Article 50 - Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence
Article 51 - Field of application
Key facts of the case:
A woman accepted a summary imposition of a fine for an accounting offence consisting of not preparing an annual report for the financial year 2014 in a particular company. A few years later, she was prosecuted for accounting fraud, which consisted of failing to keep records of business transactions or retaining accounting information. The indictment related to the same company and the same financial year as the penalty order.
A person may not be prosecuted again for an act for which he or she has already been convicted or acquitted. An approved summary imposition of a fine is treated in the same way as a final judgment. The main purpose of these provisions is to protect the defendant from a retrial, as well as contribute to the efficiency of criminal proceedings.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
Ne bis in idem principle, concept of “the same acts”.
Outcome of the case:
The Supreme Court concluded that it is not the same obligation that is set aside when someone fails to keep records of business transactions on an ongoing basis as when he or she fails to prepare the annual report of the same company. This also applies when the omissions relate to the same financial year. Thus, the summary imposition of the fine and the prosecution did not relate to the same criminal acts, and the fact that the woman had accepted a penalty order did not prevent the subsequent prosecution from also being pursued.
17. Under Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, no one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law. This applies not only in cases where someone's liability has previously been tried in Sweden, but also when such an examination has taken place in another Member State. At the same time, the rules apply only where there is a connection with EU law such that the national authorities or courts can be said to be applying EU law (see Article 51(1) of the Charter).
18. In the context of the examination of what constitutes the same acts under EU law, the relevant criterion has been considered to be the identity of the facts, in the sense that they consist of a set of inseparable facts, irrespective of the legal classification of those facts or the legal interest being protected (cf. Van Esbroeck, C-436/04, EU:C:2006:165).
19. In contrast to Chapter 30, Section 9 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, the provisions of the Additional Protocol and the Charter of Fundamental Rights applies not only when it comes to prosecution for crimes in the formal sense, but also to a wider range of proceedings that may be considered to involve prosecution or punishment in the sense of European law.
20. When assessing what constitutes the same act for the purposes of Chapter 30, Section 9 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, the provisions of the Additional Protocol and the Statute must be taken into account. In many cases, however, this is irrelevant, since it is normally clear that the same acts are involved in cases involving the same circumstances that are inextricably linked to each other (cf. p. 16) or where the facts are identical (cf. p. 18). In situations that are more difficult to assess, however, the norms of European law may be of importance for the assessment (cf. "Two prosecutions for the same consignment of narcotics", NJA 2007, p. 557).
17. Enligt artikel 50 i EU:s rättighetsstadga får ingen lagföras eller straffas på nytt för en lagöverträdelse för vilken han eller hon redan har blivit frikänd eller dömd i unionen genom en lagakraftvunnen brottmålsdom i enlighet med lagen. Det gäller inte bara i fall där någons ansvar tidigare har prövats i Sverige utan också när en sådan prövning har skett i någon annan medlemsstat. Samtidigt är regleringen tillämplig bara när det finns en sådan koppling till unionsrätten att de nationella myndigheterna eller domstolarna kan sägas tillämpa unionsrätten (se artikel 51.1 i stadgan).
18. Vid den unionsrättsliga prövningen av vad som utgör samma gärning har det relevanta kriteriet ansetts vara om sakförhållandena är identiska i den meningen att de består av en rad sinsemellan oskiljaktiga omständigheter, oberoende av omständigheternas rättsliga kvalificering eller det rättsliga intresse som skyddas (jfr Van Esbroeck, C-436/04, EU:C:2006:165).
19. Till skillnad från 30 kap. 9 § rättegångsbalken gäller regleringarna i tilläggsprotokollet och i rättighetsstadgan inte bara när det är fråga om lagföring för brott i formell mening utan för en bredare krets av förfaranden som kan anses innefatta en lagföring eller bestraffning i europarättslig mening.
20. Vid bedömning av vad som utgör samma gärning vid tillämpning av 30 kap. 9 § rättegångsbalken måste reglerna i tilläggsprotokollet och i stadgan beaktas. I många fall saknar emellertid detta betydelse, eftersom det normalt är klart att det är fråga om samma gärning i de fall där det är fråga om omständigheter som är oupplösligt förbundna med varandra (jfr p. 16) eller där sakförhållandena är identiska (jfr p. 18). I mer svårbedömda situationer kan emellertid de europarättsliga normerna få betydelse för bedömningen (jfr ”Två åtal för samma narkotikaparti” NJA 2007 s. 557).
