Sentences with phrase «in idem»

Save for exceptional circumstances (eg, objection on the basis of ne bis in idem), the initiation of a criminal investigation itself can not be challenged in court.

A company can always notify the authorities in different jurisdictions of the ongoing investigation in Greece, to avoid multiple prosecution or sanctions and a potential breach of the ne bis in idem principle.

See question 5 as well as paragraph 17 of the preamble to Directive 2014 / 41 / EU regarding the European investigation order in criminal matters, which allows an EIO aiming «to establish whether a possible conflict with the ne bis in idem principle exists».

The transnational effect of the ne bis in idem principle (which is established in section 17, paragraph 1 StPO) is based on international agreements to which Austria is a party (see Birklbauer in Fuchs and Ratz, Wiener Kommentar zur StPO, § 17).

That being so, the question is whether, as a result of this occasio, the Union judicature must interpret, with inevitably general consequences, the scope of the ne bis in idem principle in Swedish law, an interpretation which must take priority over the one which is derived from Sweden's constitutional structure and international obligations.

Michele discusses the AG's Opinion in this important case which provides the opportunity for the Court to expand on its autonomous understanding of ne bis in idem.

Is this contrary to the ne bis in idem principle?

The difficulty, in so far as it exists, with the conception of the scope of the ne bis in idem principle in Swedish law is a general difficulty regarding the structure of the Swedish law on penalties which is, as such, completely independent from the collection of VAT, where punishment of the conduct in the present case, involving the falsification of information, is treated as a mere occasio.

Ne bis in idem is a principle of EU fundamental rights that kept the CJEU busy also during this year.

In this regard, the Advocate General does not consider the double - track approach a «necessary» limitation of the ne bis in idem in order to ensure an effective enforcement, as argued by some national governments.

The second essay in this section by Alexandros - Ioannis Kargopoulos looks at the evolution of the jurisprudence of the CJEU pertaining to the ne bis in idem principle.

On 12 September 2017, the Advocate General Campos Sánchez - Bordona presented his Opinions in the three cases mentioned above, in which he clearly argues for the development of an autonomous EU concept of ne bis in idem, different from the one emerging from the most recent ECtHR case law.

In particular, as stressed in the opinion, the ne bis in idem principle does not apply to truly administrative sanctions, and — most importantly — this would not mean that Member States can not provide for both responses «in the books».

Over the last fifteen years, the CJEU has issued several judgments aiming to clarify the EU concept of ne bis in idem (at the beginning only with regard to Art. 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, and later also Art. 50 CFREU).

This comprehensive analysis discusses the challenges when applying such a principle in the EU context and concludes that the CJEU has positively contributed to transforming ne bis in idem from a traditional principle of procedure to a fundamental right with the result of influencing the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

Ever since the Engel judgment, the ECtHR has clarified that the national label is not the only criterion to assess the nature of an afflictive measure, and the situation might occur in which a formally administrative measure should be considered criminal in nature, thereby triggering the safeguards provided by criminal law (including the ne bis in idem: see also Grande Stevens v. Italy).

In Bonda and Åkerberg Fransson, the CJEU clarified that, also according to the CFREU, if the first administrative sanction is criminal in nature, then the EU ne bis in idem principle applies, and this should be directly assessed by the national judge — without waiting for the enactment of new legislation.

In that regard, the limitation provided by Article 55 would not only risk emptying the content of ne bis in idem principle, but it is neither necessary, nor useful to «meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union».

They would indeed create an obstacle to the objectives of the ne bis in idem, in particular the freedom of movement in the EU (Van Esbroeck, C - 436 / 04, 9 March 2006, § 36; Gasparini, C - 467 / 04, 29 September 2006, § 54; Van Straaten, C - 150 / 05, 28 September 2006, § 48; Kretzinger, C - 288 / 05, 18 July 2007, § 34; Kraaijenbrink, C - 367 / 05, 18 July 2007, § 36).

Both questions are crucial for the development of a consistent EU case law on the principle of ne bis in idem.

In other words, according to the Advocate General the interpretation of one of the core elements of the ne bis in idem (the «same acts») already leaves quite broad possibilities for national authorities not to consider the material acts as the same offence, thus not necessarily triggering the protection of ne bis in idem.

On the other hand, the CJEU might disagree on the Advocate General's reasoning to justify the answer, where it is argued that the interpretation of the concept of same «act» and «offence» already leaves much room to national authorities to consider the ne bis in idem not applicable.

The view of the Advocate General, whereby a different legal element — concerning for example the intention of the perpetrator — could entail that the «acts» (Article 54 CISA) or the «offence» (Article 50 CFREU) are not the same for the purpose of ne bis in idem, is not entirely persuasive as regards its coherence with the previous CJEU case law.

Furthermore, it would risk undermining the cross-border protection offered by the EU ne bis in idem.

In that case, which lead to the preliminary reference, Mr Åkerberg Fransson submitted that these criminal charges should be dismissed on the ground that he had already been punished for those acts and that these criminal proceedings were therefore in violation of the ne bis in idem principle laid down in article 50 of the Charter.

Ruling out the exceptions to the ne bis in idem (based on national interests) would certainly contribute to the development of the AFSJ.

This case concerns the scope of the ne bis in idem, whose multi-faceted rationale does not include the protection of victims» rights and interests.

Probably some room to deny the applicability of the ne bis in idem could be rather found in the «final» character of the decision, rather than in the nature of the decision (i.e. whether or not it involves an appreciation of the merits of the case).

The Advocate General recalls that the ne bis in idem in the EU is also essential to ensure the freedom of movement of citizens (otherwise they could fear another prosecution in other Member States) and it must work even when national systems are different and not harmonised.

Chapter 10 (by Martin Böse) then discusses one procedural safeguard that is closely linked to the risk of the consecutive application of different types of sanctions: the principle of ne bis in idem.

Moreover, it often repeats itself when discussing whether or not administrative procedures and sanctions can be considered criminal, making one wonder why none of the other aspects of ne bis in idem are discussed, for example its application in transnational cases.

It also repeats the potential tension with the principle of ne bis in idem.

It looks at the interplay between administrative and criminal enforcement systems and at possible issues concerning ne bis in idem.

In conclusion, the Spasic judgment places a strong focus on the duty to prevent the impunity of criminals within the AFSJ and, apparently, shifts the balance of ne bis in idem towards a more «security - oriented» approach.

Ne bis in idem is a fundamental principle of EU criminal law, protecting citizens against double prosecution, even in transnational situations.

Although in Spasic the partial execution concerned the financial component of the composed penalty, an indiscriminate application of the Court's assumption could undermine the protective function of ne bis in idem, which constitutes, in terms of proportionality, part of its essence.

In other words, it is a final decision according to the EU legal framework on ne bis in idem, namely Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA).

The CJEU may increase the safeguards for suspects — as it has been doing for some ten years now — extending the concept of a «final decision'triggering the application of the ne bis in idem principle.

In doing so, the CJEU seems, on the one hand, to endorse a new (be it a more «mistrustful» or, from a different standpoint, perhaps more «realistic») understanding of mutual trust and, on the other hand, to overlook the protective rationale of ne bis in idem and the logic of its previous case - law.

Yet what is more, since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the ne bis in idem principle has become a yardstick of the systemic impact of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) on secondary EU law.

The decision of the CJEU further expands the concept of «final decision'triggering the ne bis in idem, confirming the validity of the previously consolidated trend which, on the one hand, recognises a strong importance to the mutual trust between Member States, and on the other hand acknowledges the inherent link between ne bis in idem and the freedom of movement in the EU.

Affirming that a partial execution of an autonomous part of a composed penalty can neither fulfil the «enforcement process», the CJEU considerably stretched the scope of the condition and limited the protection offered by the ne bis in idem principle.

-- The enforcement condition of Article 54 CISA does not call into question the essence of ne bis in idem as such as it is laid down in Article 50 Charter (§ 58).

[10] By no means is this a peculiarly Protestant claim; cf. Karl Rahner, «Priestly Existence,» in idem, Theological Investigations, vol.3 (New York: Seabury Press, 1974); and Bernard Cooke, Ministry to Word and Sacraments (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), esp.

Not exact matches

Ottaviani's approach to theology was neatly summarized in the Latin motto of his cardinalatial coat of arms, Semper Idem [Always the Same], and his fierce defense of what he understood to be orthodoxy made him a not - implausible model for the character of Cardinal Leone in Morris West's novel The Shoes of the Fisherman.

and idem, «Meletius of Lycopolis and Episcopal Succession in Egypt,» The Harvard Theological Review, XLVIII (1955) 227.

By Esseh Ikora, Uyo Abductors of Pastor Mfon Akpan Udoneke, the Area Superintendent of Ikot - Akoa Idem Apostolic church in Ukanafun local government area of Akwa...

He added that the retreat was organised to appreciate the stage of each of the bills in order for the two chambers to increase the cooperation they had and be consensus ad idem.

We have a bunny and we have had problems with him chewing on wood idems in the house.

His artistic research has long been coupled with written statements and reflections collected in artist's books: from Idem, published in 1975 by Einaudi (Turin) with a foreword by Italo Calvino, to Quattro passi.