Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2006:165
Date: 2006-03-09
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Treaty on European Union (1992)
Subject matter: Justice and home affairs;Closer cooperation
Concepts: Ne bis in idem;Ne bis in idem principle
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the Judgment 1. European Union – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis – Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement – Ne bis in idem principle (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, Art. 54) 2. European Union – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis – Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement – Ne bis in idem principle (Protocol No 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, Art. 4; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 14(7); Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, Art. 54) 1. The ne bis in idem principle, enshrined in Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, must be applied to criminal proceedings brought in a Contracting State for acts for which a person has already been convicted in another Contracting State even though the Convention was not yet in force in the latter State at the time at which that person was convicted, in so far as the Convention was in force in the Contracting States in question at the time of the assessment, by the court before which the second proceedings were brought, of the conditions of applicability of the ne bis in idem principle. (see para. 24, operative part 1) 2. Contrary to Article 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 4 of Protocol No 7 to the European Convention of Human Rights, which enshrine the ne bis in idem principle by using the term ‘offence’, Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA) must be interpreted as meaning that the relevant criterion for the purposes of the application of that article is identity of the material acts, understood as the existence of a set of facts which are inextricably linked together, irrespective of the legal classification given to them or the legal interest protected. Nowhere in Title VI of the Treaty on European Union relating to police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, or in the Schengen Agreement or the CISA itself, is the application of Article 54 of the CISA made conditional upon harmonisation, or at the least approximation, of the criminal laws of the Member States. The ne bis in idem principle thus necessarily implies that the Contracting States have mutual trust in their criminal justice systems and that, since there is no harmonisation of national criminal laws, each of them recognises the criminal law in force in the other Contracting States even when the outcome would be different if its own national law were applied. The definitive assessment of the identity of the material acts belongs 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. It follows that punishable acts consisting of exporting and importing the same narcotic drugs and which are prosecuted in different Contracting States to the CISA are, in principle, to be regarded as ‘the same acts’ for the purposes of Article 54, the definitive assessment in that respect being the task of the competent national courts. (see paras 28-30, 35-36, 38, 42, operative part 2)