Ne Bis In Idem as Lex Specialis: Fair-Trial Values and Administrative Sanctions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17561/tahrj.v27.10243Keywords:
Ne bis in idem principle, Fair trial, Administrative sanctions, Concept of a criminal matterAbstract
This article examines the interaction between the ne bis in idem guarantee (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) and the right to a fair trial (Article 6 ECHR / Article 47 Charter), with a focus on administrative sanctions. It argues that, while Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 is formally autonomous, its interpretation is functionally embedded in the fair-trial framework of Article 6: ne bis in idem operates as a lex specialis constrained by Article 6 values (foreseeability, proportionality, presumption of innocence and effective judicial protection). Drawing on ECtHR and CJEU case law (notably Engel, Zolotukhin, A and B v. Norway, Åkerberg Fransson, Menci and bpost/Nordzucker), the article (i) explains the doctrinal scope of “criminal matters”; (ii) analyses Strasbourg’s treatment of administrative sanctions as criminal in character; (iii) compares the ECtHR approach with CJEU/Charter jurisprudence; and (iv) assesses practical implications for domestic dual-track enforcement, proportionality review and effective judicial protection. The analysis finds partial convergence between the courts but differing EU policy priorities, with important consequences for predictability and administrative-enforcement efficiency.
Downloads
References
AALTO, P. et al. (2014). Article 47 -Right to an Effective Remedy and to a Fair Trial. In: Peers, S., Hervey, T., Kenner, J. and Ward, A. (Eds.), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 1197–1275.
AHMED, S. (2025). Proportionality analysis and Non-refoulement Jurisprudence in India: a Comparative Approach, The Age of Human Rights Journal, 24(6), pp. 1–29, e8728 ISSN: 2340-9592. https://doi.org/10.17561/tahrj.v23.8728
ANDRUSYSHYN, B. I., BILOZOROV, Y. V., OPOLSKA, N. M., KUPINA, L. F. and TOKARCHUK, O. V. (2023). Right to a Fair Trial in Extraordinary Conditions, The Age of Human Rights Journal, 20(6), pp. 1–23, e7539. ISSN: 2340-9592. https://doi.org/10.17561/tahrj.v20.7539
BAILLEUX, A. (2014). The fiftieth shade of grey Competition law, “criministrative law” and “fairly fair trials”. In: Galli, F. and Weyembergh, A. (Eds.), Do labels still matter? Blurring boundaries between administrative and criminal law. The influence of the EU. Bruxelles. Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles, pp. 137–152.
BÁN, T. (1991). Manuscript. Ministry of the Interior, Budapest.
BERNARDI, A. et al. (2013). Country Analysis - Italy. In: Jansen, O. (Ed.), Administrative Sanctions in the European Union. Cambridge, Intersentia, pp. 289–316.
BERNARDINI, L. (2024). Reopening Criminal Proceedings and Ne Bis in Idem: Towards a Weaker Res Iudicata in Europe? European Papers, 9(1), pp. 311–335. https://doi.org/10.15166/2499-8249/759
BOCKEL, W. B. VAN. (2009, June 16). The ne bis in idem principle in EU law: a conceptual and jurisprudential analysis. Meijers-reeks. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/13844
BOCKEL, W. B. VAN. (2017). The Single Supervisory Mechanism Regulation: Questions of ne bis in idem and implications for the further integration of the system of fundamental rights protection in the EU, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 24(2), pp. 194–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X17709748
BREEN, E. (2013). Country Analysis- France. In: Jansen, O. (Ed.), Administrative Sanctions in the European Union, Cambridge, Intersentia, pp. 195–211.
CAEIRO, P and LEMOS, M. A. (2013). Country Analysis- Portugal, In: Jansen, O. (Ed.), Administrative Sanctions in the European Union. Cambridge, Intersentia, pp. 467–496.
CALLEWAERT, J. (2018). Do we still need Article 6(2) TEU? Considerations on the Absence of EU Accession to the ECHR and its Consequences, Common Market Law Review- 55(6), pp. 1685–1716.
CALLEWAERT, J. (2023). More confusion about «ne bis in idem»: judgment of the CJEU in the case of MV – 98. Available at: https://johan-callewaert.eu/more-confusion-about-ne-bis-in-idem-judgment-of-the-cjeu-in-the-case-of-mv-98/ (Accessed: 25 October 2025).
COFFEY, G. A (2022). History of the Common Law Double Jeopardy Principle: From Classical Antiquity to Modern Era, Athens Journal of Law, 8(3), pp. 253–278.
COFFEY, G. (2023). An interpretative analysis of the European ne bis in idem principle through the lens of ECHR, CFR and CISA provisions: Are three streams flowing in the same channel? New Journal of European Criminal Law, 14(3), pp. 345–373.
COUNCIL OF EUROPE (2026). Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ETS No. 117) – Signatures and Ratifications [Online]. Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=117 (Accessed: 22 January 2026).
DANNECKER, G. (2013). Country Analysis-Germany. In: Jansen, O. (Ed.), Administrative Sanctions in the European Union. Cambridge, Intersentia, pp. 213–254.
ECtHR (2026). Guide on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights Right not to be tried or punished twice. Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights.
GELLÉR, B. (2018). Conflict between jurisdictions and branches of law in light of the European interpretation of the ne bis in idem principle. In: Menyhárd, A. and Varga, I. (Eds.), The Faculty of Law and Political Sciences of Eötvös Loránd University is 350 years old. Studies from the anniversary year conference series. Volume II. ELTE, Budapest, pp. 1353–1379.
GIRONDEAU, L. (2021). Contribution à l'étude de la pénalisation du droit fiscal, L’Hartmann.
GROUSSOT, X. and ERICSSON, A. (2016). Ne Bis in Idem in the EU and ECHR Legal Orders: A Matter of Uniform Interpretation? In: Bockel, W. B. van (Ed.), Ne Bis in Idem in EU Law, Cambridge University Press, pp. 53–102.
JANSEN, O. (ed.) (2013). Administrative Sanctions in the European Union. Cambridge, Intersentia.
KENNER, J. (2014). Article 30-Protection in the Event of Unjusitified Dismissal. In: Peers, S., Hervey, T., Kenner, J. and Ward, A. (Eds.), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary. Nomos, C. H. Beck, Hart Publishing, pp. 805–832.
MCELLDOWNEY, J. (2013). Country Analysis- United Kingdom. In: Jansen, O. (ed.) Administrative Sanctions in the European Union, Cambridge, Intersentia, pp. 585-606.
NE BIS IN IDEM AND THE DMA: THE CJEU’S JUDGMENTS IN BPOST AND NORDZUCKER – PART II (2022). Available at: https://theplatformlaw.blog/2022/03/29/ne-bis-in-idem-and-the-dma-the-cjeus-judgments-in-bpost-and-nordzucker-part-ii/ (Accessed: 28 November 2025).
ORGANISATION OF AMERICAN STATES (2026). American Convention on Human Rights [Online]. Available at: https://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.htm (Accessed: 25 January 2026)
PALIERO, C. E. (2013). The Definition of Administrative Sanctions - General Report. In: Jansen, O. (Ed.), Administrative Sanctions in the European Union. Cambridge, Intersentia, pp. 1–34.
REPETTO, G. (2013). Introduction. The ECHR and the European Constituional Landscape: Reassessing Paradigms. In: Repetto, G. (Ed.) The Constitutional Relevance of the ECHR in Domestic and European Law. An Italian Perspective. Cambridge, Intersentia, pp. 1–20.
ROSANO, A. (2017). Ne Bis Interpretatio In Idem? The Two Faces of the Ne Bis In Idem Principle in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice, German Law Journal, 18(1), pp. 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200021866
ROSSI, P. and MARCIANO, A. (2021). Reasoned Approach to Prohibiting the Bis in Idem, Eucrim, 15(4). pp. 270–271.
RUDSTEIN, D. S. (2005). A Brief History of the Fifth Amendment Guarantee Against Double Jeopardy, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 14(1), pp. 193-242.
ŠUGMAN STUBBS, K. and JAGER, M. (2014). The organization of administrative and criminal law in national legal systems: exclusion, organized or non-organized co-existence. In: Galli, F. and Weyembergh, A. (Eds.), Do labels still matter? Blurring boundaries between administrative and criminal law. The influence of the EU. Bruxelles. Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles, pp. 155-169.
TAUBNER, Z. (1991). Manuscript. Ministry of the Interior, Budapest.
VEDSTED-HANSEN, J. (2014). Article 7 – Respect for Private and Family Life. In: Peers, S., Hervey, T., Kenner, J. and Ward, A. (Eds.), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary. Oxford/Munich/Baden-Baden: Hart Publishing, C.H. Beck and Nomos, pp. 153–182.
TOMKIN, J. (2021). “Commentary on Article 50 – Right not to be tried or punished twice”. In: Peers, S., Hervey, T., Kenner, J. and Ward, A. (Eds.), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary, para 50.74. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
VERVAELE, J. A. E. (2005). The transnational ne bis in idem principle in the EU Mutual recognition and equivalent protection of human rights, Utrecht Law Review, 1(2), pp. 100–118.
WAGNER, V. and NOWAK, M. (2010). ‘Monitoring the Protection of Human Rights in the European Union: An Evaluation of Mechanisms and Tools’. In: De Schutter, O. and Moreno, L. V. (Eds), Human Rights in the Web of Governance, pp. 101-204.
WAHL, T. (2022). CJEU Clarified Duplication of Punitive Administrative Proceedings in Competition Law, Eucrim, 16(2), pp. 116–118.
CASE LAW
CJEU Judgment in Case C-117/20, bpost SA, ECLI:EU:C:2022:202.
CJEU Judgment in Case C-122/23, Legafact, ECLI:EU:C:2024:293.
CJEU Judgment in Case C-151/20, Nordzucker, ECLI:EU:C:2022:203.
CJEU Judgment in Case C-17/10, Toshiba, ECLI:EU:C:2012:72.
CJEU Judgment in Case C-217/15, Baldetti, ECLI:EU:C:2017:264.
CJEU Judgment in Case C-284/11, EMS-Bulgaria Transport, ECLI:EU:C:2012:458.
CJEU Judgment in Case C-31/23, Ferriere Nord, ECLI:EU:C:2024:851.
CJEU Judgment in Case C-331/23, Dranken Van Eetvelde, ECLI:EU:C:2024:1027.
CJEU Judgment in Case C-412/21, Dual Prod, ECLI:EU:C:2023:234.
CJEU Judgment in Case C-439/19, Latvijas Republikas Saeima [Penalty points], ECLI:EU:C:2021:504.
CJEU Judgment in Case C-511/23, Caronte&Tourist, ECLI:EU:C:2025:42.
CJEU Judgment in Case C-524/15, Luca Menci, ECLI:EU:C:2018:197.
CJEU Judgment in Case C-534/16, BB construct, ECLI:EU:C:2017:820.
CJEU Judgment in Case C-570/20, BV, ECLI:EU:C:2022:348.
CJEU Judgment in Case C-605/23, Ati-19, ECLI:EU:C:2025:513.
CJEU Judgment in Case C-617/10, Åkerberg Fransson, ECLI:EU:C:2013:105.
CJEU Judgment in Case C-7/72, Boehringer Mannheim, ECLI:EU:C:1972:125.
CJEU Judgment in Case C-733/23, Beach and Bar, ECLI:EU:C:2025:515.
CJEU Judgment in Case C-81/20, Mitliv Exim, ECLI:EU:C:2021:510.
CJEU Judgment in Case C-820/21, Vinal AD, ECLI:EU:C:2023:667.
CJEU Judgment in Case C-97/21, MV-98, ECLI:EU:C:2023:371.
CJEU Judgment in Case T-91/12 and T-280/12, Flying Holding, ECLI:EU:T:2014:832.
ECtHR Case of A and B v. Norway, judgment of 15 November 2016 (App. nos. 24130/11; 29758/11).
ECtHR Case of Bendenoun v. France, judgment of 24 February 1994 (App. No. 12547/86).
ECtHR Case of Blokker v. the Netherlands, judgement of 7 November 2000 (App. No. 45282/99).
ECtHR Case of Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 8 June 1976 (App. nos. 5100/7; 5101/71; 5102/71; 5354/72; 5370/72).
ECtHR Case of Galović v. Croatia, judgement of 31 August 2021 (final 30/11/2021) (App. No. 45512/11).
ECtHR Case of Janosevic v. Sweden, judgment of 23 July 2002 (App. No. 34619/97).
ECtHR Case of Jussila v. Finland, judgment of 23 November 2006 (App. No. 73053/01).
ECtHR Case of K. S. v. the Federal Republic of Germany, judgement of 16 December 1983 (App. No. 10431/83).
ECtHR Case of Matijašić v. Croatia, judgment of 1 July 2021 (App. No. 38771/15).
ECtHR Case of Matthildur Ingvarsdottir v. Iceland, judgment of 17 January 2019 (App. No. 22779/14).
ECtHR Case of Mihalache v. Romania, judgement of 8 July 2019 (App. No. 54012/10).
ECtHR Case of Nodet v. France, judgment of 6 June 2019 (App. No. 47342/14).
ECtHR Case of Smoković v. Croatia, judgement of 12 November 2019 (App. No. 57849/12).
ECtHR Case of X. v. The Netherlands, judgement of 11 December 1981 (App. No. 9433/81).
ECtHR Case of Zolotukhin v. Russia, judgment of 10 February 2009 (App. No. 14939/03).
Opinion of Advocate General Bobek in Case C-574/15, Mauro Scialdone, ECLI:EU:C:2017:553.
Opinion of Advocate General Bot in Case C-358/16, UBS Europe and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2017:606.
Opinion of Advocate General Collins in Case C-412/21, Dual Prod, ECLI:EU:C:2022:821.
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-17/10, Toshiba Corporation and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2011:552.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Zsuzsanna Árva
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
