SpringerLink
Log in

Towards a New Model of Settlement of Conflicts: Background and Methodology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Conflicts of Criminal Jurisdiction and Transfer of Proceedings in the EU

Part of the book series: Comparative, European and International Criminal Justice ((CEICJ,volume 3))

  • 106 Accesses

Abstract

After analyzing the EU regulatory framework on the prevention and settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction, and, more specifically, the solutions adopted through secondary law legislation, we can sustain that there is no procedure that establishes a homogeneous solution, nor one which guarantees that once the conflict has occurred, it will be settled after consideration of all the circumstances applicable to the case and in the interest of proper administration of justice. Both practice and law-making representatives strive for a new legal framework on this issue. We consider that the lack of specific legislative proposals should be tackled by the academia through the recommendation of new hypothetical solutions and models for the prevention and settling of conflicts. These will encourage a renewed debate on the opportunity to comprehensively improve the system, guaranteeing the effective prosecution of transnational crime and, at the same time, full respect for the guarantees and procedural rights and safeguards of the parties involved in the proceedings. Consequently, and in line with the main objectives of this book, in this chapter we will define the methodological bases for proposing our own de lege ferenda models in order to improve the current standard for the prevention and resolution of conflicts of criminal jurisdiction between Member States.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In this sense, Weyembergh (2011), pp. 93–94; Patrone (2013), pp. 222–224.

  2. 2.

    Draft European Convention on conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal matters, DOC. 1873 COE, (Strasbourg, 4 January 1965).

  3. 3.

    Recommendation 420 of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe of 29 January 1965 on the settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal matters.

  4. 4.

    Arts. 2(2), 3 and 7 Draft European Convention on conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal matters.

  5. 5.

    Art. 7 Draft European Convention on conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal matters.

  6. 6.

    Arts. 4, 5 and 6 Draft European Convention on conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal matters.

  7. 7.

    Art. 3(2) Draft European Convention on conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal matters.

  8. 8.

    Art. 3(3) Draft European Convention on conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal matters. Those factors were the following: first, the State on whose territory the constituent factor of the offence or attempted offence was committed or the constituent omission occurred; then, the State on whose territory an act of complicity was committed; lastly the State on whose territory the effect was produced. Where more than one State can claim equal right to exercise jurisdiction, primary right of jurisdiction shall lie with the State on whose territory the offender is found.

  9. 9.

    In this sense, see the general observations made on the Explanatory Report to the European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters (Strasbourg, 15 May 1972), pp. 6–7.

  10. 10.

    Vermeulen et al. (2002), p. 22.

  11. 11.

    Art. 22(2) and (3); Art. 25(2) and (3).

  12. 12.

    Art. 25(6) Regulation 2017/1939, cit.

  13. 13.

    According to Vilas Álvarez, this provision would apparently apply to negative conflicts of jurisdiction, given the system of exchange of information between the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the national authorities established in Art. 25 of the Regulation, although without ruling out that Art. 25(3), which allows the national authority to discuss the jurisdiction of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office based on a criterion of harm or seriousness of the penalty, could serve as a vehicle for the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to analyse whether it agrees with the national authority and, in the event of discrepancy, could raise a positive conflict of jurisdiction. See Vilas Álvarez (2018), pp. 74–75.

  14. 14.

    Estevez Mendoza (2017), pp. 106–122.

  15. 15.

    As it was already pointed out in Hernández López (2018), pp. 488–489. This issue has been partially solved by means of the adoption of an ad hoc legislation to implement the EPPO in Spain. In this regard, see the solution provided in Art. 9 of the Ley Orgánica 9/2021 de aplicación del Reglamento (UE) 2017/1939 del Consejo, de 12 de octubre de 2017, por el que se establece una cooperación reforzada para la creación de la Fiscalía Europea (OJ 157, of 2 July 2021).

  16. 16.

    On this issue, see Panzavolta (2018), pp. 79–81.

  17. 17.

    Art. 36(3) Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, cit. The use of this indeterminacy (“in principle”) is striking in contrast to the absolute power that the Commission seemed to want to confer on the Prosecutor’s Office in this matter in its proposal for Council Regulation COM 2013 (534) final, cit. For full information on the design of the organisational structure of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, see recitals 20 ff. and Section I and II of Chapter III of the Regulation.

  18. 18.

    Art. 26(4) and (5) Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, cit.

  19. 19.

    See Art. 27(4) Proposal for a Council Regulation COM 2013 (534) final, cit.

  20. 20.

    In this sense, see AA.VV. (2013) and Moreno Catena (2014), pp. 440–441.

  21. 21.

    See e.g. Baláž, C-60/12, 14 November 2013, EU:C:2013:733. In this decision, the Luxembourg Court held that the concept of ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ laid down in Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties (OJ L 76 of 22 March 2005) is an autonomous concept of EU law which must be interpreted as meaning that it covers any court conducting proceedings in which the essential characteristics of criminal proceedings are present.

  22. 22.

    Letsas (2004), p. 281.

  23. 23.

    An overview of this jurisprudence up to 2013 can be found in the Guide on article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Right to a fair trial (criminal limb), Council of Europe, 2014, pp. 8–10.

  24. 24.

    Cf. ECtHR Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, CE:ECHR:1980:0227JUD000690375 § 46; Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, CE:ECHR:1982:0715JUD000813078, § 73.

  25. 25.

    Cf. ECtHR Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, CE:ECHR:1984:0221JUD000854479, §§ 49 and 50.

  26. 26.

    Cf. ECtHR Lutz v. Germany, 25 August 1987, CE:ECHR:1987:0825JUD000991282; Malige v. France, 23 September 1998, CE:ECHR:1998:0923JUD002781295; Lauko v. Slovakia, 2 September 1988, CE:ECHR:1998:0902JUD002613895.

  27. 27.

    See Chap. 3.

  28. 28.

    ECtHR Engel and Others v. The Netherlands, 8 June 1976, CE:ECHR:1976:1123JUD000510071, in which the Strasbourg Court, following the establishment and application of criteria for determining the actual nature of a sanction, held that some of the military disciplinary sanctions applied to the individuals in the specific case should be considered criminal in nature for the purposes of the Convention. For an analysis of Art. 6(1) ECHR, see Arangüena Fanego (2011), pp. 153–166.

  29. 29.

    In this regard, see the analysis of the ECtHR case law in the Opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona, M., in the Menci case of 12 September 2017, EU:C:2017:667, §§ 44–52.

  30. 30.

    Cf. STC 77/1983 of 3 October 1983, ES:TC:1983:77; 159/1985 of 17 December 1985, ES:TC:1985:159; 107/1989 of 8 June 1989, ES:TC:1989:107; 222/1997 of 4 December 1997, ES:TC:1997:222.

  31. 31.

    Cf. STC 177/1999 of 18 November 1999, ES:TC:1999:177.

  32. 32.

    Cf. STC 234/1991 of 10 December 1991, ES:TC:1991:234.

  33. 33.

    Cf. STC 2/2003 of 16 January 2003, ES:TC:2003:2, FJ 6°.

  34. 34.

    Cf. STC 188/2005, of 4 July 2005, ES:TC:2005:188, FJ 2°; 77/2010, of 19 October, ES:TC:2010:77, FJ 4°.

  35. 35.

    Cf. STS n. 102/2017, of 20 February 2017, ES:TS:2017:695, FJ 1°; SAP Burgos 44/2018, of 17 January 2018, ES:APBU:2018:44. However, in the field of tax offences, following the reform of offences against the Public Treasury of Arts. 305 ff. Spanish penal code operated by LO 7/2012 (OJ n. 312 of 28 December 2012) and the consequent reform of the LGT (OJ n. 308 of 18 December 2003) and the addition of Art. 999 LECrim through Law 34/2015 (OJ n.N. 227 of 22 September 2015), the obligation of the administrative penalty proceedings in favour of criminal proceedings for the same facts cannot be considered absolute, cf. the legal reasoning used in AAP Murcia 2000/2018, 28 February 2018, ES:APMU:2018:200A.

  36. 36.

    In this sense, Cf. STC 18/1981, of 8 June 1981, ES:TC:1981:18, FJ 2°.

  37. 37.

    However, on the different theories on the distinction between administrative infringement and offence, see the doctrinal position in favour of the quantitative or unitary thesis of Gómez Tomillo and Sanz Rubiales (2017), pp. 75–112.

  38. 38.

    Böse et al. (2014), pp. 381 ff.

  39. 39.

    Ligeti et al. (2017), pp. 54–60; Ligeti et al. (2018) pp. 70–76.

  40. 40.

    Mapelli Marchena (2014), pp. 503 ff.

  41. 41.

    That solution is precisely foreseen by the third model proposed by Ligeti et al. (2017), pp. 56–58; Ligeti et al. (2018), pp. 72.74, Art. 6.

  42. 42.

    The model that most closely resembles this solution is the one proposed by Böse et al. (2014), pp. 381–411, Arts. 1–7.

  43. 43.

    It should be recalled that the Regulation establishing the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is the result of enhanced cooperation, since in the very tough negotiations that preceded its adoption, it became clear time and again that the Member States were unable to reach a consensus on the establishment of this body. In this regard, see the results of the Council meeting (general affairs) of 7 February 2017 (Council document 6035/17 of 7 February 2017).

  44. 44.

    Directive (EU) 2017/1371, cit.

  45. 45.

    Zimmerman (2015); Böse (2013), pp. 1–21.

  46. 46.

    Ibidem, pp. 13 and 14.

  47. 47.

    However, this does not prevent, as Sanz Morán reminds, “that the criminal policy of each country may require specific legislative actions”. Sanz Morán (2008), p. 290.

  48. 48.

    Mapelli Marchena (2014), p. 510.

  49. 49.

    Council Framework Decision 2008/315/JHA of 26 February 2009 on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from criminal records between Member States (OJ L 93 of 7 April 2009).

  50. 50.

    Outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting held on 7–8 December 2017 in Brussels (Council Document 15567/1/17/REV 1 of 7 December 2017), p. 12.

  51. 51.

    Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council COM(2017) 344 final establishing a centralised system for the identification of Member States holding information on convictions of third-country nationals and stateless persons (NTPs) in order to complement and support the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS-TCN system) and amending Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011.

  52. 52.

    Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council COM(2016) 7 final amending Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA as regards the exchange of information on third-country nationals and the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) and replacing Council Decision 2009/316/JHA. Accompanied by the summary of the impact assessment as set out in the Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2016) 4 final of 19 January 2016.

  53. 53.

    Regulation (EU) 2019/816 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 establishing a centralised system for the identification of Member States holding information on convictions of third-country nationals and stateless persons (ECRIS-TCN) to complement the European Criminal Records Information System and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1726 (OJ L 135 of 22 May 2019); Directive (EU) 2019/884 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 amending Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA as regards the exchange of information on third-country nationals and the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) and replacing Council Decision 2009/316/JHA (OJ L 151, 7 June 2019).

  54. 54.

    Cross-border Digital Criminal Justice. Final Report, junio 2020, DOI: 10.2838/118529, p. 10.

  55. 55.

    Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119, 4 May 2016).

  56. 56.

    See Art. 16(1) TFEU.

  57. 57.

    See Art. 8(1) CFREU.

  58. 58.

    See por todos Colomer Hernández et al. (2017); Colomer Hernández and Oubiña Barbolla (2015); Gutiérrez Zarza (2016); Gutiérrez Zarza (2010).

  59. 59.

    Opinion 11/2017 of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the proposal for a Regulation on ECRIS-TCN of 12 December 2017 (full text available in English, French and German). A summary of this opinion was published in OJ C 55 of 14 February 2018.

References

  • AA.VV. (2013) A manifesto on European Criminal Procedure Law. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik (ZIS), 11/2013, 430–446

    Google Scholar 

  • Arangüena Fanego C (2011) Initial approach to the right to a fair trial and to the demands of Article 6.1 ECHR, in particular, the right of access to a court (Art. 6 ECHR). In: García Roca J, Santolaya P (eds) Europe of rights: a compendium on the European Convention of Human Rights. Martinus Nijhoff publishers, Leiden, Boston, pp 153–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Böse M (2013) Choice of forum and jurisdiction. In: Luchtman M (ed) Choice of forum in cooperation against EU financial crime. Eleven International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Böse M, Meyer F, Schneider A (eds) (2014) Conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal matters in the European Union. Volume II: Rights, principles and model rules. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Colomer Hernández I (Dir.), Oubiña Barbolla S (Coord.) (2015) La transmisión de datos personales en el seno de la cooperación judicial penal y policial en la Unión Europea. Thomson Reuters-Aranzadi, Cizur Menor

    Google Scholar 

  • Colomer Hernández I (Dir.), Oubiña Barbolla S, Catalina Benavente M (Coords.), Alcoceba Gil JM (2017) Cesión de datos personales y evidencias entre procesos penales y procedimientos administrativos sancionadores o tributarios. Thomson Reuters-Aranzadi, Cizur Menor

    Google Scholar 

  • Estevez Mendoza L (2017) La instauración de la Fiscalía Europea como cooperación reforzada: problemas orgánicos y procesales. Revista de Estudios Europeos, extra:106–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez Tomillo M, Sanz Rubiales I (2017) Derecho administrativo sancionador. Parte General. Thomson Reuters-Aranzadi, Cizur Menor

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez Zarza MA (2010) La protección de datos personales como derecho fundamental del imputado, ¿también en el ámbito del proceso penal?. La ley penal: revista de derecho penal, procesal y penitenciario, 71

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez Zarza MA (2016) Exchange of information and data protection in cross-border criminal proceedings in Europe. Springer Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernández López A (2018) Garantías procesales en la prevención y resolución de conflictos de jurisdicción penal: marco normativo en la UE y perspectivas de futuro. In: Arangüena Fanego C, De Hoyos Sancho M (Dirs.), Vidal Fernández B (Coord.) Garantías procesales de investigados y acusados. Situación actual en el ámbito de la Unión Europea. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, pp 461–492

    Google Scholar 

  • Letsas G (2004) The truth in autonomous concepts: how to interpret the ECHR. Eur J Int Law 15(2):279–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ligeti K, Klip A, Vervaele JAE (2017) Draft Legislative Proposals for the prevention and resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal matters in the European Union. Result of the Project Prevention and Settlement of Conflicts of Exercise of Jurisdiction in Criminal Law. European Law Institute, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Ligeti K, Klip A, Vervaele JAE, Robinson G (2018) Preventing and resolving conflicts of jurisdiction in EU criminal law: a European Law Institute Instrument. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mapelli Marchena C (2014) El Modelo Penal de la Unión Europea. Thomson Reuters-Aranzadi, Cizur Menor

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno Catena V (2014) Fiscalía Europea y Derechos Fundamentales. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia

    Google Scholar 

  • Panzavolta M (2018) Choosing the national forum in proceedings conducted by the EPPO: who is to decide? In: Bachmaier Winter L (ed) The European public prosecutor’s office. The challenges ahead. Springer, Cham, pp 59–86

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Patrone I (2013) Conflicts of jurisdiction and judicial cooperation instruments: Eurojust’s role. ERA Forum 14(2):215–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanz Morán AJ (2008) Presente y futuro de la armonización del Derecho Penal Material. In: De Hoyos Sancho M (Coord.) El Proceso Penal de la Unión Europea. Lex Nova, Valladolid, pp 285–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen G, Beken TV, Steverlynck S, Thomaes S (2002) Finding the best place for prosecution: European study on jurisdiction criteria. Maklu, Antwerpen

    Google Scholar 

  • Vilas Álvarez D (2018) La competencia material de la Fiscalía Europea. In: Bachmaier Winter L (Coord.) La Fiscalía Europea. Marcial Pons, Madrid, pp 53–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyembergh A (2011) The development of Eurojust: potential and limitations of Article 85 of the TFEU. New J Eur Crim Law 2(1):75–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman F (2015) Conflicts of criminal jurisdiction in the European Union. Bergen J Crim Just 3(1):1–21

    Google Scholar 

Further Reading

  • Ambos K (2018) International economic criminal law. Crim Law Forum 29:499–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brière C, Weyembergh A (eds) (2018) The needed balances in EU criminal law: past, present and future. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Herlin-Karnell E (2012) The constitutional dimension of European criminal law. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2017) Mutual recognition of judicial decisions in European criminal law. Springer, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rafaraci T, Belfiore R (eds) (2019) EU criminal justice. fundamental rights, transnational proceedings and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Satzger H (2019) Is mutual recognition a viable general path for cooperation? New J Eur Crim Law 10(1):44–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Bogdandy A, Spieker LM (2019) Countering the Judicial silencing of critics: Article 2 TEU values, reverse solange, and the responsibilities of national judges. Eur Const Law Rev 15:391–426

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendel M (2019) Mutual trust, essence and federalism – between consolidating and fragmenting the area of freedom, security and justice after LM. Eur Const Law Rev 15:17–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyembergh A, Joncheray N (2016) Punitive administrative sanctions and procedural safeguards: a blurred picture that needs to be addressed. New J Eur Crim Law 7:2

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain

    Alejandro Hernández López

Authors
  1. Alejandro Hernández López
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hernández López, A. (2022). Towards a New Model of Settlement of Conflicts: Background and Methodology. In: Conflicts of Criminal Jurisdiction and Transfer of Proceedings in the EU. Comparative, European and International Criminal Justice, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15691-5_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15691-5_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-15690-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-15691-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation