Übersetzung für "Verbot der doppelbestrafung" in Englisch

Is the prohibition of double punishment of taxes invalid?

In order to ensure the smooth application of this Directive in each particular case, the competent authorities of the issuing and the executing States should exercise their competencies in accordance with the provisions of this Directive, taking into account the principle of ne bis in idem.

They argue that the separate fine imposed by the Czech authority therefore infringes the prohibition against punishing the same offence twice (ne bis in idem principle).

Further safeguards would be provided by the ne bis in idem (double jeopardy) principle being a ground for refusal to execute the European Evidence Warrant.

In Joined Cases C-187/01 Gözütok and C-385/01 Brügge,137 the Court of Justice held that the “ne bis in idem” principle, enshrined in Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, signed on 19 June 1990, applied also to proceedings for withdrawal of prosecutions, such as those in the principal action, whereby the prosecution service in a Member State, without a court order, terminates the criminal proceedings commenced in that State after the accused has met certain obligations, in particular by paying a certain sum of money set by the prosecution service (out-of-court settlements).

The ne bis in idem principle does not, however, prevent a person who has suffered as a result of the accused's conduct from bringing a civil action to seek compensation for the damage.

That is why the Charter and, therefore, the prohibition on being punished twice which it contains are applicable to Mr Åkerberg Fransson’s situation and may be interpreted by the Court.

If Cassidy walks, you can't try this case again-- double jeopardy.

Double jeopardy protected her from a second, and I was quite confident that although she had killed, she was not a killer.

The second mandatory ground for non-enforcement concerns situations where 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 (Article 3(2) of the Framework Decision, “ne bis in idem” principle).

Modifications concerning the time or place of the offence are allowed, in so far as they derive from evidence gathered in the course of the proceedings conducted in the issuing State concerning the conduct described in the arrest warrant, do not alter the nature of the offence and do not lead to grounds for nonexecution under Articles 3 and 4 of the framework decision.

It added that therewas a necessary implication in the ne bis in idemprin-ciple,enshrined in Article54 of the CISA,that the contracting States had mutual trust in their criminal justicesystems and that each of them recognised the criminallaw in force in the other contracting States even whenthe outcome would be different if its own national lawwere applied.

Further, to use the expression in Article 6(3) TEU, the ECHR does not actually ‘guarantee’ the ne bis in idem principle in the same way as it guarantees the core principles of the ECHR by which all the States that are parties to the convention are bound.

Those considerations lead me to conclude that the determination of the Court’s jurisdiction to rule on whether there is sufficient respect for the ne bis in idem principle in this case must be based on an assessment of the subject-matter concerned: the imposition of penalties by the State pursuant to Union law.

In future, the possibility of being fined twice for severe antitrust breaches by the EU Commission and the CMA can no longer be ruled out, since the ban on being punished twice for the same offence (ne bis in idem) no longer applies vis-à-vis third countries.

In particular, the second question concerns the classification of the same facts for the purposes of the ne bis in idem principle, in other words, the finding that the same conduct is being tried again.

In a current ruling, the Grand Senate of the Supreme Court allowed for the criminal prosecution of an individual who had already been punished for tax evasion by the finance office, stating that the principle of ne bis in idem is not being violated if the two types of procedure supplement each other, focus on different aspects of the given unlawful conduct, and are interconnected in terms of subject matter or of the timeline.

The Court confirmed that Article95 of the Treaty wasthe appropriate legal basis as,before the directive wasadopted,food supplements were regulated by differingnational rules liable to impede their free movement andthe functioning of the internal market.

In the case in the main proceedings, in which it is agreed that the penalty imposed was no longer capable of being enforced in 2002 when the second criminal proceedings were instituted in Germany, it would be contrary to the effective application of Article 54 of the CISA to rule out its application solely on the ground of the specific features of the French criminal proceedings which made enforcement of the penalty conditional on a further conviction pronounced in the presence of the accused.

The Court observes with regard to the principle preventing a person from being punished twice that that principle does not preclude a Member State from imposing, for the same acts of evading declaration obligations in the field of VAT, a combination of tax penalties and criminal penalties.

It asked the Court to rule on the application, in the Schengen area, of the ne bis in idem principle.

The Schengen implementing Convention does not make application of the ne bis in idem principle subject to any requirements of this kind as to form or procedure.

The rule prohibiting cumulation refers to cumulation of two penalties of the same kind, that is to say criminal-law penalties.

The question referred was therefore whether the decision to discontinue the prosecution in the Netherlandsunder the ne bis in idemprinciple,enshrined in Arti-cle54 of the Convention implementing the Schengenagreement,prevented the Netherlands authorities fromcooperating with the Italian authorities.

He recalled that it was often these levels of government that were responsible for implementation of EU legislation, particularly environmental legislation.

The third and fourth questions concern the procedural aspect of the ne bis in idem principle, which involves the prohibition of double prosecution.

Doreen Lawrence has made a lucrative career out of her dead son and has campaigned to end the double jeopardy rule, which prevents the same person being tried twice for the same crime.

The three questions refer to different elements of the same fundamental right, which I shall examine below, but always as an integral part of the ne bis in idem principle.