On March 20, 2018, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a trio of judgments that substantially clarify the application of the ne bis in idem principle where both criminal and administrative proceedings are pursued. Both the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) recognize the principle, but it will be more familiar to common law practitioners as the protection against double jeopardy. Increasingly, dual investigations are common in cases where the underlying activity is essentially financial crime, but tender areas continue to be information sharing and the risk of duplicate punishment where both investigations end in enforcement action. Concerning four cases, Case C-524/15 Menci, Case C-537/16 Garlsson Real Estate and Others, and joined Cases C-596/16 Di Puma and C-597/16 Zecca, each of the judgments addresses preliminary questions referred by the Italian courts; they are significant because they emphasize that ne bis in idem will not serve as a bar to a dual response. The interest in protecting the financial markets justifies limits to the principle but great care must be taken to coordinate the approaches and identify whether a further criminal sanction is masquerading as an administrative penalty.

In December 2013, civil conflict erupted between the Government of the Republic of South Sudan and opposition forces due to political infighting among the country’s political and military elites. On March 3, 2015, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted Resolution 2206 pursuant to its powers under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. Resolution 2206 provides for targeted sanctions against specific individuals and entities deemed “responsible for or complicit in, or [as] having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security or stability of South Sudan.” The stated purpose of the targeted sanctions, which consist of a travel ban and asset freeze for designated individuals and entities, is to “support the search for an inclusive and sustainable peace in South Sudan.”

The largest auto company in the world and the third largest auto company in the world are proposing to join together to limit competition in a critical segment of the U.S. market.

Competition in the U.S. has already been choked off by the Japanese Voluntary Restraint Agreement. Since 1981, when the VRA took hold, the average retail selling price for all new cars sold in the U.S. has risen by 18.8 percent or $1741 more than the consumer price index. Consummation of this joint venture will reinforce this upward pressure on new car prices.

Battalions of neo-classical economists dancing on the head of a pin cannot obscure the threat that this marriage of competitors poses to the American consumer, nor the fact that this joint venture is a plain and unambiguous violation of the antitrust laws. The Commission's settlement, requiring Toyota and GM to abide by the precise terms of their illegal agreement, hardly qualifies as antitrust enforcement.