Search

Diplomski rad obrađuje uređenje nasilja u obitelji u nacionalnom, hrvatskom pravnom okviru, kao i pregled europskog pravnog okvira. Kazneno djelo nasilja u obitelji imalo je dinamičan povijesni razvoj, suočavajući se s brojnim nedostacima i pravnim prazninama. Danas je uređeno kao samostalno kazneno djelo blanketne naravi. Naime, zakonski opis se smatra ispunjen u slučaju ''teške povrede'' Zakona o zaštiti od nasilja u obitelji. Takvom formulacijom zakonodavac rješava problematiku razgraničenja između kaznenog djela i prekršaja, s obzirom na to da je obiteljsko nasilje u hrvatskom pravnom okviru dvostruko normirano. Nejasnoće pri razgraničenju između kaznenog djela i prekršaja uzrokuju dvostruko vođenje sudskog postupka, time kršeći duh načela ne bis in idem. Republika Hrvatska je u predmetu Maresti protiv Hrvatske zbog navedenog bila osuđena te su hitno bile potrebne izmjene. Europski sud za ljudska prava postavljanjem pozitivnih obveza državama članicama i donošenjem presuda bitno utječe na oblikovanje nacionalnih zakonodavstava. Presudama Tomašić i dr. protiv Hrvatske i A. protiv Hrvatske utvrđuje povrede u slučajevima obiteljskog nasilja. Posebno upozorava na sagledavanje slučajeva nasilja kao cjeline, a ne kao izolirane incidente. Obrada teme nasilja u obitelji nije potpuna bez analize sveobuhvatnog, međunarodnog dokumenta Istanbulske konvencije. Usmjerena je na zaštitu žrtava te pružanje raznovrsnih oblika pomoći uz upute za suradnju nadležnih tijela i međunarodnih organizacija. Pružanjem alata za postizanje ciljeva, pristupa zadatku sprječavanja i borbi protiv nasilja nad ženama i nasilja u obitelji. Međusobnim djelovanjem i nadopunjavanjem Istanbulska konvencija i presude Europskog suda za ljudska prava pružaju detaljan okvir zaštite od nasilja u obitelji koji je od velikog značenja za uvođenje promjena u hrvatski pravni okvir., This dissertation addresses the crime of domestic violence and its regulation within croatian and european legal framework. Domestic violence had a very dinamic development with many changes through history. Today, it is a stand-alone crime which points to the Misdemeanours Code. Criminal Code is only applicable in case of serious violation of the Misdemeanours Code. This formulation allows for precise boundaries between crimes and misdemeanours. Previous issues with the mentioned boundary resulted in dual trials, therefore violating the principle ne bis in idem. This is why the Republic of Croatia was convicted by European Court of Human Rights in the Maresti vs. Croatia case. European Court of Human Rights has a great impact on national judicial systems by imposing positive obligations and verdicts. Tomašić and others vs. Croatia and A. vs. Croatia are examples of verdicts regarding domestic violence. The Court is very strict about percieving casses of domestic violance not as individual incidents, but as all the incidents together, as a unit. This analyses of domestic violence would not be complete without including the most important, international document: The Istanbul Convention. Its focus is on victim's protection, providing varying forms of help and cooperation of competent authorities and organizations. Together with the important work of the European Court of Human Rights, a detailed and thorough protection against domesting violance is provided. The effects of their work are hugly important for changes in croatian legal framework.

El principio ne bis in idem, en su vertiente de proscripción del doble enjuiciamiento, tiene tras de sí una esforzada construcción que ha dado pie a diferentes reglas de articulación operativa entre los dos planos secuenciales, penal y administrativo-sancionador, de nuestro sistema. Una de esas reglas, positivizada en el art. 77.4 de la LPAC, enseña que los hechos declarados probados en resoluciones penales firmes vincularán a la Administración sancionadora. Vinculación que, vista con las lentes del particular, se convierte en un arma de doble filo: puede bloquear definitivamente el curso del procedimiento administrativo si se produce, paradigmáticamente, una declaración de inexistencia, pero cabe también, por el contrario, que facilite a la Administración la imposición de la sanción por haber quedado acreditados en sede penal los hechos esenciales de la infracción. El objeto de este trabajo es profundizar en la explicación y encaje dogmático de este singular registro de fuerza positiva de los hechos penales, analizando qué cariz le imprime la práctica, y ello con el propósito último de tratar de fortalecer la manera de concebir su función garantista, señaladamente en lo que hace a la virtualidad de la sentencia absolutoria por falta de prueba. The ne bis in idem principle, in its aspect of the prohibition of double prosecution, has behind it a laborious construction that has given rise to different rules of operational articulation between the two proceedings levels, criminal and administrative, of our system. One of those rules, mentioned in the Art. 77.4 of the LPAC, provides that the facts declared proven in final criminal resolutions will bind the Administration. Connection that, seen through the lens of the individual, becomes a double-edged sword: it can definitely block the course of the administrative procedure if, paradigmatically, a declaration of non-existence is produced, but it may also, on the contrary, facilitate the Administration the imposition of the sanction for having been accredited in criminal proceedings the essential facts of the infraction. The purpose of this work is to delve into the explanation and dogmatic fit of this unique record of positive force of criminal factum, analysing what aspect the practice prints on it, and this with the ultimate purpose of trying to strengthen the way of conceiving its guarantee function.

Fundamentalni znanstveni i javni diskurs o obiteljskom nasilju posljednjih nekoliko desetljeća doživio je kopernikanski obrat – od gotovo nevidljiva privatna fenomena, obiteljsko nasilje u 20. stoljeću dobiva svoj sve vidljiviji javni sadržaj, ali i formu te postaje fenomen vrijedan znanstvene pažnje i (kriminalno) političkog fokusa. Tome u velikoj mjeri doprinosi opći pokret za građanska prava i s njim povezani građanski pokret za promicanje prava žena, koji označavaju paradigmatsku promjenu sa snažnim fokusom na zaštitu žrtve obiteljskoga nasilja. Relativna konceptualna nezrelost navedenoga fenomena prouzročila je izvjesnu konfuziju pri definiranju obiteljskoga nasilja. Pri tome njegovo obilježje kao 'društvenoga' fenomena, zbog čega snažno ovisi o kulturološkim obrascima i vrijednosno je determinirano, predstavlja značajnu prepreku u jednoznačnom utvrđivanju njegova sadržaja. S obzirom na okolnost kako je upravo konceptualizacija određenoga fenomena preduvjet njegove adekvatne normiranosti i stvaranja optimalne strategije njegova suzbijanja, predmetni će rad uvodno razraditi te zatim ovladati navedenim konceptualnim i terminološkim izazovima. Promjena u percepciji obiteljskoga nasilja popraćena je i normativnim promjenama koje na globalnoj razini odlikuje hipernormiranost sa snažnim fokusom na zaštiti žena, dok je na tuzemnoj razini obilježena stanovitom normativnom disonancom i brojnim praktičnim izazovima. Rad ima za cilj analizirati normativni razvoj obiteljskoga nasilja u Republici Hrvatskoj s fokusom na detekciji ključnih nedostataka aktualnoga normativnog okvira koji karakterizira dihotomija predmetnoga fenomena na prekršajni i kazneni oblik. Ključni nedostatak netom spomenutoga pravnog okvira očitovao se u njegovoj praktičnoj primjeni kao posljedica nejasnih kriterija primjenom kojih bi se slučajevi obiteljskoga nasilja nedvosmisleno označili kao prekršaj ili pak kazneno djelo. Nejasnoća u definiranju navedenog razgraničenja ima upitnu opravdanost na znanstvenoj razini, a nameće i pitanje doprinosi li takav model optimalnoj zaštiti žrtava obiteljskoga nasilja ili je pak puki odraz penalnog populizma te pogrešne predodžbe o tome kako će snažnija normiranost doprinijeti efikasnijoj prevenciji i boljoj zaštiti žrtava, a time i društva u cjelini. Posebno poglavlje rada posvećeno je komparativnom prikazu normativnog uređenja obiteljskoga nasilja s ciljem analize pravnih modela zaštite od istoga, a koji prikaz može poslužiti kao alat za osmišljavanje boljih zakonodavnih rješenja. Pitanje adekvatnosti hrvatskoga pravnog okvira za borbu protiv obiteljskoga nasilja došlo je u središte javnog diskursa i 2018. godine, kada je Republika Hrvatska ratificirala tzv. Istanbulsku konvenciju, stoga je analizi iste posvećeno posebno poglavlje. Osim navedene konvencije, za hrvatske će sudove, ali i zakonodavca, važnu ulogu i dalje imati praksa ESLJP, stoga je dio rada posvećen analizi europskih standarda. Normativno analitički dio rada završava kriminološkom analizom empirijskih pokazatelja obiteljskoga nasilja u Republici Hrvatskoj koja nudi uvid u osnovne fenomenološke odrednice tog fenomena i analizu statističkih podataka povezanih s praksom kažnjavanja istoga. Empirijsko-istraživački i ključni dio rada sadrži prikaz, analizu i sintezu rezultata izvorno osmišljenoga istraživanja kojim se provjeravaju dvije centralne hipoteze rada: U praktičnom postupanju u predmetima obiteljskoga nasilja ne postoje jasni i ujednačeni kriteriji razgraničenja i obiteljskoga nasilja kao prekršaja ili kaznenoga djela (H1) te aktualni normativni okvir predviđen za obiteljsko nasilje u Republici Hrvatskoj nema svoje uporište u znanstvenoj opravdanosti niti predstavlja najadekvatniji način zaštite žrtava obiteljskoga nasilja (H2). Sljedeće poglavlje rada ponudit će normativna rješenja de lege ferenda, kao i prijedloge za unapređenje kriminalpolitičkog okvira i znanstveno-istraživačkog pristupa nasilju u obitelji. Navedena rješenja odraz su analiziranih teorijskih spoznaja, komparativnih modela i empirijskih podataka uz uvažavanje fenomenoloških specifičnosti kriminološkog i viktimološkog konteksta obiteljskoga nasilja u Republici Hrvatskoj. Doktorski rad završava zaključnim razmatranjima o obiteljskom nasilju., The fundamental scientific and public discourse on domestic violence has experienced a certain Copernican revolution in the last few decades ‒ from an almost invisible phenomenon seen merely as private matter, domestic violence gained its more noticeable content and form in the 20th century, ultimately becoming a phenomenon worthy of both scientific attention and political focus. The civil rights movement and the associated women’s liberation movement, which constitutes a fundamental paradigm shift in focusing strongly on protecting victims of domestic violence, greatly contributed to such an understanding. The relative immaturity of the mentioned phenomenon (in terms of its chronological conceptualization) has caused a certain amount of confusion when trying to conceptualize and define domestic violence, while its characteristic as a ‘social’ phenomenon makes it strongly dependant on cultural patterns and moral values, thus representing a significant obstacle in the unequivocal determination of its content. However, given the fact that conceptualising a certain phenomenon is a prerequisite for its adequate standardization and for creating an optimal strategy for its suppression, the challenges deriving from the above mentioned will be elaborated in the introduction of this thesis. The change in perception of domestic violence is also accompanied by normative changes, which are characterized, at a global level, by overregulation with a strong focus on protecting women; at the domestic level the change is visible through normative dissonance and numerous practical challenges associated with it. The aim of this thesis is to offer an overview of the normative development of domestic violence in the Republic of Croatia with a focus on detecting main deficiencies of the current normative framework, which is characterized by a dichotomy of the subject phenomenon between its misdemeanour and criminal form. The main deficiency of the aforementioned legal framework was manifested through its practical application, in terms of the lack of clear criteria by which cases of domestic violence would be clearly and unequivocally marked either as a misdemeanour or as a criminal offense. Such a normative approach has questionable justification on a scientific level and also raises the question of whether such a choice of model contributes to a greater protection of victims of domestic violence or whether it is a mere expression of penal populism and erroneous ideas about how numerous regulations will contribute to a more adequate prevention and better protection. A special chapter of this thesis is devoted to a comparative presentation of the normative regulation of domestic violence with the aim of analysing legal models of protection against violence, which can serve as a useful tool for designing new and different legislative solutions. The question of adequacy of the Croatian legal framework for combating domestic violence came to the centre of public discourse again in 2018, when the Republic of Croatia ratified the so-called Istanbul Convention. The practice of the European Court of Human Rights will continue to play a much more important role for the Croatian courts, as well as the legislator and, therefore, an additional chapter of this thesis is devoted to the analysis of European standards. The normative-analytical part of this thesis concludes with a criminological analysis of domestic violence, offering an insight into the basic phenomenological determinants of this phenomenon in the Republic of Croatia, as well as statistical data related to sentencing practice in domestic violence cases. The empirical part of this thesis contains a synthesis and an analysis of the results of the originally designed research, which seeks to verify two hypotheses: When dealing with cases of domestic violence in practice, there is not a clear and uniform set of criteria for determining whether domestic violence should be categorised as a misdemeanour or as a criminal offense (H1) and the current normative framework provided for domestic violence in the Republic of Croatia does not have its stronghold in scientific justification, nor does it represent an adequate way of protecting victims of domestic violence (H2). Following chapter of this thesis will offer normative solutions de lege ferenda as well as pro futuro solutions for criminal policy and research improvement. Such solutions are based on analysed theoretical considerations, comparative models and empirical findings of the conducted research, while respecting the phenomenological particularities of the criminological and victimological context of domestic violence in the Republic of Croatia. The doctoral thesis ends with concluding remarks on domestic violence.

The ne bis in idem principle (procedural defence) proscribes multiple criminal proceedings and punishments for the same criminal offence/conduct, which is predicated on a final verdict of acquittal or conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction. Incorporated as a fundamental human right through Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 annexed to the ECHR and fundamental right safeguarded through Article 50 CFR, the principle is conjoined with the right to free movement of persons through Article 54 CISA. An evaluation of the characteristics, substance, rationale, scope, and limitations associated with the autonomous procedural defence reveals corresponding purposes. CJEU and ECtHR jurisprudence have delineated the scope and limitations of the procedural defence and the two European courts have reciprocally influenced their respective case law. Definitive and practical judicial guidelines on the application of the principle facilitate consistency of approach by diverse national legal systems consistent with the principle of legality. The article provides an interpretative analysis of the procedural defence and associated jurisprudence of the two European courts that aim to ensure consistency of approach by national legal systems notwithstanding the applicability of the margin of appreciation and the principle of subsidiarity. The article concludeswith an evaluation of the narrow same criminal offence criterion (idem crimen) commensurate with broader proscribed conduct (idem factum) criterion that is pivotal to the application of the procedural defence and evidently the most litigated aspect of the ne bis in idem principle. The main issue causing tensions between the different streams of case law seems to be the question of the combination of distinct types of proceedings (administrative and criminal), and there is a reciprocal influence of the ECHR and CJEU on this issue.

In this article the author proposes an analysis of the procedural mechanisms for situations in which one single criminal deed is the subject of multiple criminal trials. In this regard, a detailed examination of the Article 37 of the Criminal Code and Article 585 para. (1) d) of the Criminal Procedure Code is in order. Firstly, the author explains the historical context of the relevant legal provisions. Secondly, the author outlines the two main hypotheses taken into account by the legislator, while also establishing their scope and the procedural issues for each hypothesis. Finally, the article touches on some particular situations that cannot be resolved by using the same procedural mechanism and for which alternative solutions have been proposed.

International audience; (Crim. 15 déc. 2021, no 21-81.864 ; Crim. 15 déc. 2021, no 20-85-925 ; D. 2022. 154, note G. Beaussonie ; AJ pénal 2022. 34, note C.-H. Boeringer et G. Courvoisier-Clément ; RTD com. 2022. 188, obs. B. Bouloc ; JCP 2022. 132, note N. Catelan ; Dr. pénal 2022, comm. 23, obs. Ph. Conte ; Dr. pénal 2022. Étude 2, M. Fouquet, P. Labrousse ; Dr. pénal 2022. Étude 3, Ph. Conte ; Dr. pénal 2022. Étude 4, O. Décima ; Gaz. Pal. 2022, no 3 p. 21, obs. R. Parizot ; Gaz. Pal. 2022, no 11, p. 41, obs. N. Catelan et L. Saenko ; Lexbase Pénal 2022, no 45, J.-C. Saint-Pau ; Crim. 9 févr. 2022, no 20-81.038 ; Crim. 15 févr. 2022, no 20-81.450, D. 2022. 353 ; AJ pénal 2022. 206, obs. M.-C. Sordino ; Crim. 15 févr. 2022, no 20-86.019 ; Crim. 15 févr. 2022, no 21-81-966 ; Dr. pénal 2022, comm. 62, obs. Ph. Conte ; Crim. 16 mars 2022, no 21-82.254, AJDA 2022. 606 ; D. 2022. 559 ; AJ pénal 2022. 266, obs. M. Bouchet ; Gaz. Pal. 2022, no 16, p. 43, obs. E. Dreyer ; Crim. 13 avril 2022, no 19-84.831, D. 2022. 793)

Ако бисмо деликтна понашања одредили као сва понашања која су супротна усвојеним друштвеним правилима, а да степен друштвене угрожености услед повреде одређеног правила опредељује да ли ће одређена противправна радња бити кривично дело или прекршај, онда се чини оправданим да пореске прекршаје и пореска кривична дела која истражујемо подведемо под шири појам „порески деликти“ како и гласи наслов докторске дисертације. Префикс „порески“ дефинише да је групни објекат заштите деликата које анализирамо фискус. Управо та карактеристика пореских деликата да штите фискус од друштвено непожељних понашања доводи до бројних специфичности које их одређују и разликују од других кривичних дела и прекршаја. У докторској дисертацији анализирамо пореске деликте, указујемо на њихове предности и недостатке, поредимо српски систем правила којима се штите јавни приходи са репрезентативним правним системима и предлажемо измене de lege ferenda којима би се, према нашем мишљењу, допринело заштити јавних прихода, са једне, и омогућила индивидуална заштита легитимних интереса пореских обвезника, са друге стране. Докторска дисертација са насловом „Порески деликти у српском праву“ је подељена у седам целина, а унутар сваке су обрађени одељци који детаљније разрађују материју на коју се поглавље односи. Докторска дисертација садржи 248 страница и 1014 фуснота. Посебну пажњу смо посветили томе да спорна питања пронађемо у судској и управној пракси, затим да их детаљно образложимо и своје закључке о тим спорним питањима поткрепимо аргументима заснованим на постојећим научним сазнањима. Материјал из праксе је прикупљен делом путем постојећих правних база података (Paragraf Lex и Ing-Pro), а већим делом путем захтева за приступ информацијама од јавног значаја. Након уводних излагања, у другој целини се бавимо феноменом пореске евазије. Примећујемо да изван уског круга пореских стручњака постоји неразумевање разлике између пореске евазије као друштвеног феномена и пореских деликата као једног од облика пореске евазије. Излажемо концепт о пореској евазији као пореској уштеди, која се може остварити на законит и незаконит начин. Покушавамо да установимо границу између законите и незаконите пореске евазије у српском праву и у том правцу анализирамо казненоправни потенцијал општих анти абузивних правила. Трећа целина докторске дисертације посвећена је општој подели казненог права у српском правном систему на кривична дела, прекршаје и привредне преступе. У том делу дисертације укратко представљамо систематику норми које уређују пореске деликте и како се оне уклапају у наведену трипартитну поделу казненог права. Subject of the Doctoral Dissertation are Tax Offences. The name of the thesis should include all types of misconduct with the purpose of criminally protecting public finances. In fact prefix “tax” determines that the collective protective object of those misconducts are public finances as a whole. It is precisely that feature which distinguishes tax offences from all of the other offences in the Serbian legal system. In the Dissertation we shall analyze Tax Offences, point out their advantages and deficiencies. We shall also make comparison between system of rules in Serbia and their counterparts in representative judicial systems. Therefore, we will de lege ferenda suggest in which manner should Serbian system of Tax Offences norms improve, bearing in mind the preservation of public finances and the protection of legitimate individual rights and interests of taxpayers. The Doctoral Dissertation is laid down in seven chapters. Within each chapter, there are subparts dedicated to each subject of research respectively. Special attention has been dedicated so that our conclusions and research are supported with relevant case law from domestic and representative international legal systems and with existing scientific knowledge. Comprehensive case law material is obtained in part from the existing databases, but the majority of case law was provided to us from the public institutions by the means of motions for access to public information. Writing technique is tailored to the instructions of the University of Belgrade regarding the means, shape and content of the Doctoral Dissertation. After the introductory remarks, the second chapter of our thesis is dedicated to the tax evasion and tax avoidance phenomenon. It is noted that the delicate distinction between tax avoidance and tax offences has not been accepted outside of the narrow circle of tax scholars and experts. Therefore we shall display the concept of tax avoidance as a tax saving device. We point out that tax evasion exists only if those tax saving devices are not in accordance with the law. Therefore, we conclude that tax offences are in fact tax evasion in the context of Serbian law. We will try to point out to the delicate boundary between tax avoidance and tax evasion and, with that purpose in mind, we shall examine the penalization potential of general anti abusive rules. Third part of our thesis is dedicated to general division of penal law in Serbia on criminal law, misdemeanors and economic offence. In this part we shall briefly present the way tax offences fit in the aforementioned tripart division of penal law. In the fourth part of Doctoral Dissertation we will analyze tax crimes. Our methodology of presentation shall be based upon legislative and therefore the structure of this part of our thesis is much closer to methodology used by the science of criminal law. We analyzed in detail all of the tax crimes but through the scope and lenses of tax law.

A prática de um ato ilícito por um agente pode ter como consequência a condenação em múltiplas esferas, em especial na ação de improbidade administrativa e na ação penal. É recorrente que o mesmo indivíduo seja condenado, ao final dos dois processos, a penas especificas em cada legislação – Código Penal e legislação penal extravagante, de um lado, e Lei de Improbidade Administrativa, de outro –, e também ao pagamento de multas em ambas as esferas, pelo cometimento dos mesmos fatos que originaram ambas as ações. Nesses casos, as multas têm natureza sancionatória e violam direitos fundamentais da pessoa condenada, de modo que a sua fixação em relação a um mesmo indivíduo, em ambas as esferas, pode violar o princípio do ne bis in idem. A aplicação, portanto, deve ser devidamente fundamentada pelo magistrado, especialmente quando os valores forem elevados. Ao longo do estudo, visa-se demonstrar que o princípio/regra do ne bis in idem é aplicável tanto na esfera penal quanto na administrativa, mas quando a aplicação da multa ocorre em processos nessas duas esferas, é comum a invocação do argumento da independência das instâncias, a fim de afastar a ocorrência de violação ao princípio que veda a dupla punição. Como no Brasil tal comunicação entre as esferas ainda não foi suficientemente esmiuçada pela jurisprudência, analisam-se decisões do Tribunal Europeu de Direitos Humanos e do Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia, que já estudaram detidamente a matéria e definiram critérios para aferir quando há ou não violação ao princípio do ne bis in idem na aplicação de multas em esferas diversas. O presente estudo demonstra que a multa, quando cumulada na ação de improbidade administrativa e na ação penal, pode efetivamente violar o princípio do ne bis in idem e a proporcionalidade na fixação das sanções. Ao final, conclui-se que o magistrado, ao aplicar a pena de multa em determinado processo, com base no princípio da proporcionalidade, deve verificar se já houve condenação ao pagamento de pena de multa em outra esfera contra o mesmo indivíduo e pela prática dos mesmos fatos, de modo a evitar a fixação de pena excessiva/desproporcional e evitar a violação ao ne bis in idem. An illegal act by an individual can lead to conviction in multiple spheres, especially in administrative misconduct actions and criminal actions. It is common that the same individual ends up sentenced, by the end of both these proceedings, to penalties specific to each legislation – Penal Code and additional criminal legislation, on one hand, and the Administrative Misconduct Law, on the other –, as well as to the payment of fines in both these judicial spheres, for the same facts that originated both the proceedings. In these cases, the fines have punitive nature and affect the convicted person’s fundamental rights, and as such the application of fines to the same individual in both spheres can result in violation of the ne bis in idem principle. The stipulation, therefore, must be duly justified by the court, especially in case of high amounts. Throughout the research, it is shown that the ne bis in idem principle/rule is applicable in the criminal as well as in the administrative sphere, but when the application refers to proceedings in both these spheres, it is common that the violation of the principle that prohibits the double punishment is refuted on the basis of the independence of the sphere’s argument. Given that in Brazil the communication between these spheres has not yet been sufficiently analyzed in court cases, the research includes case-law from the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, that have already dealt with these situations and stipulated criteria to identify whether there is or is not any violation of the ne bis in idem principle in the application of sanctions by different spheres. The research shows that the cumulation of pecuniary sanctions in administrative misconduct and criminal conviction sentences can effectively violate the ne bis in idem principle and the proportionality in the stipulation of the sanctions. In the end, it is concluded that the court, based on the principle of proportionality, when stipulating a fine in a giver procedure, must verify whether the same individual has been sentenced to a fine in other sphere regarding the same facts, in order to avoid the stipulation of an excessive and disproportionate sanction and to avoid violating the ne bis in idem principle.

European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2020 5(3), 1341-1356, I. A principle of European law. - II. Building coherence across European legal systems. - II.1. The challenging construction of compatible European standards. - II.2. The problem of the idem: what is criminal? - III. The attempted compromise. - IV. The revived schism. - V. Conclusion., This Article analyses the recent divergence between the two European Courts on the application of ne bis in idem to double-track procedures from the perspective of judicial dialogue and constitutional pluralism. Although major efforts have been made towards convergence over the past decades, recent case law shows that the potential for conflict - and, possibly, incompatibility - remains wherever the incentive to follow the lead of one authority is insufficient. Pushed to find solutions by the resistance of certain national courts to their converging standards, the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice have chosen very different paths to reach a similar, but not identical, compromise solution. The Article examines the causes of this divergence and its consequences for the protection of this fundamental right in EU Member States.

Under the dual sovereignty doctrine the Supreme Court has accepted that different sovereigns may prosecute an individual for the same facts without violating the double jeopardy clause if the act of the individual infringed the laws of each sovereignty. This article aims to analyze the evolution of the dual sovereignty doctrine in the case law of the Supreme Court of the United States. Although the doctrine has been highly criticized by scholars, the Supreme Court has persistently upheld it. . Besides, the article addresses the safeguards that currently exist against eventual abuses of the dual sovereignty doctrine, such as the “sham exception” and the “Petite Policy”. Finally, since the previous safeguards have been considered insufficient, the contribution briefly explores the possibility of applying the Eighth Amendment as an additional protection against eventual abuses committed under the dual sovereignty doctrine., Bajo la doctrina de la soberanía dual, la Corte Suprema ha aceptado que diferentes soberanos persigan penalmente a la misma persona sin violar la cláusula double jeopardy por los mismos hechos si es que la conducta de tal individuo infringió las leyes de cada soberano. El presente artículo tiene por objeto estudiar la evolución de la doctrina de la soberanía dual en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema. Además, el artículo aborda las protecciones actualmente existentes en contra de eventuales abusos que puedan ser cometidos bajo la doctrina de la soberanía dual, tales como la “sham exception” y la “Petite Policy”. Finalmente, y dado que las anteriores protecciones han sido consideradas insuficientes, el artículo explora brevemente la posibilidad de aplicar la Octava Enmienda como una protección adicional en contra de eventuales abusos que la aplicación de la doctrina de la soberanía dual pueda generar.

Under the dual sovereignty doctrine the Supreme Court has accepted that different sovereigns may prosecute an individual for the same facts without violating the double jeopardy clause if the act of the individual infringed the laws of each sovereignty. This article aims to analyze the evolution of the dual sovereignty doctrine in the case law of the Supreme Court of the United States. Although the doctrine has been highly criticized by scholars, the Supreme Court has persistently upheld it. . Besides, the article addresses the safeguards that currently exist against eventual abuses of the dual sovereignty doctrine, such as the “sham exception” and the “Petite Policy”. Finally, since the previous safeguards have been considered insufficient, the contribution briefly explores the possibility of applying the Eighth Amendment as an additional protection against eventual abuses committed under the dual sovereignty doctrine.

În ultimul deceniu, am constatat o evoluţie cu privire la înţelegerea câmpului de aplicare a principiului ne bis in idem. Jurisprudenţa recentă a Curţii Europene a Drepturilor Omului demonstrează această afirmaţie. Prezentul studiu pune în discuţie una dintre problemele de înţelegere a principiului - cea a aplicabilităţii acestuia în cazul cumulului de calificări a infracţiunilor. Autorul analizează problema din perspectiva sistemului european al drepturilor omului și din perspectiva sistemului common-law, citând mai multe cauze relevante din jurisprudenţa Curţii Europene și din jurisprudenţa Curţii Supreme de Justiţie a Statelor Unite ale Americii.

In the Unites States the existence of statutes that allow to declare forfeiture of the property used in certain prohibited ways in civil proceedings without the general safeguards of criminal law is an extended legal practice. This parallel law enforcement system, however, has raised several constitutional discussions. One of these debates concerns the compatibility of the parallel system with the double jeopardy clause: does the double jeopardy clause bar the government from bringing a civil forfeiture proceeding against a defendant that has previously been convicted in a criminal court for the same offence? The aim of the present article is studying the evolution of the case law of the Supreme Court of the United States on the constitutionality of parallel civil forfeiture proceedings and criminal prosecutions under the double jeopardy clause, analysing the current state of the jurisprudence and its possible further developments.Â

Este artículo tuvo como objetivo un análisis crítico sobre la administración de justicia indígena en Ecuador, desde la cosmovisión indígena. En otras palabras, interpretar cómo la esta se deriva de las costumbres, mitos y leyendas provenientes de todo un aprendizaje de sus ancestros. Por otro lado, busca contrastar cómo y cuáles son los principales problemas que se presentan entre la justicia indígena y la ordinaria. Sus penas y/o castigos, cosmogónicamente, el elemento justicia no puede ser otra cosa que el reflejo de todos estos usos y costumbres. Gracias a las enseñanzas de adultos mayores, padres y abuelos, se fue formando un paradigma de respeto de valores, principios éticos y armonía. La ley natural es ese conjunto de normas objetivas que rigen la naturaleza, independiente de la voluntad del hombre; como es la ley del día, de la lluvia, del viento, el ciclo de la vida: nacer, crecer, reproducir y volver dándose de esta forma una relación del hombre y la naturaleza, conservando el equilibrio natural. El presente trabajo aborda un ejemplo de problemática de la aplicación de justicia por parte de los pueblos indígenas ecuatorianos: non bis in ídem, que en español significa “no dos veces por lo mismo”, y que también es usada la forma ne bis in ídem.

Recently, the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice decide that, before a double criminal conviction, the most beneficial to the accused, even handed down later, should prevail. However, the dissenting vote argued that the second conviction could not prevail, in reason of the final res judicata of the first decision. The correctness of this decision must be analyzed in the light of the ne bis in idem, highlighting its legal nature, its foundations and its dimensions. Only in this way will be founded a conclusion that confers prestige to this postulate, valuing its nature as a fundamental right of defense, whose objective is to protect the citizen from the persecutory abuses of the State.

Avhandlingen redegjør for innholdet i forbudet mot gjentatt straffeforfølgning slik dette følger av Schengen-avtalen (CISA) artikkel 54. Forbudet er inntatt i norsk lov etter straffeloven § 8 første ledd bokstav c, og begrenser norske myndigheter å straffeforfølge forhold som allerede har vært straffeforfulgt i et annet Schengen-land. Avhandlingen går gjennom de sentrale vilkårene for at CISA artikkel 54 skal få anvendelse. Det blir blant annet sett på hvilke avgjørelser som gir sperrevirkning mot ny straffeforfølgning, når man står overfor en ny straffeforfølgning og hva som er å regne som samme forhold. Gjennomgangen peker i tillegg på visse likheter og forskjeller fra forbudet mot gjentatt straffeforfølgning som er inntatt i EMK TP 7 artikkel 4.

International audience

Η Ευρωπαϊκή Σύμβαση Δικαιωμάτων του Ανθρώπου (ΕΣΔΑ) και οι εγγυήσεις που κατοχυρώνονται σε αυτήν τυγχάνουν εφαρμογής μεταξύ άλλων και στο φορολογικό δίκαιο, ιδίως δε στο τμήμα εκείνο του φορολογικού δικαίου που αφορά την επιβολή φορολογικών κυρώσεων για τις παραβάσεις της φορολογικής νομοθεσίας, ενώ οι αντίστοιχες εθνικές διατάξεις που προβλέπουν τέτοιες κυρώσεις ελέγχονται από το Ευρωπαϊκό Δικαστήριο Δικαιωμάτων του Ανθρώπου (ΕΔΔΑ) ως προς τη συμβατότητα τους με αυτές. Ελέγχονται μάλιστα και σε σχέση με τις εγγυήσεις της Σύμβασης που ανήκουν καταρχήν στο πεδίο του ποινικού δικαίου, ενόψει του ότι ο όρος «ποινική» κύρωση που περιλαμβάνεται σε μια σειρά από διατάξεις της ΕΣΔΑ ερμηνεύεται αυτόνομα και, μέσα από μια εξελικτική και δυναμική νομολογία του Δικαστηρίου, περιλαμβάνει και τις φορολογικές κυρώσεις, εξαιτίας της φύσης και της σπουδαιότητας τους και κυρίως του σκοπού που επιδιώκουν, ο οποίος είναι κατασταλτικός και τιμωρητικός, γεγονός που κάνει τις κυρώσεις αυτές να προσιδιάζουν με τις αντίστοιχες του ποινικού δικαίου. Χαρακτηριστικά λοιπόν, στο πεδίο του δικαίου των φορολογικών κυρώσεων εφαρμόζονται οι αρχές της νομιμότητας και της μη αναδρομικότητας των φορολογικών νόμων που προβλέπουν κυρώσεις, όπως επίσης και η αρχή της αναδρομικής εφαρμογής του ευμενέστερου κυρωτικού νόμου. Καθώς πολλές φορολογικές παραβάσεις τιμωρούνται τόσο με διοικητικές όσο και με ποινικές κυρώσεις στο εθνικό φορολογικό σύστημα, τυγχάνει εφαρμογής και η αρχή ne bis in idem, η οποία απαγορεύει τη διπλή δίωξη ή καταδίκη για το ίδιο αδίκημα, όπως επίσης και το τεκμήριο αθωότητας, που συνίσταται ιδίως στον σεβασμό της κρίσης περί αθώωσης του ποινικού δικαστηρίου στις μεταγενέστερες διοικητικές διαδικασίες, The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the guarantees enshrined to it apply, among others, to tax law as well, in particular to that part of tax law relating to the imposition of tax sanctions on tax law infringements, while the corresponding national provisions are examined by The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as to their compatibility with them. Those provisions are also examined in relation to the guarantees of the Convention which belong in principle in the field of criminal law, in the light of the fact that the term “criminal” sanction contained in a series of ECHR provisions is interpreted autonomously and, through an evolutionary and dynamic case-law of the ECtHR, it includes tax sanctions as well, because of their nature and importance, and, above all, the purpose they are pursuing, which is suppressive and punitive, which makes these penalties to qualify with the corresponding criminal law. The principles of the legality and non-retroactivity of tax laws that provide for sanctions, as well as the principle of retroactive implementation of the more lenient law, are therefore applicable in the scope of tax sanctions. As a great number of tax infringements are punishable both by administrative and criminal sanctions in the national tax system, the ne bis in idem principle, which prohibits double persecution or condemnation for the same offense, is also applicable considering the tax sanctions, while the same applies to the presumption of innocence as well, which implies in particular the respect of the acquittal of the criminal court in subsequent administrative procedures

Solution.- Le recel et l’infraction originaire sont, selon la chambre criminelle, des infractions exclusives l’une de l’autre et, partant, incompatibles, de sorte que le premier ne peut pas être retenu à l’encontre de l’auteur de la seconde. La motivation est nouvelle, mais la solution ancienne. Impact.- Cet arrêt démontre que l’infléchissement opéré en 2021 sur la question des concours de qualifications infractionnelles a peu d’incidence sur les solutions positives, même les plus anciennes et les plus contestables.

Temeljna je svrha rada dati doktrinarno tumačenje kaznenog djela povrede djetetovih prava iz čl. 177. Kaznenog zakona, s naglaskom na sporna pitanja koja se očituju u sudskoj praksi. Na početku se istražuje pitanje zaštićenog pravnog dobra u okviru zakonske glave kaznenih djela protiv braka, obitelji i djece kako bi se time zadali okviri sustavnog i teleološkog tumačenja. Nakon toga iznosi se historijat te zakonske odredbe s ciljem da se time stvori osnova za povijesno tumačenje. U središnjem se dijelu rada analiziraju pojedina obilježja ovog kaznenog djela, najprije djela iz st. 1., a zatim i djela iz st. 2. te kvalificiranih oblika iz st. 3. i 4. Osobita se pozornost pridaje radnjama zanemarivanja i zlostavljanja djeteta. Osim objektivnih obilježja djela obrađuje se i pitanje počiniteljeve namjere, dok se pri kraju materijalnopravnog dijela rada analizira složena problematika vezana za institut stjecaja. U procesnopravnom dijelu rada razmatraju se načelo ne bis in idem i pozitivne obveze države u kontekstu ovog kaznenog djela, uz zaključak da radikalno tumačenje načela ne bis in idem više nije prihvatljivo. U cijelom se radu kritički prikazuje praksa redovnih sudova i Europskog suda za ljudska prava, uključujući i recentan predmet Galović protiv Hrvatske., This paper seeks to provide an interpretation of the criminal offence of violation of the rights of the child prescribed in Article 177 of the Croatian Criminal Code, with an emphasis on controversial issues that appear in everyday legal practice. First, the issue of legally protected good is investigated to set the framework for a systematic and teleological interpretation. Next, the history of this legal provision is presented with the aim of creating a basis for historical interpretation. In the main part of the paper, specific elements of this criminal offence are analysed. Particular attention is paid to the acts of neglect and child abuse. The question of the perpetrator’s intention is also addressed, as are complex issues which appear in situations where one and the same act constitutes an offence against several statutory provisions. Finally, the principle of ne bis in idem and the positive obligations of the state in the context of this criminal offence are considered, with the conclusion that a radical interpretation of the principle of ne bis in idem is no longer acceptable. Throughout the paper, the case law of Croatian courts and the ECtHR is presented and analysed, including the recent case of Galović v. Croatia

THE NE BIS IN IDEM PRINCIPLE IN THE CONTEXT OF TAX AND CRIMINAL LAW The thesis deals with concurrent imposition of sanctions under tax and criminal law in connection with the violation of the principle of ne bis in idem as one of the basic legal principles according to which only one ruling can be made on one conduct. The aim of the thesis is to examine whether this legal principle is violated in the case of imposing a tax penalty under the tax law and conviction for the crime of tax, fee and similar mandatory payments evasion under the criminal code. The question raised is based on the legal opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, which attributed to a tax penalty imposed under tax law the nature of a criminal charge within the meaning of Article 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case law of the Supreme Administrative Court and the Supreme Court follows the decisions of the european judicial bodies. Detailed analysis and evaluation of case law and its mutual context is a key part of the whole thesis. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the work is divided into six chapters. The first three theoretical chapters contain a definition of the ne bis in idem principle and related terms in the Czech legal system and international treaties, tax proceedings and...

Maģistra darba tēma “Dubultās sodīšanas nepieļaujamības (ne bis in idem) principa pārkāpumi” tika izvēlēta, pamatojoties uz to, ka principa interpretācija joprojām tiek pilnveidota, arvien sasniedzot jaunas atziņas, kuras ir būtiskas principa pamatotā piemērošanā. Latvijas tiesu praksē joprojām saskatāmas problēmas ar principa vienveidīgu piemērošanu, tādējādi pasliktinot apsūdzētā stāvokli un pieļaujot principa pārkāpumus. Darbā ir apskatīta principa attīstība gadsimtu griezumā, principu reglamentējošā normatīvā bāze, principa interpretācija Eiropas Cilvēktiesību tiesas (turpmāk - ECT) un Eiropas Savienības tiesas (turpmāk – EST) judikatūrā, pieteikumu par iespējamo principa pārkāpumu analīze un Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāta Krimināllietu departamenta (turpmāk – Senāta Krimināllietu departaments) lēmumu analīze, konstatējot ne bis in idem pārkāpumus. Pētījumā izmantoti normatīvie tiesību akti, juridiskā literatūra, publikācijas un juridiskās prakses materiāli. Atslēgas vārdi: ne bis in idem, res judicata, tiesības uz taisnīgu tiesu, dubultā sodīšana, atkārtots process, Endžela (Engels) kritēriji, krimināltiesisks raksturs., The subject of the Master’s Thesis “Double jeopardy (ne bis in idem) principle violations” was chosen, on the basis that the interpretation of the principle is still being refined, with new findings becoming essential for the new opinion (judgement or outlook) of the principle. Problems with applying the principle are still visible in the practice of Latvian courts, which worsens the accused’s situation, promoting violations of the principle. In this thesis the author described the development of the principle over the centuries, the regulatory framework governing the principle, interpretation of the principle in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Union Court, analysed applications for possible violations of the principle and decisions of the Department of Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia. In developing the work, the author used normative legal acts, legal literature, publications and materials of legal practice. Keywords: ne bis in idem, res judicata, right to a fair trial, double punishment, double jeopardy, not twice for the same thing, Engels criteria, criminal nature.

Commento a margine della sentenza della Corte di giustizia del 16 dicembre 2021 (C-203/20) ove, nell'ambito della potenziale emissione di un Mandato di arresto europeo (MAE), il Giudice europeo è stato chiamato ad esprimersi anche in tema di ne bis in idem. Dopo aver analizzato la pronuncia della Corte, la vicenda processuale oggetto di rinvio pregiudiziale e la giurisprudenza di Lussemburgo relativa alla nozione di "decisione definitiva", si evidenzia come nel caso di specie si avesse a che fare con la declinazione domestica del divieto di bis in idem e come, conseguentemente, sarebbe stato auspicabile un esplicito riferimento alla giurisprudenza della Corte di Strasburgo in tema di art. 4 Prot. n. 7 Cedu.

La lunga storia del principio di ne bis in idem è stata caratterizzata da profonde antinomie giurisprudenziali, che hanno visto a confronto la Corte EDU, la Corte di giustizia e, non di rado, le Corti nazionali. Il confronto ha riguardato principalmente entrambi gli elementi che compongono il principio in parola, ovvero il bis e l’idem. Di recente, la questione dei criteri che sovraintendono l’operatività del principio è tornata sotto i riflettori, grazie a due sentenze della Corte di giustizia, del 22 marzo scorso, ovvero i casi bpost (C-117/20) e Nordzucker e a. (C-151/20) che hanno ricondotto ad unicum quelli che la Corte aveva elaborato con riferimento alle diverse politiche. Le due pronunce lasciano, però irrisolte talune questioni e ne pongono delle nuove.

This case note examines the Court of Justice of the European Union’s decision in WS (C-505/19) concerning the application of the ne bis in idem principle enshrined in Article 54 CISA and Article 50 Charter in the context of an Interpol red notice. It examines whether a person may be provisionally detained on the basis of a red notice in cases where investigation proceedings have previously been closed by a judicial decision. The case note closes with a commentary on the decision as well as an outlook for legal practitioners in the field., New Journal of European Criminal Law, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 91

L’articolo analizza i più recenti sviluppi in materia di ne bis in idem e doppi binari sanzionatori. Dopo una breve ricostruzione della precedente giurisprudenza della Corte EDU, della Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea, della Corte costituzionale e della Corte di cassazione, il lavoro si sofferma in particolare sulla più recente decisione in questa materia del giudice costituzionale italiano (sent. n. 149 del 2022), la quale per la prima volta in questo ambito dichiara l’illegittimità costituzionale dell’art. 649 c.p.p., pur limitata al solo doppio binario sanzionatorio in esame nel caso di specie (i.e. la tutela del diritto d’autore). Nell’indagine, ci si sofferma anzitutto proprio sulla ridefinizione del petitum operata dalla Corte, cercando di comprenderne gli effetti sulla futura giurisprudenza, e sulla questione dei non semplici rapporti tra i vari giudici impegnati a tutela di questa garanzia.

Jurisprudencia ambiental en la Comunidad de Madrid (Segundo semestre 2021)

This study deals with the question of harmonization between tax and criminal proceedings in Turkish law resulting from the condition of “sufficiently close in substance and in time” as applied within the scope of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (P7-4) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In this context, the study first examines the developmental line of jurisprudence regarding the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and then examines how the elements of “substance” and “time” have been interpreted, starting with the Glantz and Nykänen judgments against Finland in 2014 and ending with the Kristjansson judgment against Iceland in 2021. Afterward, the study finds aspects of the case-law as created by the ECtHR to be incompatible with Turkish law. Because no legal regulation exists in Turkish law that provides a connection between “substance” and “time,” the final section proposes a solution to the identified problems. In this context, a systematic distinction has been made between crimes that do and do not require knowledge of tax techniques. The study recommends with regard to the first type of crime that an investigation into deliberateness be carried out by the tax court with its expert knowledge of tax techniques in order to avoid a repetitive evaluation, and then based on the result, the criminal court should determine the real person or entity who perpetrated the crime. With regard to the second type of crime, no knowledge of tax technique is required for the investigation into intent and thus in conclusion and unlike with the first case, the tax court is recommended to take the criminal court decision into account., Bu çalışmanın konusu, İnsan Hakları Avrupa Sözleşmesine (İHAS/Sözleşme) ek 7 numaralı protokolün 4. maddesi (P 7-4) kapsamında geliştirilen, vergi ve ceza yargılamaları arasında içerik ve zaman yönünden bağlantılı olma koşulunun Türk hukuku açısından doğurduğu uyum sorunudur. Bu kapsamda öncelikle İnsan Hakları Avrupa Mahkemesi (İHAM) içtihadının gelişim çizgisi incelenmiş, 2014 yılında Finlandiya’ya karşı verilen Glantz ve Nykänen kararları ile başlayan ve son olarak 2021 yılında İzlanda’ya karşı verilen Kristjansson kararına kadar, içerik ve zaman unsurlarının nasıl yorumlandığı analiz edilmiştir. Ardından İHAM’ın yarattığı içtihadın Türk hukuku ile uyumsuz yönleri ortaya konulmuştur. Son bölümde, içerik ve zaman yönünden bir bağlantının içtihat yoluyla kurulabileceği iddiasıyla bir çözüm yolu önerilmiştir. Bu bağlamda, Vergi Usûl Kanunu (VUK) md 359’da yer alan ve kasıt incelemesi yapılırken vergi tekniği bilgisine ihtiyaç duyulan ve duyulmayan suçlar arasında sistematik bir ayrım yapılmıştır. Birinci gruba giren suçlarda, mükerrer bir değerlendirmenin önüne geçmek için, kasıt incelemesinin vergi tekniği bilgisiyle öne çıkan vergi mahkemesince yapılması, varılacak sonuca göre suçun gerçek kişi failinin ceza mahkemesince belirlenmesi önerilmektedir. İkinci grup suçlarda ise kasıt incelemesi için bir vergi tekniği bilgisi gerekmediği gözetilerek, ilkinin aksine ceza mahkemesi kararının vergi mahkemesince dikkate alınması gerektiği sonucuna ulaşılmaktadır

Um modelo de via dupla para a persecução dos ilícitos contra o mercado de capitais que sanciona os mesmos fatos nas esferas penal e administrativa produz consequências negativas, notadamente o enfraquecimento da segurança jurídica e a possibilidade de aplicação de sanções cumulativas desproporcionais. Além disso, a atuação de mais de um órgão investigando os mesmos fatos de forma independente, normalmente, resulta em ineficiência. Este trabalho parte desses problemas para buscar uma solução para o modelo de persecução dos ilícitos penais e administrativos contra o mercado de capitais no Brasil. O princípio do ne bis in idem surge, nesse contexto, como o fundamento jurídico capaz de solucionar esses problemas, mediante a imposição de um sistema de persecução de via única ou, então, de um modelo de via dupla com fortes pontos de contato entre as esferas penal e administrativa. Após analisar esse princípio, o trabalho delimita as principais características dos sistemas de persecução de via dupla e de via única, e expõe como ocorre a persecução dos ilícitos penais e administrativos contra o mercado de capitais, no Brasil e em outros países, especificamente na França, Luxemburgo, Itália e Portugal. Na sequência, a partir dessas experiências, foi construído um modelo de persecução para o Brasil compatível com o ne bis in idem, e a sua aplicação de lege lata foi analisada. Por fim, formulou-se uma proposta de lege ferenda com a finalidade de permitir a adequada implantação do modelo proposto no país. A dual track model for the prosecution of offenses against the capital market that sanctions the same facts in the criminal and administrative spheres produces negative consequences, notably the weakening of legal security and the possibility of disproportionate cumulative sanctions. In addition, the action of more than one agency investigating the same facts independently usually results in inefficiency. This study seeks to find a solution to these problems in Brazil. The principle of ne bis in idem emerges in this context as the legal basis capable of solving these problems, by imposing a single-track system or a double-track model with strong points of contact between administrative and criminal proceedings. After analyzing this principle, the paper outlines the main characteristics of the single track and double track prosecution systems and describes how the prosecution of criminal and administrative offenses against the capital market occurs in Brazil and in other countries, specifically in France, Luxembourg, Italy and Portugal. Next, based on these experiences, a prosecution model for Brazil compatible with the ne bis in idem principle was built, and its application de lege lata was analyzed. Finally, a de lege ferenda proposal was formulated, to enable the proper implementation of the proposed model in the country.

Our purpose here is to compare the protection against insider trading in Brazil and the European Union law, specifically the way insider trading is sanctioned in these two jurisdictions. We highlight the different compositions between administrative and criminal sanctions found in the two systems and their implications for the fundamental rights and personal rights (in case of Brazil) of those held liable for the practice of insider trading. The possible cumulation of punishments imposed by criminal courts and administrative regulatory bodies raise the question whether there might be a violation of the ne bis in idem principle. The response to that question is different in each system. We will start by briefly taking stock of the genesis and evolution of anti-insider trading regulation in Brazil and in the EU in order to comprehend the different rationales for the prohibition of insider trading in the two jurisdiction, so as to understand the reasons behind their divergencies and convergencies. Nuestro propósito aquí es comparar la protección contra el uso de información privilegiada en Brasil y la ley de la Unión Europea, específicamente la forma en que se sanciona el uso de información privilegiada en estas dos jurisdicciones. Destacamos las diferentes composiciones entre sanciones administrativas y penales encontradas en los dos sistemas y sus implicaciones para los derechos fundamentales y los derechos de la personalidad (en el caso de Brasil) de los responsables por la práctica del uso de información privilegiada. La posible acumulación de sanciones impuestas por los tribunales penales y los órganos reguladores administrativos plantea la cuestión de si podría haber una violación del principio ne bis in idem. La respuesta a esa pregunta es diferente en cada sistema. Comenzaremos revisando brevemente la génesis y evolución de la regulación sobre el uso de información privilegiada en Brasil y en la UE con el fin de comprender las diferentes razones de la prohibición del uso de información privilegiada en ambas jurisdicciones con el fin de comprender las razones detrás de sus diferencias y convergencias. Nosso objetivo aqui é comparar a proteção contra insider trading no Brasil e na União Europeia, especificamente a maneira como o insider trading é sancionado nessas duas jurisdições. Destacaremos as diferentes combinações entre sanções administrativas e criminais encontradas nos dois sistemas e suas implicações para os direitos fundamentais e da personalidade (no caso do Brasil) dos responsáveis pela prática de abuso de informação privilegiada. A possível acumulação de punições impostas por tribunais criminais e órgãos reguladores administrativos levanta a questão de saber se pode haver uma violação do princípio ne bis in idem. A resposta a essa pergunta será diferente em cada sistema. Começaremos fazendo um breve balanço da gênese e da evolução da regulamentação sobre uso de informações privilegiadas no Brasil e na UE, a fim de compreender as diferentes razões para a proibição do insider trading nas duas jurisdições de forma a entender os motivos por trás de suas divergências e convergências.

Aimed at establishing an effective and consistent enforcement of market abuse regulation, the regime introduced by Regulation (EU) No. 596/2014 (‘MAR’) and Directive 2014/57/EU (‘MAD II’) relies on a mix of criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, both of which are subject to the principles of double jeopardy and due process. In the light of a few cases decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’), the features of this regime are, however, unclear, and it is doubtful whether the current framework is adequate to achieve its goals. This article criticizes the decision to criminalize market abuse at the EU level and argues that a credible EU supervisory system is better served by an enforcement system based on administrative sanctions. Moreover, the article discusses the solution offered by the ECtHR to the trade-off between efficiency and fairness in administrative proceedings and proposes an allocation of prosecution and decision-making to independent bodies within the same supervisory authority as a means to better balance efficiency and fairness.

The subject of our analysis are tax offenses in the Republic of Serbia related to abuse and subsequent loss of rights to fiscal benefits and direct grants. The article points out that tax offenses, as is the case with taxes, can only be introduced in law. For that reason, we call into question the constitutionality of the decree. Analysis of tax offenses shows that there are certain issues that could cause problems in the practical application of the decree. For instance, we believe that the definition of the tax offenses considered implies liability regardless of guilt. The state grants taxpayers the right to fiscal benefits and direct monetary payments. In the case of subsequent loss of right to fiscal benefits and direct monetary payments, we argue that it is not appropriate to apply penal measures. It is rather sufficient to initiate tax enforcement procedure.