Enforcement or no Enforcement?: Interpreting the ne bis in idem principle in the European Union

ISBN-13: 9783640949038 / Angielski / Miękka / 2011 / 52 str.

Jana Seydel

Opis

Master's Thesis from the year 2011 in the subject Law - European and International Law, Intellectual Properties, grade: 1,3, Leiden University (Europaisches Rechtsinstitut), language: English, abstract: This thesis looks at the EU ne bis in idem principle. In particular it examines if this principle that no one shall be held liable twice for the same act, contains an enforcement requirement. Because the ne bis in idem principle is codified in different sources of EU law which all have slightly different wordings, a (national) judge may be confronted with the difficult question as to what provision to apply in a given case. The author of this thesis has selected a judgment of a German Court that well illustrates this dilemma and which shows the relevance and topical interest of this problem, for which as yet no clear guidance has been provided by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In this Boere case a German Court applied the ne bis in idem principle as laid down in Article 54 CISA and concluded that enforcement was an essential element of the ne bis in idem principle. The thesis introduces this case in a well-structured manner and critically reflects upon the judgment of the German Court. By taking this case a starting point, the author sets out clearly which underlying questions concerning the hierarchy between the different sources of EU law must be answered before a conclusion in a particular ne bis in idem case can be drawn. The author of this thesis argues that Article 54 CISA - as applied by the German Court in the Boere case - is incompatible with Article 50 EuCFR, a provision which does not contain an enforcement requirement. She thereby analyses the relation between these two source of law - the Schengen acquis and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - in a profound, refreshing and well-substantiated manner. Particularly the discussion of relevant ECJ case-law is good and comprehensive. The author subsequently assesses whether the incompatibility of Ar