The international non bis in idem principle: Resolving some of the unanswered questions

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 48, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 779-804

  Van Den Wyngaert, Christine ^a   Stessens, Guy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84882212430     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0020589300063685     Document Type: Article

References (132)

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.LM. 84
2. reprinted in C. Van den Wyngaert and G. Stessens, Criminal International and European Instruments (1996), p.343, hereafter referred to as the Schengen Convention.
3. See G. J. M. Corstens, Het Nedcrlands strafprocesrecht (1995), p.187; sometimes, only two rationales are retained the protection of individual freedom and the importance of social peace.
4. See e.g. The “anon bis in idem ” principle in criminal law in the EEC, Report of the Legal Affairs Committee of 20 Feb. 1984 (Doc. 1–1397/83), published in (1984) Human Rights LJ. 391.
5. H. G. M. Krabbe and H. M. Poelman, “Enkele aspecten van bet ne bis in idem-beginsel in een intediationaal verband”, in Liber Amicorum Th. W. Van Veen (1985), p.126.
6. See e.g. in respect of Dutch law. Hazewinkel-Suringa/J. Re$melink, Inleiding tot de studie van het Nederlandse Strafrecht (1981), pp.462–463
7. in respect of Belgian law R. Declercq, Beginselen van Strafrechtspleging (1994), pp.91–93
8. and in respect of German law, D. Oehler, Internationales strafrecht: Gellungsbereich des Strafrechts, inlemationales Rechtshilferecht, Recht der Gemeinschafien, Völkerstrafrecht (1983), p.573.
9. The European Convention itsel$ 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 346 and Krabbe and Poelman, n3, at p. 131).
10. See also M. J. Bossuyt, Guide to the “Travaux Prtparatoires” of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1987), p 316.
11. See e.g. the Belgian Supreme Court (Hof van Cassatie-Cour de Cassation), 20 Feb. 1991 Rechtskundig Weekblad (1991–92), p.131
12. See also Tribunal of First Instance Brussels, 21 Nov. 1990, Jurisprudence de Liige, Mons et Bruxelles (1991), p.24.
13. See in general also the opinion of Advocate General Mayras before the ECJ, Boehringer v. Commission [1972] E.C.R. 1297–1298.
14. Sec 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 C Van den Wyngaert, “The Transformations of International Criminal Law as a Response to the Challenge of Organised Crime”, Rev. int. de dr. pénal (1999), 169–178.
15. Cf. W. Schomburg, “Aspects from A German/European Perspective”, Nouvelles Etudes Fénales (1998), pp.175–177
16. and “Die Rolle des Individuums in der Intemationalen Kooperation in Strafsachen”, Strafverteidiger (1998), pp.156–157.
17. At the Bath Session (1950) of the Institut de droit international, the rapporteur giniral 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.
18. His view met with fierce opposition, however, from other renowned scholars, such as Fitzmaurice (idem, pp.278–280).
19. See also G. J. M. Corstens, annotation with Hoge Road, 13 Dec 1994, Ars Aequi (1995), p.723.
20. See on this distinction the interesting study by D. Flore, “Le jugement répressif au-delà des frontières nationales” (1998) Ann.Dr.Louv. 105–146
21. See e.g. Belgian Supreme Court, 15 Dec. 1952 (1953) I Pasicrisie 262
22. and 20 Feb. 1991, Pasicrisie.
23. See in general Legal Affairs Committee, Pasicrisie.
24. See Art 65 of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure, discussed by H. Epp, “Der Grundsatz ‘Ne bis in idem’ im internationalen Rechtsbereich”, Osterreiches Juristenzeitung (1979), pp.36 et seq. Foreign judgments are, however, always imputated in Austria.
25. See M. Pralus, “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.
26. See W. Schomburg, “Das Schengener Durchführungsübereinkommen. Anmerkun-gen und Bewertungen zu Titel III (Polizei und Sicherheit) aus einer deutschen justitiellen Sicht (1997) J.B.I. 556–557.
27. See P. Baauw, “Non bis in idem”, in B. Swart and A. Klip, International Criminal Law in The Netherlands (1997), pp.75–84.
28. See e.g. in England: Aughet (1919) 13 Cr.App.R. 101
29. and Treacy v. DPP [1971] A.C. 537.
30. cited by P. Murphy (Ed.), Blackstones Criminal Practice (1996), p.1212
31. or in South Africa: Pokela 1968 (4) S. A. 702 (OK)
32. cited by J. C. Ferreira, Strafprocesreg in de laer howe, p 351.
33. Art.13 stìpulates: “lorsque l'inculpé jugé en pays étranger du chef de la même infraction, aura été acquitté ou lorsqu'après été condamné’ il aura present sa peine ou aura été gracié ou amnistié”. See G. Vermeulen, “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.
34. See Pralus, Panopticon, at pp.561–562.
35. I. Cameron, The Protective Principle of International Criminal Jurisdiction (1994), pp.84–89.
36. German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 31 May 1987, BVerfGE, 75,1, Neue Juristische Wochenschrifl, 1987,2155. 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.
37. Paris, 13 Dec 1957, reprinted in Van den Wyngaert and Stessens, Neue Juristische Wochenschrifl at p. 199.
38. The Hague, 28 May 1970, text in idem, p 391.
39. Strasbourg, 15 May 1972, text in idem, p 373.
40. See on the function of non bis in idem in the context of international co-operation in respect of money laundering: G. Stessens, De nationale en internationale bestrijding van het witwassen, Onderzoek naar een meer effectieve bestrijding van de profijtgerichte criminatiteit (1997) pp.580–582.
41. See e.g. the declarations of Belgium (Belgisch Staatsblad–Moniteur beige, 23 Oct. 1975) and of the Netherlands (Krabbe and Poelman, De nationale en internationale bestrijding van het witwassen, Onderzoek naar een meer effectieve bestrijding van de profijtgerichte criminatiteit, at p.133).
42. See J. J. E. Schutte, “Overdracht en overname van strafvervolging”, Ars Aequi (1986), p.35.
43. See e.g. Explanatory Report to European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters (Council of Europe: Strasbourg, 1972), p.61.
44. W. Schomburg and O. Lagodny, Internationale Rechishilfe in Strafsachen (1998), p.888.
45. A. H. J. Swart, “Politie en veiligheid in het Akkoord en de Overeenkorast van Schcngen”, Nederlands Juristenblad (1991), pp.214–215.
46. Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), 13 Dec 1994, Ars Acqui (1995), p.720.
47. See, however, the interesting remarks by Poehnan and Krabbe, Ars Acqui, at pp. 139–144, on the historical evolution of Dutch law by this respect.
48. 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.
49. Belgian Supreme Court, 29 Nov. 1989 (1989) I Pasicrisie 386
50. Court of Appeal of Brussels, 23 Dec 1991 (1992) Journal des Tribunaux 314
51. Belgian Supreme Court, 22 Feb. 1994 (1994) Pasicrisie 195.
52. See S. Brammertz, “Traffic de stuoéfiants et valeur intemationale des jugements répressifs européens à la lumière de Schengen” Rev. de dr. pénal et de criminologie (1969%) 1063–1081.
53. See Oehler, Rev. de dr. pénal et de criminologie, at p.584.
54. See Connelly v. DPP [1964] A.C 1254
55. cited by Murphy, A.C, at pp.1209–1210.
56. Dutch version: “kan terzake niet meer worden vervolgd wegens dezelfde feilen”.
57. French version: “ne peut, pour les mimes fails, être poursuivie”.
58. German version “darf… wegen derselben Tat nicht verfolgt werden” (emphasis added).
59. 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) OJ. C316/48
60. reprinted in Van den Wyngaert and Stessens, OJ., at p.145) no dispute-settlement mechanisms exist.
61. Sec R. Barents, “Het Verdrag van Amsterdam en het Europees gemeenschapsrecht. De materieelrechtelijke en institutionele veranderingen”, Sodaal-economische Wetgeving (1997) pp.362–363
62. J. P. H. Donner, “De derde pijler en het Amsterdamse doolhof”, idem, p.377.
63. 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 Artl3 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 1'incidence de la convention de Schengen en matière de contr$le frontalier et de coopération policière et judiciaire, 10 Dec. 1998.
64. Betgisch Staatsblad–Monueur beige, 29 Jan. 1999.
65. Tribunal of First Instance of Eupen, 3 Apr. 1996 (1996) Rev. de dr. pénal et de criminologie 1159.
66. Brammertz, Rev. de dr. pénal et de criminologie, at pp.1075–1080
67. See, however, the Resolutions of the Fourth Section of the Ninth Congress of Penal Law, held at The Hague (1964), which seem to suggest the contrary view (Zeitschrift für Strafrechiswissenschaften (1965), p.686).
68. See Poelman and Krabbe, Zeitschrift für Strafrechiswissenschaften, at pp.140–144.
69. (1935) AJ.I.L. Supp. 613–615.
70. See also Oehler, AJ.I.L., at pp.584–585.
71. See e.g. as far as Belgium is concerned Declercq, AJ.I.L., at p.95.
72. At the Bath Session (1950) of the Institut de droit international, this view was defended by Fitzmaurice, AJ.I.L.
73. US v. Lanza (1922) 260 U.S. 227
74. US v. Bartkus (1959) 359 U.S. 121.
75. For a critical analysis of the US case law in this respect: M. A. Dawson, “Popular Sovereignty, Double Jeopardy, and the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine” (1992) Yale LJ. 281–303.
76. See in this respect also the discussion held at the Bath Session, Yale LJ., at pp. 301 el seq.
77. See Art-20 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
78. See e.g. De Vabres, in Yale LJ., at p.261.
79. Para.66 of the Austrian Penal Code. See Epp, Yale LJ., at p.37.
80. ParaJSI III of the German Criminal Code. Oehler, Yale LJ., at p.575.
81. Council Act of 26 May 1997 drawing up, on the basis of Art.K3(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) OJ. C195/1.
82. Council Act of 26 July 1995 drawing up, on the basis of ArLKJ(2) of the TEU, the Convention on the Protection of the European Communities' Financial Interests (1995) OJ. C316748. In the case of this Convention the Anrechnungsprinzip may still be applicable, as Art.7(4) contains an explicit provision for other multii-fra! agreements concluded between Member States. The Schengen Convention is precisWy such a convention, but of course it is applicable only between those member States that have ratifk-1 \\
83. See also Res.B.4, and Van den Wyngaert, both OJ.
84. See also Res3, adopted by Fourth Section of the Colloquium of Young Penalists on “Organised Crime and International Cooperation”, held at Syracuse, 21–27 Sep. 1997.
85. “Organised Crime and International Cooperation”, at p.260.
86. The same exception can be found in the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments (Art.53, para3).
87. and the European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters (Art35, para J).
88. Belgian Supreme Court (1989), European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters.
89. See Brammertz, European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters, at pp.1066–1072.
90. See, Dutch Supreme Court European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters.
91. French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation), 13 Dec. 1983, Bull., No. 340
92. cited by Pralus, Bull., at p.565.
93. As far as Belgium is concerned this is explicitly confirmed by the Belgian Circulaire, Bull.
94. See, however, the criticism voiced by Brammertz, Bull., pp.1076–1077.
95. Tribunal of First Instance of Eupen, Bull.
96. commented on by Brammertz, idem, pp.1078–1079.
97. See Belgian Supreme Court, 28 Feb. 1955 (1955) I Pasicrisie 711 and 20 Feb. 1961 (1961) Pasicrisie 664.
98. See e.g. Flore Pasicrisie, at p.150
99. F. Rigaux, “L'exercice de la justice répressive” Ann. de dr.de Louvain (1985) 37–38.
100. See also C Van den Wijngaert, “Structures et méthodes de la coopération intemationale en matière pénale” Rev. de dr. pénal et de criminologie (1984) 524.
101. See on this case law Brammertz, Rev. de dr. pénal et de criminologie, at pp.1069–1071.
102. Idem, p.1078.
103. E.CH.R., Gradinger v. Austria, judgment of 23 Oct 1995, E.C.H.R., Ser. A, No.328.
104. See the discussion above of the Cradinger judgment, E.C.H.R., Ser. A.
105. See Baauw, E.C.H.R., Ser. A, at p.76.
106. E.C.H.R., Ser. A.
107. See in this respect the well-founded criticism voiced by H.-H. KOhne, “Ne bis in idem in den Schengener Vertragsstaaten”J.Z (1998) 876–880.
108. This was decided by a German court in Saarbrocken, cited by Schomburg, J.Z, at p.557.
109. J.Z, at p.261
110. Art.54 of the Schengen Convention; Art.53 of the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments and Art35 the European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters.
111. See M. Franchimont, A. Jacobs and A. Masset, Manuel deprocédure pénale, p.933
112. C. Van den Wyngaert, Strafrecht en het strafprocesrechl in hoofdlijnen (1994), p.511.
113. R. Verstraeten, Handboek Strafprocarechl (1993), p.83.
114. Baauw, Handboek Strafprocarechl, at p.80.
115. “person who has been finally judged”.
116. “persoon die bij onherroepelijk vonnis is berecht”.
117. “personne définitivement jugée”.
118. “Rechtskräftige Aburteilung”.
119. See Schomburg, “Rechtskräftige Aburteilung”, at pp.558–559.
120. German Federal Court, 13 May 1997 (1998) N.St.Z 149 with annotations by C. Van Den Wyngaert and O. Lagodny.
121. See Council Resolution of 20 Dec. 1996 on individuals who co-operate with judicial process in the fight against international organised crime (1997) OJ. CIO/1.
122. See Explanatory Report to the European Convention on Extradition (Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1969), pp.19–20.
123. See Res.B3 and D.4 and C. Van den Wyngaert, See Explanatory Report to the European Convention on Extradition.
124. See in general Oehler, See Explanatory Report to the European Convention on Extradition, at p.579.
125. See e.g. Pralus, See Explanatory Report to the European Convention on Extradition, at pp.559–560.
126. See See Explanatory Report to the European Convention on Extradition.
127. See in this respect Cameron, See Explanatory Report to the European Convention on Extradition, at pp.84–89.
128. Dc Vabres, See Explanatory Report to the European Convention on Extradition, at pp.259–261.
129. See Art55(l)(b) of the Schengen Convention; Art-53(2) of the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments and Art J5(2) of the European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters.
130. See e.g. on French law Pralus, European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters, at pp.561–562.
131. idem, pp.560, 574.
132. 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.