ECJ – Judgment of 16.11.2010 (Grand Chamber), Gaetano Mantello, C-261/09 – «Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Article 3(2) – Ne bis in idem – Concept of the “same acts” – Final judgment
Keywords:
Judicial cooperation in criminal matters, Framework Decision, European arrest warrant, ne bis in idem principleAbstract
The Court of Justice considers that the concept of «same acts» in Article 3(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States constitutes an autonomous concept of European Union law. In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings where, in response to a request for information within the meaning of Article 15(2) of that Framework Decision made by the executing judicial authority, the issuing judicial authority, applying its national law and in compliance with the requirements deriving from the concept of «same acts» as enshrined in Article 3(2) of the Framework Decision, expressly stated that the earlier judgment delivered under its legal system did not constitute a final judgment covering the acts referred to in the arrest warrant issued by it and therefore did not preclude the criminal proceedings referred to in that arrest warrant, the executing judicial authority has no reason to apply, in connection with such a judgment, the ground for mandatory non-execution provided for in Article 3(2) of the Framework Decision.Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Downloads
How to Cite
Hava García, E. (2015). ECJ – Judgment of 16.11.2010 (Grand Chamber), Gaetano Mantello, C-261/09 – «Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Article 3(2) – Ne bis in idem – Concept of the “same acts” – Final judgment. Revista De Derecho Comunitario Europeo, (39), 523–540. Retrieved from https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/RDCE/article/view/39468
Issue
Section
CASE LAW COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EU
License
Copyright
Submission of a manuscript to the RDCE implies having read and accepted the journal's editorial guidelines and instructions for authors. When a work is accepted for publication, it is understood that the author grants the RDCE exclusive rights of reproduction, distribution and, where appropriate, sale of his manuscript for exploitation in all countries of the world in printed version, as well as any other magnetic, optical and digital media.
Authors shall transfer the publishing rights of their manuscript to RDCE so that it may be disseminated and capitalised on Intranets, the Internet and any web portals and wireless devices that the publisher may decide, by placing it at the disposal of users so that the latter may consult it online and extract content from it, print it and/or download and save it. These activities must comply with the terms and conditions outlined on the website hosting the work. However, the RDCE authorises authors of papers published in the journal to include a copy of these papers, once published, on their personal websites and/or other open access digital repositories. Copies must include a specific mention of RDCE, citing the year and issue of the journal in which the article was published, and adding a link to the RDCE website(s).
A year after its publication, the works of the RDCE will be under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivative 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which allows third parties to share the work as long as its author and its first publication is indicated, without the right to commercial exploitation and the elaboration of derivative works.
Plagiarism and scientific fraud
The publication of work that infringes on intellectual property rights is the sole responsibility of the authors, including any conflicts that may occur regarding infringement of copyright. This includes, most importantly, conflicts related to the commission of plagiarism and/or scientific fraud.
Practices constituting scientific plagiarism are as follows:
1. Presenting the work of others as your own.
2. Adopting words or ideas from other authors without due recognition.
3. Not using quotation marks or another distinctive format to distinguish literal quotations.
4. Giving incorrect information about the true source of a citation.
5. The paraphrasing of a source without mentioning the source.
6. Excessive paraphrasing, even if the source is mentioned.
Practices constituting scientific fraud are as follows:
1. Fabrication, falsification or omission of data and plagiarism.
2. Duplicate publication.
3. Conflicts of authorship.
Warning
Any breach of these Rules shall constitute a ground for rejection of the manuscript submitted.
