English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 December 2016 in the Kossowski case (C – 486/14) introduced a partly new interpretation of article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 and perception of the ne bis in idem principle in the EU generally. According to the judgment, the ne bis in idem principle is not to be applied to final decisions of the authorities in the member states if the criminal investigation of the case was not detailed. In the article, the author analyses the above mentioned judgment and the earlier judgments of the Court of Justice interpreting article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement. The approach of the Court taken in the Kossowski case is criticised in the light of the mutual recognition principle and the Polish regulations giving the possibility of reopening the case. The departure of the Court from an analysis of res iudicata on the base of national legislation may cause serious consequences, undermining mutual trust between the member states and decreasing the effectiveness of European cooperation in criminal matters. The potential “side effects” of the judgment prevail over its potential value in certain circumstances. Despite the criticism of the judgment, the author tries to interpret the term “detailed investigation”, referring to the concept of effective investigation, created by the European Court of Human Rights. The concepts of “detailed investigation” and “effective investigation” are not the same, but some useful guidelines could be drawn from the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.Teisingumo teismo 2016 gruodžio 21 dienos nutarime Kossowski byloje (C - 486/14) buvo priimta dalinai nauja 1985 Birželio 14 Šengeno Konvencijos sutarties 54 straipsnio interpretacija ir ne bis in idem principo bendras suvokimas ES. Pagal nutartį, ne bis in idem principas neturėtų būti pritaikomas galutiniams sprendimas valstybėse narėse, jei baudžiamasis tyrimas nebuvo detalus. Šiame straipsnyje autorius analizuoja šią ir ankstesnes nutartis, kuriose Teisingumo teismas interpretuoja Šengeno Konvencijos sutarties 54 straipsnį. Teismo požiūris Kossowski byloje yra kritikuojamas atsižvelgiant į abipusio pripažinimo principą ir Lenkijos teisinį reglamentavimą, suteikiant galimybę atnaujinti bylą. Teismo nuokrypis nuo res iudicata analizės, pagrindžiant nacionaliniais teisės aktais, gali sukelti rimtas pasekmes, kenkti tarpusavio pasitikėjimui tarp valstybių narių, sumažinti Europos bendradarbiavimo baudžiamosiose bylose efektyvumą. Galimas sprendimo „šalutinis poveikis“ tam tikrose situacijose nugali potencialią sprendimo vertę. Nepaisant nutarties kritikos, autorius interpretuoja "detalaus tyrimo" sąvoką remdamasis efektyvaus tyrimo koncepcija, kurią sukūrė Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismas. Nors detalaus tyrimo ir efektyvaus tyrimo koncepcijos nėra tapačios, vadovaujantis Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismo jurisprudencija galima parengti kai kurias naudingas gaires

Effective investigation of crime and the European „ne bis in idem“ principle