eu-charter

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Artikel 50 - Ret til ikke at blive retsforfulgt eller straffet to gange for samme lovovertrædelse

Artikel 50 - Ret til ikke at blive retsforfulgt eller straffet to gange for samme lovovertrædelse

Ingen skal i en straffesag på ny kunne stilles for en domstol eller dømmes for en lovovertrædelse, for hvilken den pågældende allerede er blevet endeligt frikendt eller domfældt i en af Unionens medlemsstater i overensstemmelse med lovgivningen.

  • Text:

    Artikel 4 i protokol nr. 7 til EMK har følgende affattelse:

    »1. Under én og samme stats jurisdiktion skal ingen i en straffesag på ny kunne stilles for en domstol eller dømmes for en lovovertrædelse, for hvilken han allerede er blevet endeligt frikendt eller domfældt i overensstemmelse med denne stats lovgivning og strafferetspleje.

    2. Bestemmelserne i foregående stykke forhindrer ikke genoptagelse af sagen i overensstemmelse med vedkommende stats lovgivning og strafferetspleje, såfremt der foreligger bevis for nye eller nyopdagede kendsgerninger, eller såfremt der i den tidligere rettergang er begået en grundlæggende fejl, som kunne påvirke sagens udfald.

    3. Der kan ikke ske fravigelse fra denne artikel i medfør af artikel 15 i konventionen.«

    Non bis in idem-reglen gælder i EU-retten (jf. en omfattende retspraksis, f.eks. dom afsagt den 5. maj 1966 i de, forenede sager 18/65 og 35/65, Gutmann mod Kommissionen Sml. dansk specialudgave s. 175, og en aktuel dom afsagt af Retten den 20. april 1999 i de forenede sager T-305/94 m.fl., Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV m.fl. mod Kommissionen, Sml. II, s. 931). Det præciseres, at reglen om ikke-kumulation gælder to sanktioner af samme art, i dette tilfælde strafferetlige sanktioner.

    I henhold til artikel 50 gælder non bis in idem-reglen ikke kun inden for en medlemsstats retsområde, men også mellem flere medlemsstater. Dette svarer til gældende EU-ret, se artikel 54-58 i Schengengennemførelseskonventionen og Domstolens dom af 11. februar 2003, sag C-187/01, Gözütok (Sml. I, s. 1345), artikel 7 i konventionen om beskyttelse af Fællesskabets finansielle interesser og artikel 10 i konventionen om bekæmpelse af bestikkelse. De meget begrænsede undtagelser i disse konventioner, hvorefter medlemsstaterne kan fravige non bis in idem-reglen, er omfattet af den horisontale bestemmelse i chartrets artikel 52, stk. 1, om begrænsninger. For så vidt angår de situationer, der er omhandlet i artikel 4 i nævnte protokol nr. 7, dvs. anvendelsen af princippet inden for én og samme stat, har den rettighed, der sikres, samme betydning og omfang, som den tilsvarende ret i EMK.

    Source:
    Den Europæiske Unions Tidende C 303/17 - 14.12.2007
    Preamble - Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights:
    Disse forklaringer blev oprindelig udarbejdet under præsidiet for den forsamling, der udarbejdede chartret om grundlæggende rettigheder. De er blevet ajourført under Det Europæiske Konvents præsidiums ansvar i lyset af de udkast til tilpasninger, som konventet har foretaget i charterteksten (især i artikel 51 og 52) og videreudviklingen af EU-retten. Selv om forklaringerne ikke i sig selv har retskraft, udgør de et værdifuldt fortolkningsinstrument beregnet til nærmere præcisering af chartrets bestemmelser.
  • Hungary v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    Court of Justice of the European Union
    Deciding body:
    Court (Full Court)
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Institutional affairs
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:EU:C:2022:97
  • Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    Court of Justice of the European Union
    Deciding body:
    Court (Full Court)
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Internal market
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:EU:C:2022:98
  • Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov v LG and MH
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    Court of Justice of the European Union
    Deciding body:
    Court (Second Chamber)
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Justice, freedom and security
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:EU:C:2021:661
  • Mr. José Ángel v. Central Electoral Board
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    National Court/Tribunal
    Deciding body:
    Supreme Court, Contentious Chamber
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:ES:TS:2021:3092
  • WS v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    Court of Justice of the European Union
    Deciding body:
    Court (Grand Chamber)
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Justice, freedom and security
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:EU:C:2021:376
  • X.
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    Court of Justice of the European Union
    Deciding body:
    Court (Fifth Chamber)
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Justice, freedom and security
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:EU:C:2021:339
  • J. M.
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    National Court/Tribunal
    Deciding body:
    Constitutional Court
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Justice, freedom and security
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:CZ:US:2021:4.US.3524.20.1
  • Slovak Telekom a.s. v Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    Court of Justice of the European Union
    Deciding body:
    Court (Eighth Chamber)
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Competition
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:EU:C:2021:139
  • Appellants: Telšiai district court and Vilnius city district court
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    National Court/Tribunal
    Deciding body:
    Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
  • Mowi ASA v European Commission
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    Court of Justice of the European Union
    Deciding body:
    Court (Fourth Chamber)
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Competition
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:EU:C:2020:149

21 results found

  • Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms
    Land:
    Czechia

    Article 40 (5) No one may be criminally prosecuted for an act for which she has already been finally
    convicted or acquitted. This rule shall not preclude the application, in conformity with law, of extraordinary procedures of legal redress.

  • Listina základních práv a svobod
    Land:
    Czechia

    Článek 40 (5) Nikdo nemůže být trestně stíhán za čin, pro který již byl pravomocně odsouzen nebo zproštěn obžaloby. Tato
    zásada nevylučuje uplatnění mimořádných opravných prostředků v souladu se zákonem.

  • Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia
    Land:
    Slovenia

    Article 31 No one may be sentenced or punished twice for the same criminal offence for which criminal proceedings were dismissed finally, or for which the charge was finally rejected, or for which the person was acquitted or convicted by a final judgement. 

  • Ustava Republike Slovenije
    Land:
    Slovenia

    31. člen Nihče ne sme biti ponovno obsojen ali kaznovan zaradi kaznivega dejanja, za katero je bil kazenski postopek zoper njega pravnomočno ustavljen, ali je bila obtožba zoper njega pravnomočno zavrnjena, ali je bil s pravnomočno sodbo oproščen ali obsojen.

  • Constitution of the Slovak Republic
    Land:
    Slovakia

    Article 50 (...) (5) No one may be criminally prosecuted for an act for which he has already been sentenced, or of which he has already been acquitted. This principle does not rule out the application of extraordinary remedies in compliance with the law. (...)

  • Ústava Slovenskej republiky
    Land:
    Slovakia

    Čl. 50 (...) (5) Nikoho nemožno trestne stíhať za čin, za ktorý bol už právoplatne odsúdený alebo oslobodený spod obžaloby. Táto zásada nevylučuje uplatnenie mimoriadnych opravných prostriedkov v súlade so zákonom.(...)

  • Constituição da República Portuguesa
    Land:
    Portugal

    Artigo 29.º (Aplicação da lei criminal) 5. Ninguém pode ser julgado mais do que uma vez pela prática do mesmo crime.

  • Constitution of the Portuguese Republic
    Land:
    Portugal

    Article 29 (Application of criminal law) (5) No one may be tried more than once for commission of the same crime.

  • Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
    Land:
    Lithuania

    Article 31. […] No one may be punished twice for the same offence.

  • Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucija
    Land:
    Lithuania

    31 straipsnis. [...] Niekas negali būti baudžiamas už tą patį nusikaltimą antrą kartą.

  • Unenumerated constitutional right identified by the Irish Courts
    Land:
    Ireland

    In the case of The People (DPP) v Quilligan (No 2) [1989] IR 46, Judge Hency of the Supreme Court stated: 'This rule (or principle), which is sometimes referred to as the rule against
    double jeopardy, is but an aspect of the canon of fundamental fairness of legal procedures, inherent in our Constitution, which is expressed in the maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro eadem causa.'

  • Magyarország Alaptörvénye
    Land:
    Hungary

    XXVIII. cikk (SZABADSÁG ÉS FELELŐSSÉG) […] (6) A jogorvoslat törvényben meghatározott rendkívüli esetei kivételével senki nem vonható büntetőeljárás alá, és nem ítélhető el olyan bűncselekményért, amely miatt Magyarországon vagy – nemzetközi szerződés, illetve az Európai Unió jogi aktusa által meghatározott körben – más államban törvénynek megfelelően már jogerősen felmentették vagy elítélték.

  • The Fundamental Law of Hungary
    Land:
    Hungary

    Article XXVIII (Freedom and Responsibility) […] (6) With the exception of extraordinary cases of legal remedy laid down in an Act, no one
    shall be prosecuted or convicted for a criminal offence for which he or she has already been
    finally acquitted or convicted in Hungary or, within the scope specified in an international treaty and a legal act of the European Union, in another State, as provided for by an Act.

  • Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany
    Land:
    Germany

    Artikel 103 (3) No person may be punished for the same act more than once under the general criminal laws.

  • Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland
    Land:
    Germany

    Artikel 103 (3) Niemand darf wegen derselben Tat auf Grund der allgemeinen Strafgesetze mehrmals bestraft werden.

  • The Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus
    URL:
    Land:
    Cyprus

    12(2). A person who has been acquitted or convicted of an offence shall not be tried again for the same offence. No person shall be punished twice for the same act or omission except where death ensues from such act or omission.

  • Tο Σύνταγμα της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας
    URL:
    Land:
    Cyprus

    12(2). Ο απαλλαγείς ή καταδικασθείς δεν δικάζεται εκ δευτέρου διά το αυτό αδίκημα. Ουδείς τιμωρείται εκ δευτέρου διά την αυτήν πράξιν ή παράλειψιν, εκτός εάν συνεπεία ταύτης προεκλήθη θάνατος.]

  • Constitution of the Republic of Croatia
    Land:
    Croatia

    Article 31
    (2)No one may be re-tried nor penalized in criminal prosecution for an act for which such individual has already been acquitted or sentenced by a binding court judgment in accordance with law.
    (3)The cases and reasons for the renewal of court proceedings under paragraph (2) of this Article may be stipulated solely by law, in accordance with the Constitution and international treaties.

  • Ustav Republike Hrvatske
    Land:
    Croatia

    Članak 31.
    (2)Nikome se ne može ponovno suditi niti ga se može kazniti u kaznenom postupku za kazneno djelo za koje je već pravomoćno oslobođen ili osuđen u skladu sa zakonom.

    (3)Samo se zakonom, u skladu s Ustavom i međunarodnim ugovorom, mogu propisati slučajevi i razlozi za obnovu postupka iz stavka 2. ovoga članka.

  • 7. Zusatzprotokoll zur Konvention zum Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten
    Land:
    Austria

    Artikel 4 (1) Niemand darf wegen einer strafbaren Handlung, wegen der er bereits nach dem Gesetz und dem Strafverfahrensrecht eines Staates rechtskräftig verurteilt oder freigesprochen worden ist, in einem Strafverfahren desselben Staates erneut vor Gericht gestellt oder bestraft werden.

3 results found

  • Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law

    Preamble:
    (21) Given the possibility of multiple jurisdictions for cross-border criminal offences falling under the scope of this Directive, the Member States should ensure that the principle of ne bis in idem is respected in full in the application of national law transposing this Directive
    ...
    (28) The intended dissuasive effect of the application of criminal law sanctions requires particular caution with regard to fundamental rights. This Directive respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’) and in particular the right to liberty and security, the protection of personal data, the freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work, the freedom to conduct a business, the right to property, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence and the right of defence, the principles of the legality and proportionality of criminal offences and sanctions, as well as the principle of ne bis in idem. This Directive seeks to ensure full respect for those rights and principles and must be implemented accordingly.

  • Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters

    Preamble:
    (17) The principle of ne bis in idem is a fundamental principle of law in the Union, as recognised by the Charter and developed by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Therefore the executing authority should be entitled to refuse the execution of an EIO if its execution would be contrary to that principle. Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings underlying an EIO, its execution should not be subject to refusal where it is aimed to establish whether a possible conflict with the ne bis in idem principle exists, or where the issuing authority has provided assurances that the evidence transferred as a result of the execution of the EIO would not be used to prosecute or impose a sanction on a person whose case has been finally disposed of in another Member State for the same facts.
    ...
    Article 11. Grounds for non-recognition or non-execution:
    1. Without prejudice to Article 1(4), recognition or execution of an EIO may be refused in the executing State where: ...
    (d) the execution of the EIO would be contrary to the principle of ne bis in idem

  • Directive 2014/57/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on criminal sanctions for market abuse (market abuse directive)

    Preamble:
    (23) The scope of this Directive is determined in such a way as to complement, and ensure the effective implementation of, Regulation (EU) No 596/2014. Whereas offences should be punishable under this Directive when committed intentionally and at least in serious cases, sanctions for breaches of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 do not require that intent is proven or that they are qualified as serious. In the application of national law transposing this Directive, Member States should ensure that the imposition of criminal sanctions for offences in accordance with this Directive and of administrative sanctions in accordance with the Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 does not lead to a breach of the principle of ne bis in idem.

0 results found