Jurisdiction Collisions In The Criminal Proceedings Of European Union Member States

Abstract

Employing systematic document analysis and other methods, this article analyses a long-standing and still relevant issue related to the interpretation and application of the law regulating relationships in the field of European Union criminal justice within the framework of the national criminal proceedings that are taking place in EU member states. The article places special emphasis on the explanation and application of the principle of mutual recognition within the framework of one of the newest instruments of international cooperation in the European Union criminal proceedings meant to prevent conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction and to solve issues arising between two or more member states. The analysis of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction provided in this paper is not limited to a mere explanation of the concept as such, but includes an essential analysis of other related issues, such as the principle of mutual recognition, its influence on the recognition of criminal proceedings as parallel proceedings, and including other aspects related to the matching of the form of national criminal proceedings with the criminal proceedings taking place in another member state. Finally, significant attention is given to one of the objectives in terms of prevention and solution of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction, namely, the ne bis in idem principle and its application in case of parallel criminal proceedings taking place in two or more member states. One of the key conclusions offered here is that in order to eliminate conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction, positive law in the process of conflicts of jurisdiction must become an effective measure in criminal justice; however, only on the condition that at least a minimum likelihood in the form of criminal proceedings adopted by different EU members states is ensured as a precondition necessary to enable a smooth application of the principle of mutual recognition.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. “Laisvas prekių judėjimas” [Free Movement of Goods] (2011) // http://circa.europa.eu/irc/opoce/fact_sheets/info/data/market/market/article_7191_lt.htm.

  • 2. “Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės veiklos Europos integracijos srityje 2006 m. apžvalga” [The Overview of Lithuanian Republic Government activity In European Integration 2006] (2007) // http://www.euro.lt/documents/es_dokumentai/apzvalga%2020070319.pdf.

  • 3. Ažubalytė, Rima, and Karolina Vozbutaitė. “Baudžiamojo proceso europeizacija: kai kurie konstituciniai ir procesiniai Europos arešto orderio reglamentavimo ir taikymo aspektai“ [Europeization of Criminal Procedure: some Issues of Constitutional and Procedural Aspects of European Arrest Warrant Regulation and Application]: 82–138. In: Raimundas Jurka, et al. Baudžiamojo proceso tarptautiškumas: patirtis ir iššūkiai [The Internationalization of Criminal Procedure: Experience and Challenges. Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas, 2013.

  • 4. De Capitani, Emilio, and Steeve Peers. “The European Investigation Order: A New Approach to Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters.” Eulawanalysis.blogspot.com (Friday, 23 May 2014) // http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-european-investigation-order-new.html.

  • 5. Eeckhout, Piet. “The Growing Influence of European Union Law.” Fordham International Law Journal 33(5) (2011): 1490–1521.

  • 6. Grigienė, Jurgita. “Forum Non Conveniens doktrina ir jos taikymas teismų praktikoje“ [The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens and its Application in Court Practice]. Jurisprudencija 51(43) (2004): 80–89.

  • 7. Gruodytė, Edita. “Teisingumas baudžiamajame procese Europos Teisingumo Teismo akimis: atskiri non bis in idem principo aspektai” [Justice in Criminal procedure in the Eyes of the European Court of Justice: Some Aspects of the Principle non bis in idem]: 10–36. In: Baudžiamasis procesas: teisingumo garantas ar kliūtis? [Criminal Procedure: the Guarantee of Justice or the Barrier?]. Vilnius: UAB “Vilniaus panda”, 2014.

  • 8. Herlin-Karnell, Ester. “The Lisbon Treaty and the Area of Criminal Law and Justice“. European Policy Analysis 3 (2008): 1-10.

  • 9. Hilson, Chris. “The Europeanization of English Administrative Law: Judicial Review and Convergence.” European Public Law 9 (1) (2003): 125–145.

  • 10. Hoppe, Nils. “On the Europeanization of Health Law.” European Journal of Health Law 17 (2010): 323–328.

  • 11. Hunter, Mark D. “SEC/DOJ Parallel Proceedings: Contemplating the Propriety of Recent Judicial Trends.” Missouri Law Review 68 (2003): 149–178.

  • 12. Jimeno-Bulnes, Mar. “European Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters.” European Law Journal 9(5) (2003): 614–630.

  • 13. Jurka, Raimundas “Tarptautinis bendradarbiavimas baudžiamajame procese: įrodymai ir jų priimtinumas Europos Sąjungoje” [International Cooperation in Criminal Procedure: Evidence and Its Acceptability]: 89–128. In: Vidmantas Egidijus Kurapka, et al. Baudžiamasis procesas: nuo teorijos iki įrodinėjimo (prof. dr. Eugenijaus Palskio atminimui) [Criminal Procedure: from Theory towards Evidence making procedure (in memoriam prof. Eugenijus Palskys)]. Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas, 2011.

  • 14. Jurka, Raimundas. “Europos teisės įtaka Lietuvos baudžiamajam procesui” [The Influence of European Law into Lithuanian Criminal Procedure]: 11–81. In: Raimundas Jurka, et al. Baudžiamojo proceso tarptautiškumas: patirtis ir iššūkiai [The Internationalization of Criminal Procedure: Experience and Challenges]. Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas, 2013.

  • 15. Karsai, Krisztina. “The Principle of Mutual Recognition in the International Cooperation in Criminal Matters”. Zbornik radova Pravnogo fakulteta u Novom Sadu 1-2 (2008): 941–954.

  • 16. Kaufmannn-Kohler, Gabrielle. “How to Handle Parallel Proceedings: a Practical Approach to Issues such as Competence and Anti-Suit Injunctions.” Dispute Resolution International 2 (1) (2008): 110–113.

  • 17. Kristen, François. “Special Issue on Changing Approaches and Power in Criminal Justice.” Utrecht Law Review 7 (3) (2012): 1–7.

  • 18. Lathram, J. Brook., David S. Mitchell, Jr. “Permissible Parameters of Parallel Proceedings.” Tennessee Bar Journal (2012) // http://www.tba.org/journal/permissible-parameters-of-parallel-proceedings.

  • 19. Lavenex, Sandra. “Mutual Recognition and the Monopoly of Force: Limits of the Single Market Analogy.” Journal of European Policy 14 (5) (2007): 762–779.

  • 20. Lewis, Tony. “Double Trouble.” The Lawyer 17 (2008): 32.

  • 21. Loughlin, Walter P. “Fighting On Two Fronts: Parallel Proceedings and Challenges at the Intersection of Criminal and Civil Law.” The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel (October, 2006): 32.

  • 22. McLachlan, Campbell. Lis pendens in International Litigation. Hague: Academy of International Law, 2009.

  • 23. Mitsilegas, Valsamis. “The Symbiotic Relationship between Mutual Trust and Fundamental Rights in Europe’s Area of Criminal Justice.” Legal Studies Research Paper 207 (2015) // http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2632892.

  • 24. Panayides, Polyvios. “Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Criminal Proceedings: Analysis and Possible Improvements to the EU Legal Framework.” Revue internationale de droit penal 77 (1) (2006): 113–119.

  • 25. Radaelli, Claudio, M. The Europeanization of Public Policy. The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford University Press, 2003.

  • 26. Schopenhauer, Arthut. Gyvenimo išminties aforizmai [The Aphorisms of the Wisdom of Life]. Vilnius: Tyto Alba, 2007.

  • 27. Sittermann, Birgit M. “Nachwuchsgruppe Europäische Zivilgesellschaft und Multi-Level Governance” [Europeanisation – A Step Forward in Understanding Europe?] (Münster, 1021) // http://nez.uni-muenster.de/download/Sittermann_Literature_Review_Europeanisation_FINAL2006.pdf.

  • 28. Smbatyan, Anait Sergejevna. “Parallel judicial proceedings problem in international law.” Russian Juridical Journal 81 (6) (2011): 23–30.

  • 29. Smits, Jan M. “The Europeanisation of National Legal Systems: Some Consequences for Legal Thinking in Civil Law Countries”: 229–245. In: Mark Van Hoecke, ed. Epistemology and Methodology of Comparative Law. Hart Publishing, 2004.

  • 30. Spencer, John R. “EU Fair Trial Rights – Progress at Last.” New Journal of European Criminal Law 1 (4) (2000): 2032–2844.

  • 31. Vervaele, John A. E. “The Transnational ne bis in idem Principle in the EU Mutual Recognition and Equivalent Protection of Human Rights.” Common Market Law Review 41 (2004): 795–812.

  • 32. Vervaele, John A. E. “The Transnational ne bis in idem Principle in the EU Mutual Recognition and Equivalent Protection of Human Rights”. Utrecht Law Review 1 (2) (2005): 100–118.

  • 33. Vilpišauskas, Ramūnas. “Teisės integravimas į Europos integracijos tyrimus Lietuvoje: teisinio reguliavimo problematika stojant į ES” [Integration of Law into European Integration Researches in Lithuania: Problems of Legal Regulation while Accessing to EU]. Teisės problemos 4(42) (2003): 41–61.

  • 34. Younger, Stephen P., and Jenya Moshkovich. “Parallel Proceedings in Securities Enforcement Actions: The Growing Trend against Automatic Grants of Government Requests for Stays of Civil Cases.” Journal of Securities Law, Regulation & Compliance 3 (4) (2010): 307–314.

  • 1. Bourquain. Court of Justice Judgment of 11 December 2008, C-297/07.

  • 2. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. OL C 326, 2012 10 26: 391-407.

  • 3. Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 Regarding the European Investigation Order in Criminal Matters. OJ L 130, 1.5.2014: 1–36.

  • 4. Gasparini and Others. Court of Justice Judgment of 28 September 2006, C-467/04.

  • 5. Green Paper on Conflicts of Jurisdiction and the Principle of ne bis in idem in Criminal Proceedings (COM/2005/0696 final). Bulletin/2005/12/1.4.18, JO C/2006/70/5.

  • 6. Jurgen Kretzinger. Court of Justice Judgment of 18 July 2007, C-288/05.

  • 7. M. Court of Justice Judgment of 5 June 2014, C-398/12.

  • 8. Norma Kraaijiebrink and Others. Court of Justice Judgment of 18 July 2007, C-367/05.

  • 9. Opinion of Advocate General Bot Delivered on 7 September 2010 in Case C-261/09, Gaetano Mantello // http://www.infolex.lt/estzv2/default.aspx?pg=31&crd=34047&lng=LT.

  • 10. Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston Delivered on 6 February 2014 in Case C-398/12, Procura della Repubblica v M. // http://www.infolex.lt/estzv2/default.aspx?pg=31&crd=16150&lng=LT.

  • 11. Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as Amended by Protocol No. 11 // http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/117.htm.

  • 12. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Implementation by the Member States of Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA of 30 November 2009 on Prevention and Settlement of Conflicts of Exercise of Jurisdiction in Criminal Proceedings (COM(2014)313 final) (2014) // http://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/law/files/report_conflicts_jurisdiction_en.pdf.

  • 13. Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC]. Eur Court HR, no. 14939/03, § 83, ECHR 2009.

  • 14. The Schengen acquis – Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders. OJ L 239, 22.9.2000: 19–62.

  • 15. Van Esbroeck. Court of Justice Judgment of 9 March 2006, C-436/04.

  • 16. Van Straaten. Court of Justice Judgment of 28 September 2006, C-150/05.

  • 17. Vladimir Turansky. Court of Justice Judgment of 22 December 2008, C-491/07.

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search