Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  181 / 350 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 181 / 350 Next Page
Page Background

SOME GUARANTEES REGARDING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS APPLICABLE …

transportation of drugs, punishable under a few legal provisions,

58

this Article does

not preclude the separate offences being tried by the same court.

59

The expression “under the jurisdiction of the same State” sets limits on the

application of the article in such a way that it is relevant only on the national level.

However, there exist several conventions that permit the application of the principle

at the international level. For instance, the European Convention on the International

Validity of Criminal Judgments,

60

the European Convention on Extradition,

61

the

European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters.

62

For

instance, if an applicant NGO was established under the laws of Costa Rica but

exercised its activities in one of the CoE member states that assumingly breached the

rights of the applicant company, it is also possible in the course of evaluation to take

into account the Inter-American Convention on Extradition.

63

The second paragraph provides that the principle of

ne bis in idem

does not

prevent a case from being re-opened if there is evidence of new or newly discovered

facts, irrespective of the question whether this is in favor of or to the detriment of the

person concerned.

64

The Court set forth the basic principles of application of the provision of Article 4

of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention in the case of

Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia.

65

It is

again emphasized that the legal characterization of the procedure under national law

cannot be the sole criterion of relevance for the applicability of the principle of

non

bis in idem

under Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7; the

Engel test

has to be applied.

Otherwise, the application of this provision would be left to the discretion of the

states to a degree that might lead to results incompatible with the object and purpose

of the Convention.

There are a number of cases where the applicant NGOs’ alleged a violation

of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. For example, in the case of

K.S. and K.S. AG

v. Switzerland,

66

in which the application was lodged with the Court by two applicants.

The first applicant was a Swiss national who had the function of chairman and main

58

The applicant was ordered to serve imprisonment in default for failure to pay customs fines, in addition

to prison sentences for drug trafficking that resulted in two consecutive terms of imprisonment for the

same offence.

59

Göktan v. France

, No. 33402/96, § 52, ECHR 2002-V.

60

European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments. The Hague, 28.V.1970.

Available at

http://www.conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/070.htm

.

61

European Convention on Extradition. Paris, 13.XII.1957. Available from

http://conventions.coe.int

/

Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/024.htm.

62

EuropeanConventionontheTransferofProceedingsinCriminalMatters.Strasbourg,15.V.1972.Available

at

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=073&CM=1&CL=ENG.

63

Inter-American Convention on Extradition. Caracas, Republic of Venezuela, on 25 February 1981.

Available at

http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/b-47.html.

64

Van Dijk, P., Van Hoof, F., Van Rijn, A., Zwaak, L. eds. Theory and practice of the European

Convention on Human Rights. – 4th ed. – Antwerpen ; Oxford : Intersentia, 2006, p. 982.

65

Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia

[GC], No. 14939/03, ECHR 2009.

66

K.S. and K.S. AG v. Switzerland

(dec.), No. 19117/91, 12 January 1994.