The EU rules
Article 54 CISA and the
ECJ/CGEU case law
Article 54
“A person whose trial has been finally disposed
of in one Contracting Party may not be
prosecuted in another Contracting Party for the
same acts provided that, if a penalty has been
imposed, it has been enforced, is actually in the
process of being enforced or can no longer be
enforced under the laws of the sentencing
Contracting Party.”
‘Idem’
“same acts”
Article 4(1), Protocol 7 ECHR
“No one shall be liable to be tried or punished
again in criminal proceedings under the
jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for
which he has already been finally acquitted or
convicted in accordance with the law and penal
procedure of that State.”
Article 50 CFREU
“No one shall be liable to be tried or punished
again in criminal proceedings for an offence for
which he or she has already been finally
acquitted or convicted within the Union in
accordance with the law.”
C-436/04 Van Esbroek (9th March
2006)
“[T]he only relevant criterion for the application
of Article 54 of the CISA is identity of the
material acts, understood in the sense of the
existence of a set of concrete circumstances
which are inextricably linked together.”
“[T]he definitive assessment in that regard
belongs, as rightly pointed out by the
Netherlands Government, to the competent
national courts which are charged with the task
of determining whether the material acts at
issue constitute a set of facts which are
inextricably linked together in time, in space and
by their subject-matter.”
C-367/05 Kraijenbrink (18th July 2007)
“[T]he starting point for assessing the notion of
same acts’ within the meaning of Article 54 of the
CISA is to consider the specific unlawful conduct
which gave rise to the criminal proceedings before
the courts of the two Contracting States as a whole.
Thus, Article 54 of the CISA can become applicable
only where the court dealing with the second
criminal prosecution finds that the material acts, by
being linked in time, in space and by their subjectmatter, make up an inseparable whole.”
Article 3(2) EAW
Mandatory non-execution “if the executing
judicial authority is informed that the requested
person has been finally judged by a Member
State in respect of the same acts provided that,
where there has been sentence, the sentence
has been served or is currently being served or
may no longer be executed under the law of the
sentencing Member State”
Case C-261/09 Mantello (GC 16th
November 2010)
“In view of the shared objective of Article 54 of
the CISA and Article 3(2) of the Framework
Decision, which is to ensure that a person is not
prosecuted or tried more than once in respect of
the same acts, it must be accepted that an
interpretation of that concept given in the
context of the CISA is equally valid for the
purposes of the Framework Decision.”
‘Bis’
“finally disposed of”
C-187/01 and C-385/01 Gözütok and
Brügge (11th February 2003)
“Article 54 of the CISA, the objective of which is to
ensure that no one is prosecuted on the same facts
in several Member States on account of his having
exercised his right to freedom of movement, cannot
play a useful role in bringing about the full
attainment of that objective unless it also applies to
decisions definitively discontinuing prosecutions in a
Member State, even where such decisions are
adopted without the involvement of a court and do
not take the form of a judicial decision.”
C-150/05 Van Straaten (28th
September 2006)
“[I]n the case of a final acquittal for lack of
evidence, the bringing of criminal proceedings in
another Contracting State for the same acts
would undermine the principles of legal
certainty and of the protection of legitimate
expectations. The accused would have to fear a
fresh prosecution in another Contracting State
although a case in respect of the same acts has
been finally disposed of.”
C-467/04 Gasparini and others (28th
September 2006)
“Not to apply Article 54 of the CISA when a court
of a Contracting State, following the bringing of
criminal proceedings, has made a decision
acquitting the accused finally because
prosecution of the offence is time-barred would
undermine the implementation of that objective.
Such a person must therefore be regarded as
having had his trial finally disposed of for the
purposes of that provision.”
C-491/07 Turanský (22nd December
2008)
“[I]n principle, a decision must, in order to be considered
as a final disposal for the purposes of Article 54 of the
CISA, bring the criminal proceedings to an end and
definitively bar further prosecution.”
“A decision which does not, under the law of the first
Contracting State which instituted criminal proceedings
against a person, definitively bar further prosecution at
national level cannot, in principle, constitute a procedural
obstacle to the opening or continuation of criminal
proceedings in respect of the same acts against that
person in another Contracting State.”
Mantello
“[A] decision which, under the law of the
Member State which instituted criminal
proceedings against a person, does not
definitively bar further prosecution at national
level in respect of certain acts cannot, in
principle, constitute a procedural obstacle to the
possible opening or continuation of criminal
proceedings in respect of the same acts against
that person in one of the Member States of the
European Union”
The End