Advanced

Ne bis in idem i EU-rätten och Europakonventionen - en ond cirkel?

Hafner, Paula LU (2019) LAGF03 20192
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Principen ne bis in idem är en grundläggande mänsklig rättighet som erkänns i såväl tilläggsprotokoll nr. 7 till Europakonventionen, som i europeiska unionens stadga om de grundläggande rättigheterna och Schengenkonventionen. I samtliga rättsliga instrument förbjuder principen både dubbla lagföringar och dubbla straff för samma lagöverträdelse.

I en serie rättsfall meddelade av Europadomstolen och EU-domstolen de senaste åren har rättighetsskyddet i ne bis in idem försvagats. Domstolarna har fått mycket kritik för sina avgöranden vilka har kritiserats för att bädda för ökad repression från statsmaktens sida på bekostnad av individens rättigheter. Domstolarna har i dessa rättsfall låtit sig inspireras av varandras avgöranden beträffande... (More)
Principen ne bis in idem är en grundläggande mänsklig rättighet som erkänns i såväl tilläggsprotokoll nr. 7 till Europakonventionen, som i europeiska unionens stadga om de grundläggande rättigheterna och Schengenkonventionen. I samtliga rättsliga instrument förbjuder principen både dubbla lagföringar och dubbla straff för samma lagöverträdelse.

I en serie rättsfall meddelade av Europadomstolen och EU-domstolen de senaste åren har rättighetsskyddet i ne bis in idem försvagats. Domstolarna har fått mycket kritik för sina avgöranden vilka har kritiserats för att bädda för ökad repression från statsmaktens sida på bekostnad av individens rättigheter. Domstolarna har i dessa rättsfall låtit sig inspireras av varandras avgöranden beträffande ne bis in idem och har därmed kommit till liknande slutsatser. Denna process har beskrivits som en negativ korsbefruktning som har lett till en ond cirkel av problematisk juridisk vetenskap som har mångfaldigats genom domstolarnas ömsesidiga uppmuntran.

I uppsatsen används rättsdogmatisk metod, komparativ metod och EU-rättslig metod för att söka klargöra innehållet i principen ne bis in idem efter dessa rättsfall. Den utreder hur EU-rätten och Europakonventionen förhåller sig till varandra och på vilket sätt EU-domstolen och Europadomstolen har låtit sig inspireras av varandras avgöranden, samt vad detta innebär för det skydd den enskilde åtnjuter enligt ne bis in idem.

En slutsats av studien är att Europadomstolens avgörande möjliggjorde en försvagning av skyddet även på unionsnivå som tidigare inte var möjlig pga. den s.k. homogenitetsklausulen Stadgan art. 52.3. En annan slutsats är att Europadomstolen har överfört en tolkning av ne bis in idem på rent interna situationer, när varken Stadgan eller Schengenkonventionen är tillämpliga, som grundar sig på specifikt EU-rättsliga ändamål och syften. Ett sådant EU-rättsligt syfte är att förhindra straffrihet inom Schengenområdet. En tolkning av ne bis in idem som bygger på ändamålet att förhindra straffrihet är en som är olämplig i rent interna situationer när den enskildes rättighetsskydd bör prioriteras framför allt annat. Domstolarna har inspirerats av varandras avgöranden på så sätt att det har inneburit en försvagning av rättighetsskyddet på såväl unionsnivå som på nationell nivå i rent interna situationer. Samtidigt har detta ökat statens möjligheter att bestraffa lagöverträdelser. (Less)
Abstract
The principle ne bis in idem is a fundamental human right that is recognized in Additional Protocol no. 7 (AP7) to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as well as in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter) and in the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA). In all of these instruments of law the principle prohibits double prosecution as well as double punishment for the same offence.

In a series of cases delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and by the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) the past few years, the protection guaranteed by ne bis in idem has weakened. The courts have received plenty of criticism for their judgements, which have been criticized for opening up for state repression... (More)
The principle ne bis in idem is a fundamental human right that is recognized in Additional Protocol no. 7 (AP7) to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as well as in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter) and in the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA). In all of these instruments of law the principle prohibits double prosecution as well as double punishment for the same offence.

In a series of cases delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and by the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) the past few years, the protection guaranteed by ne bis in idem has weakened. The courts have received plenty of criticism for their judgements, which have been criticized for opening up for state repression at the expense of the individual right. The courts have in these cases been inspired by each other’s case law concerning ne bis in idem and have thus reached similar conclusions. This process has been described as a negative cross-fertilization that has led to a vicious cycle of troublesome jurisprudence multiplied through the courts’ mutual encouragement.

In the essay, legal dogmatic method, the comparative method and EU legal method are used in order to clarify the content of the ne bis in idem-principle after this new case-law. It examines how the EU legal system and the ECHR relate to each other and in what ways they have been inspired by each other’s case-law. Finally, it examines what this means for the protection that the individual is guaranteed according to the ne bis in idem-principle.

One conclusion that is reached in this study is that the judgements of the ECtHR made possible a weakening of the protection at union level that was previously impossible because of the so-called homogeneity clause in Article 52.3 of the Charter. Another conclusion is that the ECtHR has transferred an interpretation of ne bis in idem to entirely internal situations, when neither the Charter nor the CISA are applicable, which is founded upon aims that are specific to the EU legal order. One such aim is to prevent impunity within the Schengen Area. An interpretation of the ne bis in idem-principle that is built upon the aim to prevent impunity is unsuitable in a strictly internal situation where the individual right should be prioritized above all else. Thus, the courts have been inspired by each other’s case-law in such a way that the protection offered by ne bis in idem has weakened on union level as well as on national level in entirely internal situations. At the same time, this has increased the state’s possibilities to punish offences. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Hafner, Paula LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20192
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
EU-rätt, straffrätt, processrätt, folkrätt, ne bis in idem, double jeopardy
language
Swedish
id
8999842
date added to LUP
2020-04-05 13:19:46
date last changed
2020-04-05 13:19:46
@misc{8999842,
  abstract     = {The principle ne bis in idem is a fundamental human right that is recognized in Additional Protocol no. 7 (AP7) to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as well as in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter) and in the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA). In all of these instruments of law the principle prohibits double prosecution as well as double punishment for the same offence. 

In a series of cases delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and by the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) the past few years, the protection guaranteed by ne bis in idem has weakened. The courts have received plenty of criticism for their judgements, which have been criticized for opening up for state repression at the expense of the individual right. The courts have in these cases been inspired by each other’s case law concerning ne bis in idem and have thus reached similar conclusions. This process has been described as a negative cross-fertilization that has led to a vicious cycle of troublesome jurisprudence multiplied through the courts’ mutual encouragement. 

In the essay, legal dogmatic method, the comparative method and EU legal method are used in order to clarify the content of the ne bis in idem-principle after this new case-law. It examines how the EU legal system and the ECHR relate to each other and in what ways they have been inspired by each other’s case-law. Finally, it examines what this means for the protection that the individual is guaranteed according to the ne bis in idem-principle. 

One conclusion that is reached in this study is that the judgements of the ECtHR made possible a weakening of the protection at union level that was previously impossible because of the so-called homogeneity clause in Article 52.3 of the Charter. Another conclusion is that the ECtHR has transferred an interpretation of ne bis in idem to entirely internal situations, when neither the Charter nor the CISA are applicable, which is founded upon aims that are specific to the EU legal order. One such aim is to prevent impunity within the Schengen Area. An interpretation of the ne bis in idem-principle that is built upon the aim to prevent impunity is unsuitable in a strictly internal situation where the individual right should be prioritized above all else. Thus, the courts have been inspired by each other’s case-law in such a way that the protection offered by ne bis in idem has weakened on union level as well as on national level in entirely internal situations. At the same time, this has increased the state’s possibilities to punish offences.},
  author       = {Hafner, Paula},
  keyword      = {EU-rätt,straffrätt,processrätt,folkrätt,ne bis in idem,double jeopardy},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Ne bis in idem i EU-rätten och Europakonventionen - en ond cirkel?},
  year         = {2019},
}