediation.},
  author       = {Olsson, Sofia},
  keyword      = {Straffrätt,Criminal law,EU-rätt,EU law},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Positiva jurisdiktionskonflikter de lege lata och de lege ferenda},
  year         = {2013},
}