The chapter highlights the central role national jurisdictions (should) play in the system of international criminal enforcement and addresses the most common legal issues and practical obstacles which may obstruct the pursuit of accountability at the domestic level. The chapter provides an overview of the relevant state practice from the earlier notable precedents to the most recent instances of prosecution and adjudication of core crimes before domestic courts, in particular under the universal jurisdiction. It clarifies the scope of the duties international law imposes on states, including the obligation to extradite or prosecute. The chapter then zeroes in on every principal issue related to the domestic prosecution and adjudication of international crimes, such the need for adequate implementing legislation as well as the extent to which domestic prosecutions may be hindered by the statutes of limitations, the prohibition on retroactive application of penal provisions, and the principle of ne bis in idem (double jeopardy). The chapter’s final section addresses the political and practical obstacles to tackling impunity for international crimes at the domestic level.

This chapter discusses procedural rights as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, other Council of Europe instruments, in EU law and in international instruments. Attention is paid to topics like the right to access to a court, the independence and impartiality of courts, effective legal remedies, the right to a fair trial and procedural guarantees in criminal proceedings. In the final section, a short comparison between the different instruments is made.

European Criminal Law has developed into a complex, jagged subject matter, which at the same time has become increasingly important for everyday criminal law practice. On the one hand, this work aims to do comprehensive justice to the complexity of the matter without sacrificing readability. In order to achieve this, the book’s structure enables legal scholars and experienced practitioners to access the information relevant to them in a targeted manner and, at the same time, enables less-oriented readers to gain access to European Criminal Law. Thus, the volume both answers basic questions and offers discussion in more specialised areas. Written by experts in the field, the book offers discussions that are both of the highest academic standards and accessibly readable.

Breaches of competition law may incur severe sanctions in Austria. Besides heavy administrative fines and nullity of contracts contravening competition law, antitrust infringers must expect private damage action claims from customers or suppliers harmed by antitrust violation. However, only very few final decisions have been rendered in Austria’s private antitrust litigation so far. Under Austrian criminal law, cartel collusion in tendering procedures may qualify as fraud or bid-rigging. Criminal convictions may in turn lead to the withdrawal of trade licences and pose a risk for the company of being 'blacklisted' – at least temporarily – in public procurement procedures. Under exceptional circumstances, dissolution of the company may be ordered if a director has committed an offence in the course of the company’s business activities; the latter possibility only applies to limited liability companies. Under Austrian company law, a director is liable to reimburse all damages caused by not applying the standard care diligence of a prudent business manager, including the compensation of damages incurred through infringements of competition law. This liability exists towards both the company and business partners.

The principle of ne bis in idem is a fundamental right that bars the possibility of a defendant being prosecuted more than once on the basis of the same offence, act or facts. In view of the significance of the ne bis in idem principle for the AFSJ, this chapter offers an account of the sources and elements of that principle. The ne bis in idem principle in the AFSJ has seen spectacular developments over the past two decades. The Van Esbroeck/Zolotukhin line of case law represents a prime example of fruitful substantive judicial dialectics between the two European courts. The case law on the application of the principle to the interaction between administrative, criminal and tax law raises questions, however. The problem encountered here is perhaps not so much one of ne bis in idem, but of the fundamental relationship between criminal and (punitive) administrative law. The developments in the case law suggest that we may not find a clear answer to the question of how the ne bis in idem principle should be applied in the relation between criminal, administrative and tax law until we have a sufficiently clear notion of  the precise nature of that relationship.

Even if the Court’s jurisdiction has been properly triggered and the Prosecutor has decided to conduct an investigation, a given case may be declared inadmissible in three circumstances: the State that normally exercises jurisdiction is actively investigating or prosecuting, the case is not of sufficient gravity, and the accused has already been tried for the offence (ne bis in idem). The first of these circumstances is described by the term ‘complementarity’. Its underpinning is the notion that States are primarily responsible for prosecution and the Court intervenes only when they are unwilling or unable to prosecute, or inactive. Although judges may determine that a case is not of ‘sufficient gravity’, in practice this criterion has been invoked mainly by the Prosecutor in order to justify decisions not to proceed with preliminary examination or investigation.