Table Of ContentLegal Studies in International,
European and Comparative Criminal Law 8
Javier Ignacio Escobar Veas
Ne bis in idem
and Multiple
Sanctioning
Systems
A Case Law Study of the European
Court of Human Rights and the Court
of Justice of the EU
Legal Studies in International, European
and Comparative Criminal Law
Volume 8
Editor-in-Chief
StefanoRuggeri,DepartmentofLaw,UniversityofMessina,Messina,Italy
EditorialBoardMembers
ChiaraAmalfitano,UniversityofMilan,Milan,Italy
LorenaBachmaierWinter ,FacultyofLaw,ComplutenseUniversityofMadrid,
Madrid,Spain
MartinBöse,FacultyofLaw,UniversityofBonn,Bonn,Germany
LorenzoMateoBujosaVadell,FacultyofLaw,UniversityofSalamanca,
Salamanca,Spain
IgnacioColomerHernández,FacultyofLaw,University‘PablodeOlavide’,
Seville,Spain
PaulodeSousaMendes,FacultyofLaw,UniversityofLisbon,Lisbon,Portugal
EduardoDemetrioCrespo,UniversityofCastile-LaMancha,Toledo,Spain
GiuseppeDiChiara,LawSchool,UniversityofPalermo,Palermo,Italy
AlbertoDiMartino,Sant’AnnaSchoolofAdvancedStudies,Pisa,Italy
SabineGleß,UniversityofBasel,Basel,Switzerland
KrisztinaKarsai,DepartmentofCriminalLaw,UniversityofSzeged,Szeged,
Hungary
AlessioLoGiudice,LawDepartment,UniversityofMessina,Messina,Italy
VincenzoMilitello,DiptoSciGiuridiche,dellaSocietà,UniversityofPalermo,
Palermo,Italy
OrestePollicino,ComparativePublicLaw,BocconiUniversity,Milan,Italy
SerenaQuattrocolo,DepartmentofLaw,UniversityofPiemonteOrientale,
Alessandria,Italy
TommasoRafaraci,DepartmentofLaw,UniversityofCatania,Catania,Italy
LuciaRisicato,LawDepartment,UniversityofMessina,Messina,Italy
ArndtSinn,FacultyofLaw,UniversityofOsnabrück,Osnabrück,Niedersachsen,
Germany
FrancescoViganò,BocconiUniversity,Milan,Italy
RichardVogler,SussexLawSchool,UniversityofSussex,Brighton,UK
The main purpose of this book series is to provide sound analyses of major
developmentsinnational,EUandinternationallawandcaselaw,aswellasinsights
into court practice and legislative proposals in the areas concerned. The analyses
addressabroad readership,suchaslawyersandpractitioners,whilealsoproviding
guidanceforcourts.Intermsofscope,theseriesencompassesfourmainareas,the
first of which concerns international criminal law and especially international case
law in relevant criminal law subjects. The second addresses international human
rights law with a particular focus on the impact of international jurisprudences on
nationalcriminallawandcriminaljusticesystems,aswellastheirinterrelations.In
turnthethirdareafocusesonEuropeancriminallawandcaselaw.Here,particular
weight will be attached to studies on European criminal law conducted from a
comparativeperspective.Thefourthandfinalareapresentssurveysofcomparative
criminal law inside and outside Europe. By combining these various aspects, the
series especially highlights research aimed at proposing new legal solutions, while
focusing on the new challenges of a European area based on high standards of
humanrightsprotection.
Asarule,bookproposalsaresubjecttopeerreview,whichiscarriedoutbytwo
membersoftheeditorialboardinanonymousform.
Javier Ignacio Escobar Veas
Ne bis in idem and Multiple
Sanctioning Systems
A Case Law Study of the European Court of
Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the
EU
JavierIgnacioEscobarVeas
AustralUniversityofChile
PuertoMontt,Chile
ISSN2524-8049 ISSN2524-8057 (electronic)
LegalStudiesinInternational,EuropeanandComparativeCriminalLaw
ISBN978-3-031-16555-9 ISBN978-3-031-16556-6 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16556-6
©TheEditor(s)(ifapplicable)andTheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicensetoSpringerNatureSwitzerland
AG2023
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsaresolelyandexclusivelylicensedbythePublisher,whether
thewholeorpartofthematerialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseof
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by
similarordissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthispublication
doesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevant
protectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors, and the editorsare safeto assume that the adviceand informationin this
bookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernortheauthorsor
theeditorsgiveawarranty,expressedorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinorforany
errorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregardtojurisdictional
claimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Contents
1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
PartI InternationalandComparativeCaseLawRegardingthe
LawfulnessofMultipleSanctioningSystemsUnderthe
NeBisinIdem
2 CaseLawoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates. . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1 BriefHistoryoftheDoubleJeopardyProtection. . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2 ProtectionsAffordedbytheDoubleJeopardyClauseand
UnderlyingPolicies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3 “SameOffence”Requirement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3.1 TheSameElementsTest:Blockburgerv.United
States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3.2 GreaterInclusiveOffenceandLesserIncludedOffence:
Brownv.Ohio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3.3 “SameOffence”RequirementinContextsofMultiple
Prosecutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.4 TheDualSovereigntyDoctrine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.4.1 TheEvolutionoftheDualSovereigntyDoctrine. . . . . . 26
2.4.2 DefinitionofSovereignforthePurposesofDouble
Jeopardy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.4.3 TheShamException. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.4.4 ThePetitePolicy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.5 ProtectionAgainstMultipleProsecutionsfortheSame
Offence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.5.1 TheMomentfromWhichtheDefendantIsin
Jeopardy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.5.2 SecondProsecutionFollowinganAcquittal. . . . . . . . . . 35
2.5.3 SecondProsecutionFollowingaConviction. . . . . . . .. 36
v
vi Contents
2.6 ProtectionAgainstMultiplePunishmentsfortheSame
Offence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.6.1 ProtectionAgainstMultiplePunishmentsinaSingle
Prosecution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.6.2 ParallelCriminalandNon-criminalSanctionsforthe
SameFacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.7 IssuePreclusionasaConstitutionalRequirementoftheDouble
JeopardyClause. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.7.1 GeneralRemarksonIssuePreclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.7.2 IssuePreclusioninCriminalProceedings:Utilisation
ofaJudgmentofAcquittalinSubsequentCriminal
Proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
2.7.3 IssuePreclusionBetweenCriminalandCivil
Proceedings:UtilisationofaJudgmentofAcquittalin
SubsequentCivilProceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
2.8 SummaryoftheCaseLawoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnited
States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3 CaseLawoftheSupremeCourtofCanada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3.1 ChargedwithanOffence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
3.1.1 ApplicationoftheAboveCriteriatoDisciplinary
Proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.1.2 ApplicationoftheAboveCriteriatoCivilMonetary
Sanctions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 81
3.1.3 ApplicationoftheAboveCriteriatoCivilForfeiture
Mechanisms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
3.2 “SameOffence”Requirement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
3.3 SummaryoftheCaseLawoftheSupremeCourtofCanada. . . 91
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4 CaseLawoftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights. . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.1 CriminalNatureoftheProceedings:The“EngelCriteria”. . . .. 95
4.2 The“SameOffence”Requirement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
4.2.1 TheDifferentApproachesBeforeZolotukhinv.Russia. . . 98
4.2.2 Zolotukhinv.RussiaandtheCurrentInterpretation. . . . . 99
4.3 The“FinalDecision”Requirement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
4.4 The“DuplicationofProceedings”Requirement. . . . . . . . . . . . 102
4.4.1 TheCaseLawBeforeAandBv.Norway. . . . . . . . . . . 102
4.4.2 TheDevelopmentofthe“SufficientlyClose
ConnectioninSubstanceandTime”Exception:
AandBv.Norway. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.4.3 TheCaseLawAfterAandBv.Norway. ..... ..... . 108
Contents vii
4.5 TheExceptionoftheSecondParagraphofArticle4of
Protocol7. .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. 112
4.6 SummaryoftheCaseLawoftheEuropeanCourtofHuman
Rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5 CaseLawoftheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion. . . . . . . . 119
5.1 CriminalNatureoftheProceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5.2 The“SameOffence”Requirement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
5.3 The“FinalDecision”Requirement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.4 DuplicationofProceedingsasaLegitimateRestriction
ofNeBisinIdem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
5.5 SummaryoftheCaseLawoftheCourtofJusticeofthe
EuropeanUnion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
PartII CriticalAnalysisoftheCaseLawoftheECtHRandthe
CJEURegardingtheLawfulnessofMultipleSanctioning
SystemsUndertheNeBisinIdem
6 LawfulnessofMultipleSanctioningSystemsUndertheNeBisin
Idem:FourDifferentApproachestoResolvetheSameProblem. .. 133
6.1 FirstProblem:LackofClarityRegardingtheRationaleofthe
NeBisinIdem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
6.2 SecondProblem:TheDeadEndoftheThesisoftheCriminal
Nature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
6.2.1 DoestheCurrentApproachoftheCriminalNature
ThesisProducePredictableResults?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
6.2.2 The‘All-or-Nothing’ReasoningoftheCurrent
Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
6.3 ThirdProblem:IncorporationofCriteriaUnrelatedtothe
RationaleoftheProtectionAgainstMultipleProsecutions. . . . . 149
6.3.1 VaguenessoftheFactorsListedbytheECtHRandthe
CJEU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
6.3.2 DuplicationsintheCollectionandtheAssessmentofthe
Evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
6.3.3 OverlapBetweentheProhibitionofMultiple
ProsecutionsandtheProhibitionofDisproportionate
Sanctions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 154
References. . ...................... .................... 155
viii Contents
PartIII ReconceptualizingtheProhibitionofMultiplePunishments
andtheProhibitionofMultipleProsecutions
7 UnderstandingMultipleSanctioningSystems:Modelsof
Organisation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7.1 SubsidiaryModel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
7.2 ComplementaryModel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
8 OvercomingtheDeadEndoftheThesisoftheCriminalNature. . . 167
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
9 ReconceptualisingtheNeBisinIdem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
9.1 TwoCompetingNeBisinIdemModels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
9.1.1 FirstModel:SubstantiveNeBisinIdem. . . . . . . . . . . . 171
9.1.2 SecondModel:ProceduralNeBisinIdem. . . . . . . . . . . 172
9.2 AnalysisoftheProtectionAgainstMultiplePunishments
andtheProtectionAgainstMultipleProsecutions. . . . . . . . . . . 173
9.2.1 ProtectionAgainstMultiplePunishments. . . . . . . . . . . . 173
9.2.2 ProtectionAgainstMultipleProsecutions. . . . . . . . . . . . 180
9.3 SummaryoftheProposedAlternativeInterpretation. . . . . . . . . 189
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
PartIV LookingBeyondtheNeBisinIdem:Recallingthe
ProhibitionofDisproportionateSanctionsandthe
RighttobeTriedWithinaReasonableTime
10 LookingBeyondtheNeBisinIdem. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. 197
10.1 TheProhibitionofDisproportionateSanctions. . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
10.2 TheRighttoBeTriedWithinaReasonableTime. . . . . . . . . . . 202
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
11 FinalRemarks. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . 207
TableofCases.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... . 211
Chapter 1
Introduction
Consider the following case: an administrative agency imposes a sanction of
$100,000 on the defendant for violating banking statutes by granting loans in an
unlawfulmanner.Thedecisionoftheadministrativeagencybecamefinal.Whenthe
defendantislatercriminallyindictedforthesamefacts,shefilesamotiontodismiss
on double jeopardy grounds. Can the government pursue criminal prosecution
against the defendant, or does the imposition of administrative sanction prevent
thegovernmentfromit?
According to most scholars and courts, the answer to the previous question
depends on the application of the prohibition ofbis in idem. The ne bis in idem,
knownasdoublejeopardyincommonlawsystems,1isextensivelyproclaimedby
national legal systems and international human rights instruments.2 At the inter-
nationallevel,thenebisinidemhasbeenstipulatedintheInternationalCovenant
on Civil and Political Rights,3 the American Convention on Human Rights,4
Protocol 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights,5 the Statute of the
International Criminal Court,6 and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union, among others.7 It has been pointed out, however, that the ne
bis in idem is not part of customary international law8 and therefore there is no
1Stuckenberg(2019),p.458.
2Tallgren and Reisinger Coracini (2016), pp. 904–905; Ilić (2017), p. 218; Rudstein (2011),
pp.27–28;Conway(2003),p.355.
3Article14.7.
4Article8.4.
5Article4.
6Article20.
7Article50.
8Schomburg(2012),p.313;Paulesu(2018),p.398.
©TheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicensetoSpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2023 1
J.I.EscobarVeas,NebisinidemandMultipleSanctioningSystems,LegalStudiesin
International,EuropeanandComparativeCriminalLaw8,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16556-6_1
