eu-charter

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Artikolu 50 - Id-dritt li wieħed ma jiġix iġġudikat jew jingħata piena darbtejn għall-istess reat

Artikolu 50 - Id-dritt li wieħed ma jiġix iġġudikat jew jingħata piena darbtejn għall-istess reat

L-ebda persuna ma tista' terġa' tkun ipproċessata jew ikkundannata għal reat li għalih tkun diġà instabet mhux ħatja jew ikkundannata fl-Unjoni b'sentenza li daħlet in ġudikat skond il-liġi.

  • Text:

    L-Artikolu 4 tal-Protokoll Nru. 7 tal-KEDB jinqara kif ġej:

    `1. Ħadd ma jista' jkun ipproċessat jew jerġa' jiġi kkastigat għal darb'oħra fi proċedimenti kriminali taħt il-ġurisdizzjoni ta' l- Istess Stat għal xi reat li dwaru jkun diġà ġie finalment liberat jew misjub ħati skond il-liġi u l-proċedura penali ta' dak l-Istat.

    2. Id-dispożizzjonijiet tal-paragrafu preċedenti ma għandhomx iżommu milli l-każ jerġa' jinfetaħ skond il-liġi u l-proċedura penali ta' l-Istat in kwistjoni, jekk ikun hemm provi ta' xi fatti ġodda jew li jkunu għadhom kif ġew żvelati, jew inkella jekk ikun ħemm xi vizzju fondamentali fil-proċedimenti ta' qabel, li jista' jkollhom effett fuq kif jiżvolġi l-każ.

    3. Ebda deroga minn dan l-Artikolu ma għandha ssir taħt l-Artikolu 15 tal-Konvenzjoni`.

    Ir-regola `non bis in idem` tapplika fil-liġi ta' l-Unjoni (ara, fost il-ħafna preċedenti, is-sentenza tal- 5 ta' Mejju 1966, Gutmann (Kawżi konġunti18/65 u 35/65, Ġabra 1966, p. 103) u għal każ reċenti, is-sentenza tal-Qorti ta' Prim' Istanza ta' l- 20 ta' April 1999, Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV u oħrajn (Kawżi konġunti T-305/94 u oħrajn, Ġabra 1999, p. II-931). Ir-regola li tipprojbixxi l-kumulu tirriferi għall-kumulu ta' żewġ pieni ta' l-istess xorta, jiġifieri pieni kriminali.

    Skond l-Artikolu 50, ir-regola `non bis in idem` tapplika mhux biss fil-ġurisdizzjoni ta' Stat wieħed izda wkoll bejn il-ġurisdizzjonijiet ta' diversi Stati Membri. Dan jikkorrispondi ma' l-acquis fil-liġi ta' l-Unjoni; ara l-Artikoli 54 sa 58 tal-Konvenzjoni ta' Schengen u s-sentenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tal- 11 ta' Frar 2003, Gözütok (C-187/01, Ġabra p. I-1345) , l-Artikolu 7 tal-Konvenzjoni dwar il-Protezzjoni ta' l-Interessi Finanzjarji tal-Komunità u l-Artikolu 10 tal-Konvenzjoni dwar il-ġlieda kontra l-korruzzjoni. L-eċċezzjonijiet ferm limitati f'dawk il-Konvenzjonijiet li jippermettu lill-Istati Membri jidderogaw mir-regola `non bis in idem` huma koperti mill-klawżola orizzontali fl-Artikolu 52(1) li tikkonċerna l-limitazzjonijiet. Fir-rigward tas-sitwazzjonijiet imsemmija fl-Artikolu 4 tal-Protokoll Nru. 7, jiġifieri l-applikazzjoni tal-prinċipju fl-istess Stat Membru, id-dritt li huwa ggarantit għandu l-istess sens u l-istess ambitu bħad-dritt korrispondenti fil-KEDB.

    Source:
    Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea C 303/17 - 14.12.2007
    Preamble - Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights:
    Dawn l-ispjegazzjonijiet ġew imħejjija oriġinarjament taħt ir-responsabbiltà tal-Praesidium tal-Konvenzjoni li abbozza l-Karta tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea. Huma ġew aġġornati taħt ir-responsabbiltà tal-Praesidium tal-Konvenzjoni Ewropea, fid-dawl ta' l-aġġustamenti li saru għat-test tal-Karta minn dik il-Konvenzjoni (partikolarment fl-Artikoli (51 U 52) u ta' l-evoluzzjoni fil-liġi ta' l-Unjoni. Għalkemm dawn l-ispjegazzjonijiet m'għandhomx fihom infushom l-istatus ta' liġi, huma mezz siewi ta' interpretazzjoni intiż sabiex ikunu ċċarati d-dispożizzjonijiet tal-Karta.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • claimant: XX, an individual, Hungarian national, against the defendant: General Prosecutors Office of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter only as “General Prosecutors Office”)
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    National Court/Tribunal
    Deciding body:
    Constitutional Court
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:SK:USSR:2020:1.US.183/2019
  • Merchant importer v. Independent Authority for Public Revenue (Ministry of Finance)
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    National Court/Tribunal
    Deciding body:
    The Council of the State
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    ECLI (European case law identifier):

21 results found

  • Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms
    Pajjiż:
    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
    Pajjiż:
    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
    Pajjiż:
    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
    Pajjiż:
    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
    Pajjiż:
    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
    Pajjiż:
    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
    Pajjiż:
    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
    Pajjiż:
    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
    Pajjiż:
    Lithuania

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

  • Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucija
    Pajjiż:
    Lithuania

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

  • Unenumerated constitutional right identified by the Irish Courts
    Pajjiż:
    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
    Pajjiż:
    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
    Pajjiż:
    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
    Pajjiż:
    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
    Pajjiż:
    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:
    Pajjiż:
    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:
    Pajjiż:
    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
    Pajjiż:
    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
    Pajjiż:
    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
    Pajjiż:
    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