Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:10:08.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The International Non Bis In Idem Principle: Resolving Some of the Unanswered Questions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Christine Van Den Wyngaert  and
Guy Stessens
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Can a person who has agreed to an out-of-court settlement for a certain offence in country A still be prosecuted for the same offence in country B? What if a person is found guilty of theft in country C and is subsequently prosecuted in respect of the same facts, but under the charge of swindling in country D? Suppose two persons are suspected of having set up a money-laundering scheme, which involves financial transactions in several countries. Can the offenders still be prosecuted in one country concerned, after they have been acquitted for moneylaundering in one of the other countries?

Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , October 1999 , pp. 779 - 804
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Convention of 19 June 1990, applying 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 (1991) 30 I.L.M. 84Google Scholar, reprinted in Van den Wyngaert, C. and Stessens, G., Criminal International and European Instruments (1996), p.343Google Scholar, hereafter referred to as the Schengen Convention.

2. See Corstens, G. J. M., Het Nederlands strafprocesrecht (1995), p.187Google Scholar; sometimes, only two rationales are retained the protection of individual freedom and the importance of social peace. See e.g. The “anon bis in idem” principle in criminal law in the EEC, Report of the Legal Affairs Committee of 20 02 1984 (Doc. 1–1397/83)Google Scholar, published in (1984) Human Rights L.J. 391.Google Scholar

3. Krabbe, H. G. M. and Poelman, H. M., “Enkele aspecten van bet ne bis in idem-beginsel in een intediationaal verband”, in Liber Amicorum Th. W. Van Veen (1985), p.126.Google Scholar

4. Art.4, para.3 of the Seventh Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (E.T.S. No. 117) makes explicit provision for the reopening of the case if there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the case.

5. Of course the non bis in idem principle in no way prohibits, after an acquittal, other persons being prosecuted for the same fact.

6. See e.g. in respect of Dutch law: Hazewinkel-Süringa/J. Remmelink, Inleiding tot de studie van het Nederlandse Strafrecht (1981), pp.462–463Google Scholar; in respect of Belgian law Dedercq, R., Beginselen van Strafrechtspleging (1994), pp.91–93Google Scholar and in respect of German law, Oehler, D., Internationales strafrecht: Gellungsbereich des Strafrechts, internationales Rechtshilferecht, Recht der Gemeinschaften, Völkerstrafrecht (1983), p.573.Google Scholar

7. The European Convention itself is silent on the subject. The need for a provision on non bis in idem became painfully clear when the European Commission on Human Rights declared inadmissible a request concerning non bis in idem (Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, Vol.6, p.346Google Scholar and Krabbe, and Poelman, , n.3, at p.131).Google Scholar

8. In its decision of 16 July 1986 in the case of A.P. v. Italy the Committee held that the guarantee of non bis in idem is not applicable with regard to the national jurisdictions of two or more States and added that the “provision prohibits double jeopardy only with regard to an offence adjudicated in a given state” (Communication No.204/1986, CCPR/C/31/D/204/1986, para. 7.3.). See also Bossuyt, M. J., Guide to the “Travaux Préparatoires” of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1987), p.316.Google Scholar

9. See e.g. the Belgian Supreme Court (Hof van Cassatie-Cour de Cassation), 20 Feb. 1991 Rechtskundig Weekblad(1991–1992), p.131Google Scholar and German Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof), 13 05 1997Google Scholar, not yet published. See also Tribunal of First Instance Brussels, 21 11 1990Google Scholar, Jurisprudence de Lège, Mons et Bruxelles (1991), p.24.Google ScholarSee in general also the opinion of Advocate General Mayras before the ECJ, Boehringer v. Commission [1972] E.C.R. 1297–1298.Google Scholar

10. See Res.B.4 of the Draft Resolutions of the Fourth Section of the XVI International Congress on Penal Law of the International Association of Penal Law and the report by Van den Wyngaert, C., “The Transformations of International Criminal Law as a Response to the Challenge of Organised Crime”, Rev. int. de dr. pénal (1999), 169–178.Google ScholarCf. Schomburg, W., “Aspects from A German/European Perspective”, Nouvelles Etudes Pénales (1998), pp.175–177Google Scholar and “Die Rolle des Individuums in der Intemationalen Kooperation in Strafsachen”, Strafverteidiger (1998), pp.156–157.Google Scholar

11. At the Bath Session (1950) of the Institut de droit international, the rapporteur général H. Donnedieu de Vabres viewed the respect of res judicata as the bedrock of any non bis in idem protection on an international level (1950) II Ann. Inst dr. int. 259–261, 280–281.Google Scholar His view met with fierce opposition, however, from other renowned scholars, such as Fitzmaurice (idem, pp.278–280). See also Corstens, G. J. M., annotation with Hoge Road, 13 12 1994Google Scholar, Ars Aequi (1995), p.723.Google Scholar

12. See on this distinction the interesting study by Flore, D., “Le jugement répressif au-delà des frontières nationales” (1998) Ann.Dr.Louv. 105–146Google Scholar

13. See e.g. Belgian Supreme Court, 15 Dec. 1952 (1953) I Pasicrisie 262 and 20 Feb. 1991, supra n.9.Google Scholar

14. See in general Legal Affairs Committee, op. cit. supra n.2.

15. See Art. 65 of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure, discussed by Epp, H., “Der Grundsatz ‘Ne bis in idem’ im internationalen Rechtsbereich”, Österreicha Juristenzeitung (1979), pp.36et seq.Google Scholar Foreign judgments are, however, always imputated in Austria.

16. See Pralus, M., “Etude en droit pénal international et en droit communautaire d'un aspect du principe non bis in idem: non bis”, Revue des sciences criminelles (1996), pp.559–564.Google Scholar

17. See Schomburg, W., “Das Schengener Durchführungsübereinkommen. Anmerkungen und Bewertungen zu Titel III (Polizei und Sicherheit) aus einer deutschen justitiellen Sicht” (1997) J.B.I. 556–557.Google Scholar

18. See Baauw, P., “Non bis in idem”, in Swart, B. and Klip, A., International Criminal Law in The Netherlands (1997), pp.75–84.Google Scholar

19. See e.g. in England: Aughet (1919) 13 Cr.App.R. 101Google Scholar and Treacy v. DPP [1971] A.C. 537Google Scholar, cited by Murphy, P. (Ed.), Blackstone's Criminal Practice (1996), p.1212Google Scholar; or in South Africa: Pokela 1968 (4) S.A. 702 (OK)Google Scholar, cited by Ferreira, J. C., Strafprocesreg in de laer howe, p.351.Google Scholar

20. The constitutional protection afforded to the non bis in idem principle is not a monopoly, however, of common law countries. Germany, for one, also constitutionalised the principle (see Art. 103 of the German Constitution).

21. Art.13 stipulates: “lorsque l'inculpé, jugé en pays étranger du chef de la même infraction, aura été acquitté ou lorsqu'après été condamné il aura prescrit sa peine ou aura été gracié ou amnistié”. See Vermeulen, G., “Het beginsel ne bis in idem in het internationaal strafrecht. Een evaluatie van de nationale en verdragsrechtelijke waarborgen in het strafrechtsverkeer met onze buurlanden”, Panopticon (1994), pp.219–220.Google Scholar

22. See Pralus, , op. cit. supra n.16, at pp.561–562.Google Scholar

23. Cameron, I., The Protective Principle of International Criminal Jurisdiction (1994), pp.84–89.Google Scholar

24. German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 31 05 1987, BVerfGE, 75, 1Google Scholar, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 1987, 2155.Google Scholar The case concerned an extradition request concerning a person who had been convicted and sentenced to a custodial sentence of 8 years in Turkey. Despite the fact that the fugitive had already served a three-year sentence for the same facts in Greece, the Constitutional Court nevertheless held that he could be extradited to Turkey.

25. It is impossible to give an adequate account of Belgian extradition practice on this point, as extradition decisions (both judicial and executive) are in practice almost never published. One therefore has to rely on press reports. An example is the case of a truck diver, Joseph Aumeier, who had been given a one-year custodial sentence in the Netherlands for drug trafficking. He was also sought by the German authorities, who wanted to prosecute him again for the same facts. Germany first requested his extradition from the Netherlands. The Netherlands refused extradition on the basis of the non bis in idem exception to extradition (judgment of the Court of Amsterdam, 22 Jan. 1980). According to press reports, when Aumeier was later arrested in Belgium and his extradition was again requested by Germany, Belgium granted his extradition: Laatste Nieuws, 5 Nov. 1990.

26. Paris, 13 12 1957Google Scholar, reprinted in Van den, Wyngaert and Stessens, , op. cit. supra n.1 at p.199.Google Scholar

27. The Hague, 28 05 1970Google Scholar, text in idem, p.391.

28. Strasbourg, , 15 05 1972Google Scholar, text in idem, p.373.

29. See on the function of non bis in idem in the context of international co-operation in respect of money laundering: Stessens, G., De nalionale en Internationale bestrijding van het witwassen. Onderzoek naar een meer effeaieve bestrijding van de profijtgerichte criminaliteit (1997) pp.580–582.Google Scholar

30. See e.g. the declarations of Belgium (Belgisch Staatsblad—Moniteur belge, 23 10 1975)Google Scholar and of the Netherlands (Krabbe, and Poelman, , op. cit. supra n.3, at p.133).Google Scholar

31. See Schutte, J. J. E., “Overdracht en overname van strafvervolging”, Ars Aequi (1986), p.35.Google Scholar

32. See e.g. Explanatory Report to European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters (Councit of Europe: Strasbourg, 1972), p.61.Google Scholar

33. Schomburg, W. and Lagodny, O., Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen (1998), p.888.Google Scholar

34. Swart, A. H. J., “Politie en veiligheid in het Akkoord en de Overeenkomst van Schengen”, Nederlands Juristenblad (1991), pp.214–215.Google Scholar

35. Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), 13 12 1994Google Scholar, Ars Aequi (1995), p.720.Google ScholarSee, however, the interesting remarks by Poelman and Krabbe, op. cit. supra n.3, at pp.139–144Google Scholar, on the historical evolution of Dutch law by this respect.

36. The general rule on non bis in idem is laid down in Art.360 of the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure, which states: “The accused who has been acquitted by a court of assize cannot be prosecuted again for the same facts, regardless of their legal description.” It is nearly impossible to give an adequate and thus accurate English translation of the authentic text, which runs as follows: “L'accusé acquitté par une cour d'assises ne pourra plus être poursuivi pour les mêmes faits, quelle que soit la qualification juridique attribuée à ceux-ci.” Although this text is formulated in respect of the courts of assize only, it is generally accepted to be applicable to all judgments, also those of the non-jury courts.

37. Art.13 of the Preliminary Title to the Criminal Procedure Code uses the word “offences”, not “facts”. This means that a person, who has already been convicted abroad for a “fact” under a particular charge, may be prosecuted again for the same fact in Belgium under another charge. For example, if a person has been convicted abroad on charges of receiving stolen property, he may be prosecuted again for the same fact in Belgium, under the charge of theft Court of Appeal of Antwerp, 24 June 1982, Rechtskundig Weekblad (1982–1983), p.1812.Google Scholar

38. Belgian Supreme Court, 29 Nov. 1989 (1989) I Pasicrisie 386Google Scholar; Court of Appeal of Brussels, 23 Dec. 1991 (1992) Journal des Tribunaux 314Google Scholar; Belgian Supreme Court, 22 Feb. 1994 (1994) Pasicrisie 195.Google ScholarSee Brammertz, S., “Traffic de stupéfiants et valeur internationale des jugements répressifs européens à la lumière de Schengen” Rev. de dr. pénal et de criminologie (1996) 1063–1081.Google Scholar

39. See Oehler, , op. cit. supra n.6, at p.584.Google Scholar

40. See Connelly v. DPP [1964] A.C. 1254Google Scholar, cited by Murphy, , op. cit. supra n.19, at pp.1209–1210.Google Scholar

41. This procedural test seems also very important in the US where the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment refers to the “same offence”.

42. Dutch version: “kan terzake niet meer worden vervolgd wegens dezelfde feiten”. French version: “ne peut, pour les mêmes faits, être poursuivie”. German version “darf… wegen derselben Tat nicht verfolgt werden” (emphasis added).

43. Unlike with some “third pillar instruments” such as the 1995 EU Anti-fraud Convention (Council. Act of 26 July 1995 Drawing up the Convention on the Protection of the European Communities' Financial Interests (1995) O.J. C.316/48Google Scholar, reprinted in Van den Wyngaert and Stessens, op. cit. supra n.1, cit. p.145) no dispute-settlement mechanisms exist.Google Scholar

44. See Barents, R., “Het Verdrag van Amsterdam en het Europees gemeenschapsrecht. De materieelrechtelijke en institutionele veranderingen”, Sociaal-economische Wetgeving (1997) pp.362–363Google Scholar and J. P. H. Donner, “De derde pijler en het Amsterdamse doolhof”, idem, p.377.

45. In the circular letter, the minister draws the attention to the fact that Art. 54 has considerably widened the application of the non bis in idem rule as compared to the situation under Art.13 of the Preliminary Title to the Criminal Procedure Code. According to the minister, the fundamental difference is that Art. 54 is also applicable to foreign judgments relating to facts occurring in Belgium. See Circulaire interministérielle sur l'incidence de la convention de Schengen en matière de contrôle frontalier et de coopération polirière et judiciaire, 10 Dec. 1998. Belgisch Staatsblad—Moniteur belge, 29 Jan. 1999.

46. Tribunal of First Instance of Eupen, 3 Apr. 1996 (1996) Rev. de dr. pénal et de criminologie 1159.Google Scholar

47. Brammertz, , op. cit. supra n.38, at pp.1075–1080Google Scholar

48. See, however, the Resolutions of the Fourth Section of the Ninth Congress of Penal Law, held at The Hague (1964)Google Scholar, which seem to suggest the contrary view (Zeitschrift für Strafrechuwissenschaften (1965), p.686).Google Scholar

49. See Poelman, and Krabbe, , op. cit. supra n.3, at pp.140–144.Google Scholar

50. (1935) A.J.I.L. Supp. 613–615.Google Scholar

51. See also Oehler, , op. cit. supra n.6, at pp.584–585.Google Scholar

52. See e.g. as far as Belgium is concerned Declercq, op. cit. supra n.6, at p.95.Google Scholar

53. At the Bath Session (1950) of the Institut de droit international, this view was defended by Fitzmaurice, loc. cit. supra n.11.Google Scholar

54. US v. Lanza (1922) 260 U.S. 227Google Scholar; US v. Bartkus (1959) 359 US. 121.Google Scholar For a critical analysis of the US case law in this respect: Dawson, M. A., “Popular Sovereignty, Double Jeopardy, and the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine” (1992) Yale L.J. 281–303.Google Scholar

55. See in this respect also the discussion held at the Bath Session, supra n.11, at pp. 301et seq.Google Scholar

56. See Art.20 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

57. See e.g. de Vabres, in op. cit. supra n.11, at p.261.Google Scholar

58. Para.66 of the Austrian Penal Code. See Epp, op. cit. supra n.15, at p.37.Google Scholar

59. Para.51 III of the German Criminal Code. Oehler, op. cit. supra n.6, at p.575.Google Scholar

60. Councit. Act of 26 May 1997 drawing up, on the basis of Art.K.3(2)(c) of the TEU, the convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of EU member States (1997) O.J. C195/1.Google Scholar

61. Council Act of 26 July 1995 drawing up, on the basis of Art.K.3(2) of the TEU, the Convention on the Protection of the European Communities' Financial Interests (1995) O.J. C316/48.Google Scholar In the case of this Convention the Anrechnungsprinzip may still be applicable, as Art.7(4) contains an explicit provision for other multilateral agreements concluded between Member States. The Schengen Convention is precisely such a convention, but of course it is applicable only between those member States that have ratified it.

62. Given the ambiguity surrounding the non bis in idem provisions in the Schengen Convention, it is unclear whether Art.56 lays down the Anrechnungsprinzip merely in respect of the same offences, as the English version seems to suggest or also in respect of the same facts, as the French version seems to suggest.

63. See also Res.B.4, and Van den Wyngaert, both supra n.10.

64. See also Res.3, adopted by Fourth Section of the Colloquium of Young Penalists on “Organised Crime and International Cooperation”, held at Syracuse, 21–27 Sep. 1997.

65. Supra n.11. at p.260.Google Scholar

66. The same exception can be found in the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments (Art.53, para.3) and the European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters (Art.35, para.3).

67. Belgian Supreme Court (1989), supra n.38.Google ScholarSee Brammertz, , op. cit. supra n.38, at pp.1066–1072.Google Scholar

68. See, Dutch Supreme Court supra n.35.

69. French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation), 13 12 1983, Bull., No. 340 cited by Pralus, op. cit. supra n.16, at p.565.Google Scholar

70. As far as Belgium is concerned this is explicitly confirmed by the Belgian Circulaire, supra, n.45. See, however, the criticism voiced by Brammertz, op. cit. supra n.38, pp.1076–1077.Google Scholar

71. Tribunal of First Instance of Eupen, supra n.46, commented on by Brammertz, idem, pp.1078–1079.

72. See Belgian Supreme Court, 28 02 1955 (1955)Google ScholarI Pasicrisie 711 and 20 02 1961 (1961) Pasicrisie 664.Google Scholar

73. See e.g. Flore op. cit. supra n.12, at p.150Google ScholarRigaux, F., “L'exercice de la justice répressive” Ann. de dr.de Louvain (1985) 37–38.Google ScholarSee also Van den Wijngaert, C., “Structures et méthodes de la coopération intemationale en matière pénale” Rev. de dr. pénal et de criminologie (1984) 524.Google Scholar

74. See on this case law Brammertz, op. cit. supra n.38, at pp.1069–1071.Google Scholar

75. Idem, p.1078.

76. E.C.H.R., Gradinger v. Austria, judgment of 23 10 1995, E.C.H.R., Ser. A, No.328.Google Scholar

77. See the discussion above of the Gradinger judgment, ibid.

78. See Baauw, , op. cit. supra n.18, at p.76.Google Scholar

79. Supra n.50.

80. See in this respect the well-founded criticism voiced by Kühne, H.-H., “Ne bis in idem in den Schengener Vertragsstaaten” J.Z. (1998) 876–880.Google Scholar

81. This was decided by a German court in Saarbruckea, cited by Schomburg, op. cit. supra n.17, at p.557.Google Scholar

82. Supra n.11, at p.261Google Scholar

83. Art.54 of the Schengen Convention; Art.53 of the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments and Art.35 the European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters.

84. In this respect, there is a fundamental difference from a public prosecutor's decision not to prosecute: a decision not to prosecute is never final, the defendant can always be prosecuted at a later stage if the prosecutor wishes to do so.

85. See Franchimont, M., Jacobs, A. and Masset, A., Manuel de procédure pénale, p.933Google Scholar; Van den Wyngaert, C., Strafrecht en het strafprocarecht in hoofdlijnen (1994), p.511.Google Scholar

86. Verstraeten, R., Handboek Strafprocesrecht (1993), p.83.Google Scholar

87. Baauw, , op. cit. supra n.18, at p.80.Google Scholar

88. “person who has been finally judged”.

89. “persoon die bij onherroepelijk vonnis is berecht”.

90. “personne définitivement jugée”.

91. “Rechtskräftige Aburteilung”.

92. See Schomburg, , op. cit. supra n. 17, at pp.558–559.Google Scholar

93. German Federal Court, 13 05 1997 (1998) N.St.Z 149 with annotations by C. Van Den Wyngaert and O. Lagodny.Google Scholar

94. See Council Resolution of 20 12 1996 on individuals who co-operate with judicial process in the fight against international organised crime (1997) O.J. C10/1.Google Scholar

95. See Explanatory Report to the European Convention on Extradition (Strasbourg: Councit. of Europe, 1969), pp.19–20.Google Scholar

96. See Res.B3 and D.4 and C. Van den Wyngaert, all supra n.10.

97. See in general Oehler, op. cit. supra n.6, at p.579.Google Scholar

98. See e.g. Pralus, , op. cit. supra n.16, at pp.559–560.Google Scholar

99. See supra n.4.

100. See in this respect Cameron, , op. cit. supra n.23, at pp.84–89.Google Scholar

101. De Vabres, , supra n.11 at pp.259–261.Google Scholar

102. See Art.55(1)(b) of the Schengen Convention; Art.53(2) of the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments and Art.35(2) of the European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters.

103. See e.g. on French law Pralus, op. cit. supra n.16, at pp.561–562.Google Scholar

104. Cf. idem, pp.560, 574.

105. At the time of the writing of this article, the authors had not yet had the benefit of reading the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 30 July 1998 in Oliveira v. Switzerland. They have accordingly not been able to incorporate the consequences of this judgment into their article.