CELEX: C2006/294/23
Language: en
Date: 2006-12-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-150/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Jean Leon Van Straaten v Staat der Nederlanden and Republiek Italië (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Ne bis in idem principle — Meaning of the same acts and of trial disposed of — Exporting in one State and importing in another State — Acquittal of the accused)

2.12.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 294/14
            
         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Jean Leon Van Straaten v Staat der Nederlanden and Republiek Italië
   (Case C-150/05) (1)
   
   (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Ne bis in idem principle - Meaning of ‘the same acts’ and of ‘trial disposed of’ - Exporting in one State and importing in another State - Acquittal of the accused)
   (2006/C 294/23)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank 's-Hertogenbosch
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicant: Jean Leon Van Straaten
   
      Defendants: Staat der Nederlanden and Republiek Italië
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank 's-Hertogenbosch — Interpretation of Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19) — Ne bis in idem principle — ‘Same acts’ and ‘trial disposed of’ — Offence prosecuted as acts of exporting in one State and as acts of importing in another — Whether a trial is finally disposed of in the case where the person charged is acquitted
   Operative part of the judgment
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed on 19 June 1990 in Schengen, 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;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           in the case of offences relating to narcotic drugs, the quantities of the drug that are at issue in the two Contracting States concerned or the persons alleged to have been party to the acts in the two States are not required to be identical;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           punishable acts consisting of exporting and of importing the same narcotic drugs and which are prosecuted in different Contracting States party to that Convention are, in principle, to be regarded as ‘the same acts’ for the purposes of Article 54 of the Convention, the definitive assessment in that respect being the task of the competent national courts.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               The ne bis in idem principle, enshrined in Article 54 of that Convention, falls to be applied in respect of a decision of the judicial authorities of a Contracting State by which the accused is acquitted finally for lack of evidence.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.06.2005.