Legal 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