Ne Bis In Idem: The Court of Justice of the European Union Weighs in on the Tax Debate

L. Vermeire,L. Cassimon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59403/1ehs2zv

2020-05-20

Abstract:In this article, the authors outline the ne bis in idem principle based on the Charter and recent ECJ decisions. Further, they compare and contrast such ECJ case law with case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The Interrelation Between the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Schengen Agreement: The Ne Bis in Idem Example Through the CJEU Case Law

Konstantinos Margaritis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/iclr-2021-0012

2021-12-01

International and Comparative Law Review

Abstract:Summary The ne bis in idem principle is of fundamental nature to the legal order of every democratic society. The concept of this principle refers to the prohibition, on behalf of State authorities, on prosecuting the same person more than once for the same conduct. In two preliminary ruling procedures, the national courts set questions to the Court of Justice regarding the compatibility of articles 54 and 55 CISA respectively with article 50 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In the first case, the Court ruled that article 54 CISA is compatible with article 50 of the Charter whilst, in the second, the Court, essentially, found unnecessary to reply to the question. The aim of this paper is to offer a review on the impact of these two judgments in the formulation of article 50 of the EU Charter and subsequently, propose an alternative approach on the interpretation of this provision, in line with the core of the ne bis in idem principle, in order to underline the significant role of the Charter in the future of the Union.
The ECJs recent case law on ne bis in idem: Implications for law enforcement in a shared legal order

Michiel Luchtman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/cola2018143

IF: 2.02

2018-12-01

Common Market Law Review

Abstract:The ne bis in idem principle is a forerunner for fundamental rights in the European legal order. It has facilitated integration, but it also meets strong resistance. This contribution deals with the principle of ne bis in idem at the interface of administrative and criminal law enforcement, which has been a particularly controversial issue over the last few years. It analyses the recent case law of the ECJ and explores its consequences, focusing on the extent to which the principle has been made dependent on the degree of harmonization of EU law and on the transnational implications. With the rise of many new forms of transnational cooperation and an increasing focus of the EU legislature on law enforcement, the significance of this case law is hard to overlook.

international relations,law
An interpretative analysis of the European ne bis in idem principle through the lens of ECHR, CFR and CISA Provisions: Are three streams flowing in the same channel?

Ger Coffey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844231160246

2023-03-22

New Journal of European Criminal Law

Abstract:The ne bis in idem principle (procedural defence) proscribes multiple criminal proceedings and punishments for the same criminal offence/conduct, which is predicated on a final verdict of acquittal or conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction. Incorporated as a fundamental human right through Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 annexed to the ECHR and fundamental right safeguarded through Article 50 CFR, the principle is conjoined with the right to free movement of persons through Article 54 CISA. An evaluation of the characteristics, substance, rationale, scope, and limitations associated with the autonomous procedural defence reveals corresponding purposes. CJEU and ECtHR jurisprudence have delineated the scope and limitations of the procedural defence and the two European courts have reciprocally influenced their respective case law. Definitive and practical judicial guidelines on the application of the principle facilitate consistency of approach by diverse national legal systems consistent with the principle of legality. The article provides an interpretative analysis of the procedural defence and associated jurisprudence of the two European courts that aim to ensure consistency of approach by national legal systems notwithstanding the applicability of the margin of appreciation and the principle of subsidiarity. The article concludes with an evaluation of the narrow same criminal offence criterion ( idem crimen) commensurate with broader proscribed conduct ( idem factum) criterion that is pivotal to the application of the procedural defence and evidently the most litigated aspect of the ne bis in idem principle. The main issue causing tensions between the different streams of case law seems to be the question of the combination of distinct types of proceedings (administrative and criminal), and there is a reciprocal influence of the ECHR and CJEU on this issue.
NE BIS IN IDEM AS A MODERN GUARANTEE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN EUROPE

Libor Klimek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33327/ajee-18-5.4-a000439

2022-11-15

Access to Justice in Eastern Europe

Abstract:Background: The principle ne bis in idem is a traditional principle relevant to criminal proceedings in European states. While in the past, crime had a primarily national dimension, these days, it has an international dimension as well. The Europeanisation of law also occurred in criminal law, including criminal proceedings. Thus, an understanding of ne bis in idem as a modern guarantee involving the international dimension is needed. Methods: The basic sources used for the elaboration of the paper are scholarly sources (monographs, textbooks, studies, and scientific papers, etc.), legislative instruments (international agreements, etc.), and case-law (of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union). The materials used here also include the available explanatory memorandums. The author uses traditional methods of legal scientific (jurisprudential) research – general scientific methods as well as special methods of legal science (jurisprudence). The general scientific methods used in the paper are predominantly logical methods, namely, the method of analysis, the method of synthesis, and the method of analogy, as well as the descriptive method. The descriptive method has been used to familiarise the reader with the current legal regulation of ne bis in idem. The method of analysis has been used as regards relevant provisions and case-law. The method of synthesis has also been used, as has the method of analogy. The special methods of legal science used here predominantly include methods belonging to a group of interpretative methods, namely, the teleological method, the systematic method, the historical method, and the comparative method. The teleological method has been used as regards the explanation of the purpose of legislative instruments. The systematic method has been used in the classification of the principle of ne bis in idem. The historical method has been used as regards the genesis and historical aspects of ne bis in idem. The comparative method has been used to examine the relationship between legislative instruments. Results and Conclusions: The principle of ne bis in idem is one of the oldest norms in western civilisation. Since the Europeanisation of law also occurred in criminal law, including criminal proceedings, the principle of ne bis in idem became a part of international legal documents. The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 7, introduced a new right – the ‘right not to be tried or punished twice’. In addition, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which is the first bill of rights developed explicitly for the EU, also introduced the principle of ne bis in idem as the ‘right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence’. However, its understanding in the Charter has no additional significance. In principle, it is the same. Despite the fact the primary purpose of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement is to facilitate the free movement of persons between member states of the EU by removing internal border controls, several measures have been introduced which focus on police and judicial co-operation, including the principle of ne bis in idem, in the provision entitled ‘Application of the ne bis in idem principle’. This provision is considered the most developed expression of an internationally applicable ne bis in idem. Ne bis in idem also occurs in extradition proceedings and surrender proceedings. Its operation under the European Convention on Extradition prevents the double prosecution of the same person for the same offence in different jurisdictions. As regards the new procedural system introduced by the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant, based on the surrender proceedings as a special kind of criminal proceedings, there is no absolute obligation to execute the European arrest warrant. The Framework Decision, in its core text, includes grounds for non-execution of the arrest warrant in the executing state – and one of them is the principle of ne bis in idem
Interpretation of Art. 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement

Oskar Losy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/ppuam.2019.9.12

2020-02-06

Abstract:The paper discusses the problem of the ne bis in idem principle stipulated in the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Article 54 of the CISA makes the application of the principle ne bis in idem subject to the condition of execution of the penalty. An analogous condition is not provided for in the Charter. These differences caused doubts regardingthe application of the ne bis in idem principle and were subject of the question for preliminary ruling in the Spasic case (C-129/14 PPU). The paper contains a critical review of the reasoning of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this judgment. In addition, the article also contains an analysis of the CJEU’s decision in Case C-398/12 M. in which the CJEU has analysed the meaning of “final disposal” of the judgment in the context of the ne bis in idem principle. Based on the above judgments, the article presents arguments indicating that the reasoning of the CJEU on the conditions for the application of the ne bis in idem principle in judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU is not consistent.
Navigating ne bis in idem: bpost, Nordzucker and the Digital Markets Act

Patrick Harrison,Monika Zdzieborska,Bethany Wise

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/clj.2022.02.01

2022-09-30

Competition Law Journal

Abstract:The Court of Justice of the European Union has recently issued its judgments in bpost and Nordzucker, in which it considers the scope and interpretation of the ne bis in idem principle (i.e., the protection against double jeopardy) provided by EU law. This article sets out some of the key takeaways from the two judgments and discusses their potential implications in navigating the forthcoming overlap between the Digital Markets Act and EU competition law enforcement. While bpost and Nordzucker provide welcome clarification as regards due process and proportionality in this context, key questions remain unanswered and we can expect more litigation in this area moving forward.
Bringing Back Unity: Modernizing the Application of the Non Bis In Idem Principle

Marc Veenbrink,Marc Veenbrink

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/woco2019005

2019-03-01

World Competition

Abstract:This article describes the approach which the Union Courts have taken in relation to the non bis in idem principle when it concerns dual proceedings by the Commission and National Competition Authorities (NCAs) or by different NCAs. The unity of the legal interest is used by the CJEU as a jurisdictional safeguard for the Commission. Conversely, the identity of the facts determined whether the accounting principle is applicable in dual proceedings. This principle is in dual proceedings by the Commission and an NCA the only applicable expression of the non bis in idem principle. This approach is different from that in other areas of law where Article 50 of the Charter or Article 54 CISA are applied. The application of the non bis in idem principle in the Union’s legal order can therefore be criticized on the basis of lack of unity. It will be argued that these diverging approaches can be aligned without losing the current outcome in competition law cases.
EU protection of the substantive criminal law principles of guilt and ne bis in idem under the Charter of Fundamental Rights

Piet Hein van Kempen,Joeri Bemelmans

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2032284418778146

2018-05-29

New Journal of European Criminal Law

Abstract:European Union (EU) law is increasingly influencing the substantive criminal law of the member states. In this area of law – in which criminal liability and subsequent punishment are at stake – protection of fundamental rights is indispensable, as a result of which means the Charter has great potential relevance. This article examines the protection of fundamental rights by Union law in the field of substantive criminal law since the Charter has become binding and compares it to the protection offered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The article focuses on two fundamental rights that rule substantive criminal law: the principle of guilt and the ne bis in idem principle. It holds that EU law still does not provide a full foundation to both principles of criminal substantive law. Given the particular nature of EU law, the practice of the institutions in substantive criminal law, and the current case law of the European Court of Justice and the ECtHR, we argue that the current level of protection in these parts of the criminal law is insufficiently convincing. Progress needs to be made in the recognition and appreciation of the principle of guilt, while the ne bis in idem principle might be overextended.
A Unified Test for the European Ne Bis in Idem Principle: The Case Study of Digital Markets Regulation.

Giuseppe Colangelo,Marco Cappai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3951088

2021-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Although the significance of the ne bis in idem principle is undisputed, it has proven difficult to apply it consistently over the years. In the EU, the Court of Justice case law diverges significantly according to the field of law. Notably, since Aalborg Portland and Toshiba an antitrust-specific threefold condition of idem (same person, same facts, same protected legal interest) has been developed, which is at odds with the twofold identity approach (same offender and same facts) established in Van Esbroek and applied to other areas of EU law, as confirmed in Menci. Against this background, risks and concerns about the fragmentation and inconsistency generated by the absence of a unified test have been heightened by recent legislative initiatives undertaken (at EU and national level) aimed at adapting competition policy to the challenges posed by the emergence of large online platforms. Therefore, digital markets regulation makes even it more pressing to settle the ‘Toshiba or Menci’ dilemma, defining a unified approach to European double jeopardy.
Impact of ECJ Case Law on the Harmonization of Inheritance and Gift Taxation in the European Union

P. Linseis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59403/1734rpz

2024-04-09

Abstract:The aim of this article is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the legal and economic effects of ECJ case law on inheritance and gift taxation. The results show that ECJ case law has had a significant influence on the development of inheritance and gift tax legislation in the European Union in terms of reducing discrimination between purely national and cross-border cases. One problem, however, is that the economic effects of the decisions are ambivalent, which leads one to question the efficacy of the Court in contributing to the establishment of an internal market.
Compatibility of National Tax Measures with EU Law: The Role of the European Commission in Tax Litigation before the European Court of Justice

Richard Lyal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2015002

2015-02-01

EC Tax Review

Abstract:In tax as in other areas of law, issues regarding the compatibility with Union law of national legislation and administrative practice may give rise to litigation before the European Court of Justice. That litigation may take the form of infringement proceedings initiated by the European Commission or references for preliminary rulings submitted by national courts. The Commission is systematically a party to tax litigation before the Court, since it submits observations in all preliminary reference cases. This article describes the characteristics of the two procedures and looks at the types of question which arise, referring to issues of interpretation of the Treaty and of secondary law. It explains the approach taken by the Commission and gives examples in relation to both direct and indirect taxation: essentially, the aim of the Commission is to ensure the effective operation of the internal market.

English Else
Tax Penalties: Minor Criminal Charges?

E. Poelmann,J. Baron

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2017071

2017-12-01

Intertax

Abstract:In European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) 15 November 2016, No. 24130/11 and 29758/11, (A. and B. v. Norway) the Jussila-doctrine was repeated once again. The ECtHR seems to have taken the next step in the discussion whether the criminal-head guarantees of Article 6 ECHR and other fundamental rights of the Convention should not apply in the same manner concerning tax fines as they do with ‘hard core criminal law’. However, as shown in ECJ 26 February 2013, C-617/10 (Åkerberg Fransson), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is currently on a different path. In case C-524/15 Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona has advised the ECJ to stay on its present course and not to follow the ECtHR. In this article the authors discuss the different approaches of the ECtHR and the ECJ.

English Else
Case Law Trends: New Targeted Interest Deduction Limitation Rules Post Lexel

Alexander Tale

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2023029

2023-04-01

Intertax

Abstract:Both the European Union (EU) Directive implementing the OECD’s Pillar Two and the proposal for a debt-equity bias reduction allowance (DEBRA) feature rules that target and limit interest deduction as the need for these still exists. However, in case C-484/19 Lexel from 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) struck down the Swedish targeted interest deduction legislation of 2013 applying to loans between associated companies. The Court considered the legislation to constitute an unjustifiable restriction of the freedom of establishment. It essentially stated that only wholly artificial arrangements could be the object of the targeted interest deduction rules while, at the same time, concluding that transactions carried out at arm’s length cannot be considered artificial or fictitious arrangements. After Lexel, the question is whether targeted interest deduction rules that are drafted with the objective of combating tax base erosion have any future, or must Member States only rely on the application of anti-abuse rules or targeted interest deduction rules mandated by secondary EU law?
The Impact of European Union Law on the Possibilities of European Union Member States to Adapt International Tax Rules to the Business Models of Multinational Enterprises

Alexia Kardachaki

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2016064

2016-10-01

Intertax

Abstract:European Union (EU) law has played a key role in enforcing the EU base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) agenda, while also introducing limits to the application thereof. The European Commission (EC) sees a clear link between aggressive tax planning and competition law. Against this background, EU State aid law has been employed to challenge the business models of multinational enterprises. At present there are a number of opened cases, where a decision either by the EC or the General Court of the EU is pending. These cases deal with the application of EU State aid law on inter alia tax regimes (e.g. exemption of interest and royalty payments), transfer pricing, and the misapplication of law. The approach the EC is taking in those cases, especially in matters of competence, raises a number of questions, which can only be addressed in a definitive manner by the EU Courts. Similar issues may arise in the field of positive harmonization through the recently adopted Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD). For instance, given that a general anti-abuse rule has been included in Article 6 ATAD and has therefore become EU law, the EC and the EU Courts are competent to decide whether it should be applied in certain situations, and whether non-application thereof may amount to unlawful State aid. However, EU free movement law should be respected by Member States when implementing anti-BEPs measures. Accordingly, so far, the limitation on benefits clause contained in double tax treaties has been challenged by the EC, while the compatibility of the anti-avoidance rules against hybrid mismatches with EU free movement law is questionable.
The settlement of tax disputes by the International Court of Justice

Céline Braumann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0922156523000158

2023-05-05

Leiden Journal of International Law

Abstract:Abstract This article analyses the ICJ, one of the most eminent actors of the international legal regime, as an actor of the international tax regime. So far, the ICJ’s role in tax dispute resolution has been a blind spot in the literature. The descriptive part of this article first discusses the case law of the PCIJ and ICJ that considers – albeit incidentally – questions of taxation. These tax-related cases are categorized as (i) ‘wrongful taxation’ constituting the subject matter of the dispute; (ii) taxation as evidence for a ‘genuine link’ between the state and a national; or (iii) taxation as an ‘ effectivité ’ to prove the de facto exercise of state authority over a given territory. The second half of the descriptive analysis assesses the Court’s jurisdiction over tax disputes. Tax treaties usually lack compromissory clauses. Yet, there are a number of jurisdictional bases that vest the Court with the competence to sit over hypothetical tax treaty disputes, although certain reservations may render the Court’s jurisdiction residual to other means of tax dispute settlement. Further, Article 344 TFEU possibly precludes EU member states from initiating ICJ proceedings concerning tax treaty disputes with other EU states. The second, normative part of this article contemplates the Court as a future ‘World Tax Court’. It briefly addresses (i) possible effects of the ICJ’s hypothetical involvement in tax disputes; (ii) whether the ICJ might have a future role in tax dispute settlement in light of recent developments; and (iii) whether it is even desirable to involve the Court in tax disputes.

law
Case Law Note: The Brazilian Case Law on the Single Tax Principle: A Case of Tax Treaty Override

Roberto Codorniz Leite Pereira

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2022022

2022-03-01

Intertax

Abstract:This article analyses the recent decision handed down by the Brazilian High Court of Appeals whereby the single tax principle and the abuse of law principle were applied in order to ultimately deny treaty benefits in the context of double tax conventions that provided for neither the entitlement to benefits clause nor the updated terminology of the title and preamble. Accordingly, since both principles could be deemed as general principles of law (therefore, part of the international law) comparable to double taxation conventions (DTC) provisions, lower level courts were allowed to condition treaty benefits to the demonstration that the taxpayer had complied with those principles. Therefore, in the case of potential hybrid mismatches, the absence of double non taxation for treaty benefits entitlement should be demonstrated. This article contends that this precedent must be reviewed. Firstly, the precedent disregards how international rules are created and how DTCs are interpreted. Secondly, it creates legal uncertainty in the context of DTCs. Ultimately, the precedent shall cause hermeneutic override whereby a state overrides a treaty with the pretext of interpreting treaty provisions. Single Tax Principle, Double Non-Taxation, Brazilian High Court of Appeals, Hybrid Mismatches.q
The European Court of Justice as a Constitutional Court. Legal Reasoning in a Comparative Perspective

Giulio Itzcovich

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52292/j.dsc.2022.3635

2022-12-28

Discusiones

Abstract:After having briefly presented some institutional aspects of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the present report analyses forty of its leading cases in order to assess the general characteristics of the legal reasoning developed by the Court in interpreting the Treaties. The report underlines the importance of teleological interpretation and arguments from precedents, the frequency and cogency of the arguments based on the principle of the rule of law, the difficulty for the Court in referring to the political nature of the Union and the tendency to eschew constitutional rhetoric. Above all, the report underlines the high degree of impersonality that the Court is able to achieve in its judgments and concludes that it depends on a variety of factors such as the collegiate nature of the judgments, their subject matter, the declining but persisting influence of the French model, the need for translation and informatisation, the extensive use of precedents and literal self-quotations, and the contradictory and unsettled status of the Court of Justice as sensu lato constitutional court of the European legal space.
A Study of the Principle of Non Bis in Idem

秦宗文

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-2397.2004.05.013

2004-01-01

Abstract:Non bis in idem, a principle in continental law, overlaps to some extent and at the same time differs from the common law principle-double jeopardy. The principle of non bis in idem appears in the papers of the United Nations is a compromise of the continental law and the common law. While amending the Criminal Procedure Act, it is necessary for us to establish non bis in idem to meet the demand of different interests. But some exceptions should be retained. In order to apply it well, the principle should be expressly defined in the Act and standards set to determine the similarities of cases. At the same time, we should make some provisions and set up a regime to ensure that prosecution can re - prosecute the suspect and the court can retry the case if the case was dismissed for lack of evidence.
Article: Economic Substance for Holding Companies in the Post- BEPS World and after Recent ECJ Case-Law: An Analysis of Developments in Europe

Felipe Thé Freire

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2023002

2023-01-01

Intertax

Abstract:Over the last decade, following the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project (BEPS), the international tax framework has been in constant change. Some of those changes, such as the introduction of the Principal Purpose Test (PPT) in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Model Convention and the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD I and II) in the European Union (EU) aim at denying benefits to corporate structures and transactions put in place by Multinational Corporations (MNEs) whenever those are deemed to be abusive. Recent European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgments arguably further modified the international tax framework. One of the most important elements – following those developments – commonly analysed to assess abuse is ‘economic substance’. This article focuses on the analysis of substance requirements particularly for holding companies, which typically are less robust than those of companies generating active income. After analysing the definition and object of a holding company, the author explores the current views of the OECD and the EU on this topic, including ECJ jurisprudence, to assess to what extent those have converged. The article compares different instruments and concepts, as well as their underlying principles, aiming at applying them to specific cases of cross-border holding structures. Holding companies, substance, anti-tax avoidance directive (ATAD), principle purpose test (PPT), abuse of rights, tax treaty abuse, principal purpose test (PPT), general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR), beneficial ownership
Rebates under EU Competition Law after the 2017 Intel Judgment: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Viktoria H.S.E. Robertson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7559/mclawreview.2018.331

2018-04-01

Market and Competition Law Review

Abstract:On 6 September 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its long-awaited Intel judgment. The European Commission had accused Intel of inducing customer loyalty and thus foreclosing the relevant market for its competitors through (i) a rebate scheme and (ii) direct payments, both of which the Commission qualified as abuses of dominance under Article 102 TFEU. The General Court upheld the Commission decision in its entirety in June 2014. Before the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice, however, the General Court’s Intel judgment was set aside and the case was referred back to that Court. The Court of Justice held that where the Commission, as in its Intel decision of 2009, also relies on an as-efficient-competitor (AEC) test in order to assess the capability of a rebate scheme to restrict competition contrary to Article 102 TFEU, the General Court must review a party’s counterarguments pertaining to this economic analysis. The General Court was instructed to further examine the factual and economic evidence in this respect. With a view to illuminating the legal questions that posed themselves in Intel, the present contribution reviews the leading European case law on rebate schemes – Hoffmann-La Roche, Michelin I and II, British Airways, Tomra and Post Danmark II – as well as the Commission’s approach to conditional rebates in its 2009 Guidance Paper. After briefly recalling the different stages of the Intel case, the contribution then offers a commentary on and an analysis of the Court of Justice’s Intel judgment and the way in which the Court attempted to reconcile its formalistic case law on rebate schemes with the effects-based economic tests carried out by the Commission.

Ne Bis In Idem: The Court of Justice of the European Union Weighs in on the Tax Debate

The Interrelation Between the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Schengen Agreement: The Ne Bis in Idem Example Through the CJEU Case Law

The ECJs recent case law on ne bis in idem: Implications for law enforcement in a shared legal order

An interpretative analysis of the European ne bis in idem principle through the lens of ECHR, CFR and CISA Provisions: Are three streams flowing in the same channel?

NE BIS IN IDEM AS A MODERN GUARANTEE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN EUROPE

Interpretation of Art. 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement

Navigating ne bis in idem: bpost, Nordzucker and the Digital Markets Act

Bringing Back Unity: Modernizing the Application of the Non Bis In Idem Principle

EU protection of the substantive criminal law principles of guilt and ne bis in idem under the Charter of Fundamental Rights

A Unified Test for the European Ne Bis in Idem Principle: The Case Study of Digital Markets Regulation.

Impact of ECJ Case Law on the Harmonization of Inheritance and Gift Taxation in the European Union

Compatibility of National Tax Measures with EU Law: The Role of the European Commission in Tax Litigation before the European Court of Justice

Tax Penalties: Minor Criminal Charges?

Case Law Trends: New Targeted Interest Deduction Limitation Rules Post Lexel

The Impact of European Union Law on the Possibilities of European Union Member States to Adapt International Tax Rules to the Business Models of Multinational Enterprises

The settlement of tax disputes by the International Court of Justice

Case Law Note: The Brazilian Case Law on the Single Tax Principle: A Case of Tax Treaty Override

The European Court of Justice as a Constitutional Court. Legal Reasoning in a Comparative Perspective

A Study of the Principle of Non Bis in Idem

Article: Economic Substance for Holding Companies in the Post- BEPS World and after Recent ECJ Case-Law: An Analysis of Developments in Europe

Rebates under EU Competition Law after the 2017 Intel Judgment: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The ECJs recent case law on ne bis in idem: Implications for law enforcement in a shared legal order