The paper focuses on ‘double-track sanctioning systems’ on legal persons from a European ne bis in idem perspective. In addition to highlighting the peculiarities of the said punitive models on market abuse and tax offences, some reflections are devoted to the ‘connection test’ at European level.
The paper focuses on ne bis in idem, shaped as unitary principle by the latest judgments of the ECHR and the EUCJ, including both its procedural and substantive features. After having reconstructed the changing structure of the said principle in the longstanding supranational case-law and having shown the existence of several coexisting versions, that refer to different principles, it is advanced the argument according to which the ne bis in idem is not an autonomous principle, being rather a “kind of rule” per se neutral, capable of including principles of any sort. A new interpretation of the “European ne bis in idem” is then offered from such a perspective, including the parameters used by the European Courts in order to assess derogations, especially with respect to a ‘double track’ cumulative sanctioning system and its compatibility with general principles and fundamental rights limiting the jus puniendi
Sommario: 1. La natura giuridica delle sanzioni disciplinari previste dall’ordinamento penitenziario: introduzione. – 2) La presa di posizione della Suprema Corte. – 3. Ulteriori interventi della giurisprudenza di legittimità: Cass. pen., Sez. II, 16 febbraio 2018, n. 23043. – 4. Considerazioni conclusive.
The paper aims to analyse the sanctioning system for privacy-related infringements, as recently amended both at the EU and the domestic level. Considering the administrative and criminal provisions currently provided for by the GDPR and the Italian Privacy Code, some critical issues will be highlighted with respect to the wording of the said provisions, whose interpretation is often difficult. The Italian lawmaker seems to have adopted the ‘double track’ sanctioning system: in the second part of the paper will assess the compatibility of the said system with the supranational principle of ne bis in idem. Finally, some reflections will be devoted to the rationale of the repeated option for the ‘double track’ sanctioning system, trying to find a way out from it through the ‘specialty’ principle established under art. 9 of Law 689/1981.
This paper aims to reflect on the deficiencies, from the criminal safeguards perspective, that can be found in the current procedure for the settlement of conflicts of criminal jurisdiction in the European Union. After a brief introduction and overview of the legal framework on conflicts of jurisdiction and the system of protection of rights and procedural safeguards in the European Union, the paper is divided into two different parts. The first part will focus on identifying and examining the principles, rights and safeguards at stake in a transnational situation of conflict of criminal jurisdiction between Member States. In the second part of this paper, the author will reflect on the improvements that should be adopted to grant a better standard of protection for the suspected or accused person, including the critical analysis of proposals made by scholars on this matter.
Legislative Decree no. 107/2018 was enacted to comply with the 596/2014 EU market abuse regulation. While the 2014/57/EU directive on criminal sanctions for market abuse has not been implemented yet, several changes affect the pre-existing criminal provisions in this area. The new legislation in place is however quite controversial about its criminal law ramifications