Edited by Mark Dawson, Bruno De Witte and Elise Muir
Chapter 12: Strategies developed by – and between – national governments to interact with the ECJ
In its decision in the joined cases Gözütok and Brügge, the ECJ was called upon to clarify the ne bis in idem principle as laid down in Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement. This decision may well be labeled as the ‘Cassis de Dijon’ in European criminal law. The ECJ was asked to clarify whether the ne bis in idem principles apply when criminal proceedings have been finally decided within one Member State as the result of a settlement with the prosecuting authority (transaction). The German and French government submitted that Article 54 of the Convention should be interpreted literally so as not to include settlement procedures. The ECJ decided otherwise, and argued that Member States should have mutual trust in their criminal justice systems and recognize the criminal law in force in other Member States even when the outcome would be different if their own national law were applied. One may of course consider this judgment as activist. The Dutch government, however, would never criticize the ECJ for having been activist in this particular case. On the contrary, the final outcome was in line with the position adopted by the Dutch government (as well as the Italian government and the Commission) before the ECJ.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.