Granting Due Process of Law to Suspected and Accused Persons Involved in Parallel Criminal Proceedings in the EU

1/2019ISSN 2240-7618 1/2019 II Editore Associazione “Progetto giustizia penale”, via Altaguardia 1, Milano - c.f. 97792250157 ANNO 2019 - CODICE ISSN 2240-7618 - Registrazione presso il Tribunale di Milano, al n. 554 del 18 novembre 2011. Impaginazione a cura di Chiara Pavesi EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Francesco Viganò EDITORIAL BOARD Italy: Gian Luigi Gatta, Antonio Gullo, Guglielmo Leo, Luca Luparia, Francesco Mucciarelli Spain: Jaume Alonso-Cuevillas, Sergi Cardenal Montraveta, David Carpio Briz, Joan Queralt Jiménez Chile: Jaime Couso Salas, Mauricio Duce Julio, Héctor Hernández Basualto, Fernando Londoño Martinez MANAGING EDITOR Carlo Bray EDITORIAL STAFF Alberto Aimi, Enrico Andolfatto, Enrico Basile, Javier Escobar Veas, Stefano Finocchiaro, Elisabetta Pietrocarlo, Tommaso Trinchera, Stefano Zirulia EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Rafael Alcacer Guirao, Alberto Alessandri, Giuseppe Amarelli, Ennio Amodio, Coral Arangüena Fanego, Lorena Bachmaier Winter, Roberto Bartoli, Fabio Basile, Hervé Belluta, Alessandro Bernardi, Carolina Bolea Bardon, David Brunelli, Silvia Buzzelli, Alberto Cadoppi, Pedro Caeiro, Michele Caianiello, Lucio Camaldo, Stefano Canestrari, Francesco Caprioli, Claudia Cárdenas Aravena, Raúl Carnevali, Marta Cartabia, Elena Maria Catalano, Mauro Catenacci, Massimo Ceresa Gastaldo, Mario Chiavario, Mirentxu Corcoy Bidasolo, Cristiano Cupelli, Norberto Javier De La Mata Barranco, Angela Della Bella, Cristina de Maglie, Gian Paolo Demuro, Miguel Díaz y García Conlledo, Ombretta Di Giovine, Emilio Dolcini, Jacobo Dopico Gomez Áller, Patricia Faraldo Cabana, Silvia Fernández Bautista, Javier Gustavo Fernández Terruelo, Marcelo Ferrante, Giovanni Fiandaca, Gabriele Fornasari, Novella Galantini, Percy García Cavero, Loredana Garlati, Mitja Gialuz, Glauco Giostra, Víctor Gómez Martín, José Luis Guzmán Dalbora, Ciro Grandi, Giovanni Grasso, Giulio Illuminati, Roberto E. Kostoris, Máximo Langer, Juan Antonio Lascuraín Sánchez, Maria Carmen López Peregrín, Sergio Lorusso, Ezequiel Malarino, Francisco Maldonado Fuentes, Stefano Manacorda, Juan Pablo Mañalich Raffo, Vittorio Manes, Grazia Mannozzi, Teresa Manso Porto, Luca Marafioti, Joseph Margulies, Enrico Marzaduri, Luca Masera, Jean Pierre Matus Acuña, Anna Maria Maugeri, Oliviero Mazza, Iván Meini, Alessandro Melchionda, Chantal Meloni, Melissa Miedico, Vincenzo Militello, Santiago Mir Puig, Fernando Miró Linares, Vincenzo Mongillo, Renzo Orlandi, Francesco Palazzo, Carlenrico Paliero, Michele Papa, Raphaële Parizot, Claudia Pecorella, Marco Pelissero, Lorenzo Picotti, Paolo Pisa, Oreste Pollicino, Domenico Pulitanò, Tommaso Rafaraci, Paolo Renon, Mario Romano, Maria Ángeles Rueda Martín, Carlo Ruga Riva, Stefano Ruggeri, Francesca Ruggieri, Marco Scoletta, Sergio Seminara, Paola Severino, Nicola Selvaggi, Rosaria Sicurella, Jesús Maria Silva Sánchez, Carlo Sotis, Giulio Ubertis, Inma Valeije Álvarez, Antonio Vallini, Paolo Veneziani, Costantino Visconti, Javier Willenmann von Bernath, Francesco Zacchè 1/2019 III Diritto penale contemporaneo – Rivista trimestrale è un periodico on line ad accesso libero e non ha fine di profitto. Tutte le collaborazioni organizzative ed editoriali sono a titolo gratuito e agli autori non sono imposti costi di elaborazione e pubblicazione. La rivista, registrata presso il Tribunale di Milano, al n. 554 del 18 novembre 2011, è edita attualmente dall’associazione “Progetto giustizia penale”, con sede a Milano, ed è pubblicata con la collaborazione scientifica e il supporto dell’Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi di Milano, dell’Università degli Studi di Milano, dell’Università di Roma Tre, dell’Università LUISS Guido Carli, dell’Universitat de Barcelona e dell’Università Diego Portales di Santiago del Cile. La rivista pubblica contributi inediti relativi a temi di interesse per le scienze penalistiche a livello internazionale, in lingua italiana, spagnolo, inglese, francese, tedesca e portoghese. Ogni contributo è corredato da un breve abstract in italiano, spagnolo e inglese. La rivista è classificata dall’ANVUR come rivista scientifica per l’area 12 (scienze giuridiche), di classe A per i settori scientifici G1 (diritto penale) e G2 (diritto processuale penale). È indicizzata in DoGI e DOAJ. Il lettore può leggere, condividere, riprodurre, distribuire, stampare, comunicare al pubblico, esporre in pubblico, cercare e segnalare tramite collegamento ipertestuale ogni lavoro pubblicato su “Diritto penale contemporaneo – Rivista trimestrale”, con qualsiasi mezzo e formato, per qualsiasi scopo lecito e non commerciale, nei limiti consentiti dalla licenza Creative Commons - Attribuzione - Non commerciale 3.0 Italia (CC BY-NC 3.0 IT), in particolare conservando l'indicazione della fonte, del logo e del formato grafico originale, nonché dell'autore del contributo. La rivista può essere citata in forma abbreviata con l’acronimo: DPC-RT, corredato dall’indicazione dell’anno di edizione e del fascicolo. La rivista fa proprio il Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors elaborato dal COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). La rivista si conforma alle norme del Regolamento UE 2016/679 in materia di tutela dei dati personali e di uso dei cookies (clicca qui per dettagli). Ogni contributo proposto per la pubblicazione è preliminarmente esaminato dalla direzione, che verifica l’attinenza con i temi trattati dalla rivista e il rispetto dei requisiti minimi della pubblicazione. In caso di esito positivo di questa prima valutazione, la direzione invia il contributo in forma anonima a due revisori, individuati secondo criteri di rotazione tra i membri dell’Editorial Advisory Board in relazione alla rispettiva competenza per materia e alle conoscenze linguistiche. I revisori ricevono una scheda di valutazione, da consegnare compilata alla direzione entro il termine da essa indicato. Nel caso di tardiva o mancata consegna della scheda, la direzione si riserva la facoltà di scegliere un nuovo revisore. La direzione comunica all’autore l’esito della valutazione, garantendo l’anonimato dei revisori. Se entrambe le valutazioni sono positive, il contributo è pubblicato. Se una o entrambe le valutazioni raccomandano modifiche, il contributo è pubblicato previa revisione dell’autore, in base ai commenti ricevuti, e verifica del loro accoglimento da parte della direzione. Il contributo non è pubblicato se uno o entrambi i revisori esprimono parere negativo alla pubblicazione. La direzione si riserva la facoltà di pubblicare, in casi eccezionali, contributi non previamente sottoposti alla procedura di peer review. Di ciò è data notizia nella prima pagina del contributo, con indicazione delle ragioni relative. Se desideri proporre una pubblicazione alla nostra rivista, invia una mail a editor. [email protected]. I contributi che saranno ritenuti dalla direzione di potenziale interesse per la rivista saranno sottoposti alla procedura di peer review sopra descritta. I contributi proposti alla rivista per la pubblicazione dovranno rispettare i criteri redazionali scaricabili qui. 1/2019 IV Diritto penale contemporaneo – Rivista trimestrale es una publicación periódica on line, de libre acceso y sin ánimo de lucro. Todas las colaboraciones de carácter organizativo y editorial se realizan gratuitamente y no se imponen a los autores costes de maquetación y publicación. La Revista, registrada en el Tribunal de Milan, en el n. 554 del 18 de noviembre de 2011, se edita actualmente por la asociación “Progetto giustizia penale”, con sede en Milán, y se publica con la colaboración científica y el soporte de la Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi di Milano, la Università degli Studi di Milano, la Università di Roma Tre, la Università LUISS Guido Carli, la Universitat de Barcelona y la Universidad Diego Portales de Santiago de Chile. La Revista publica contribuciones inéditas, sobre temas de interés para la ciencia penal a nivel internacional, escritas en lengua italiana, española, inglesa, francesa, alemana o portuguesa. Todas las contribuciones van acompañadas de un breve abstract en italiano, español e inglés. El lector puede leer, compartir, reproducir, distribuir, imprimir, comunicar a terceros, exponer en público, buscar y señalar mediante enlaces de hipervínculo todos los trabajos publicados en “Diritto penale contemporaneo – Rivista trimestrale”, con cualquier medio y formato, para cualquier fin lícito y no comercial, dentro de los límites que permite la licencia Creative Commons - Attribuzione - Non commerciale 3.0 Italia (CC BY-NC 3.0 IT) y, en particular, debiendo mantenerse la indicación de la fuente, el logo, el formato gráfico original, así como el autor de la contribución. La Revista se puede citar de forma abreviada cn el acrónimo DPC-RT, indicando el año de edición y el fascículo. La Revista asume el Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors elaborado por el COPE (Comitte on Publication Ethics). La Revista cumple lo dispuesto en el Reglamento UE 2016/679 en materia de protección de datos personales (clica aquí para los detalles sobre protectión de la privacy y uso de cookies). Todas las contribuciones cuya publicación se propone serán examinadas previamente por la Dirección, que verificará la correspondencia con los temas tratados en la Revista y el respeto de los requisitos mínimos para su publicación. En el caso de que se supere con éxito aquella primera valoración, la Dirección enviará la contribución de forma anónima a dos evaluadores, escogidos entre los miembros del Editorial Advisory Board, siguiendo criterios de rotación, de competencia por razón de la materia y atendiendo también al idioma del texto. Los evaluadores recibirán un formulario, que deberán devolver a la Dirección en el plazo indicado. En el caso de que la devolución del formulario se retrasara o no llegara a producirse, la Dirección se reserva la facultad de escoger un nuevo evaluador. La Dirección comunicará el resultado de la evaluación al autor, garantizando el anonimato de los evaluadores. Si ambas evaluaciones son positivas, la contribución se publicará. Si alguna de las evaluaciones recomienda modificaciones, la contribución se publicará después de que su autor la haya revisado sobre la base de los comentarios recibidos y de que la Dirección haya verificado que tales comentarios han sido atendidos. La contribución no se publicará cuando uno o ambos evaluadores se pronuncien negativamente sobre su publicación. La Dirección se reserva la facultad de publicar, en casos excepcionales, contribuciones que no hayan sido previamente sometidas a peer review. Se informará de ello en la primera página de la contribución, indicando las razones. Si deseas proponer una publicación en nuestra revista, envía un mail a la dirección editor. [email protected]. Las contribuciones que la Dirección considere de potencial interés para la Revista se someterán al proceso de peer review descrito arriba. Las contribuciones que se propongan a la Revista para su publicación deberán respetar los criterios de redacción (se pueden descargar aquí). 1/2019 V Diritto penale contemporaneo – Rivista trimestrale is an on-line, open-access, non-profit legal journal. All of the organisational and publishing partnerships are provided free of charge with no author processing fees. The journal, registered with the Court of Milan (n° 554 - 18/11/2011), is currently produced by the association “Progetto giustizia penale”, based in Milan and is published with the support of Bocconi University of Milan, the University of Milan, Roma Tre University, the University LUISS Guido Carli, the University of Barcelona and Diego Portales University of Santiago, Chile. The journal welcomes unpublished papers on topics of interest to the international community of criminal scholars and practitioners in the following languages; Italian, Spanish, English, French, German and Portuguese. Each paper is accompanied by a short abstract in Italian, Spanish and English. Visitors to the site may share, reproduce, distribute, print, communicate to the public, search and cite using a hyperlink every article published in the journal, in any medium and format, for any legal non-commercial purposes, under the terms of the Creative Commons License - Attribution – Non-commercial 3.0 Italy (CC BY-NC 3.0 IT). The source, logo, original graphic format and authorship must be preserved. For citation purposes the journal’s abbreviated reference format may be used: DPC-RT, indicating year of publication and issue. The journal strictly adheres to the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors drawn up by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). The journal complies with the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) (click here for details on protection of privacy and use of cookies). All articles submitted for publication are first assessed by the Editorial Board to verify pertinence to topics addressed by the journal and to ensure that the publication’s minimum standards and format requirements are met. Should the paper in question be deemed suitable, the Editorial Board, maintaining the anonymity of the author, will send the submission to two reviewers selected in rotation from the Editorial Advisory Board, based on their areas of expertise and linguistic competence. The reviewers are provided with a feedback form to compile and submit back to the editorial board within an established timeframe. If the timeline is not heeded to or if no feedback is submitted, the editorial board reserves the right to choose a new reviewer. The Editorial Board, whilst guaranteeing the anonymity of the reviewers, will inform the author of the decision on publication. If both evaluations are positive, the paper is published. If one or both of the evaluations recommends changes the paper will be published subsequent to revision by the author based on the comments received and verification by the editorial board. The paper will not be published should one or both of the reviewers provide negative feedback. In exceptional cases the Editorial Board reserves the right to publish papers that have not undergone the peer review process. This will be noted on the first page of the paper and an explanation provided. If you wish to submit a paper to our publication please email us at editor.criminaljusticenetwork@ gmail.com. All papers considered of interest by the editorial board will be subject to peer review process detailed above. All papers submitted for publication must abide by the editorial guidelines (download here). 1/2019 VI Granting Due Process of Law to Suspected and Accused Persons Involved in Parallel Criminal Proceedings in the EU Asegurar el derecho al debido proceso a investigados y acusados sujetos a procedimientos penales paralelos en la UE Assicurare il diritto al giusto processo agli indagati e agli imputati sottoposti a procedimenti penali paralleli nell’UE Alejandro Hernández López Los tribunales ordinarios ante la primacía del Derecho de la UE y la protección de los derechos fundamentales I tribunali ordinari dinanzi alla primazia del diritto dell’UE e alla tutela dei diritti fondamentali Ordinary Courts before the Primacy of EU Law and the Protection of Fundamental Rights Annalisa Lucifora Il regolamento (UE) 2018/1805 per il reciproco riconoscimento dei provvedimenti di congelamento e di confisca El reglamento (UE) 2018/1805 para el recíproco reconocimiento de los procesos de congelamiento de activos y comiso The EU Regulation 2018/1805 for the Mutual Recognition of Freezing Measures and Confiscation Maugeri Uno, nessuno, ventidue. Ovvero l’incertezza del diritto nel contrasto delle frodi eurounitarie Uno, ninguno, veintidós. O la incerteza del derecho en el combate a los fraudes eurounitarios One, No One, Twenty Two. Namely, the Legal Uncertainty in Fighting EU Frauds Rosaria Sicurella “Ce lo chiede (anche) l’Europa!”: Regole d’ingaggio per la forza pubblica “¡Lo pide (también) Europea!”: Reglas de enfrentamiento para la fuerza pública “Europe (too) is asking for it!”: Rules of engagement for law enforcement officers Matteo Tondini Contents 1 17 34 61 84 Diritto penale europeo DERECHO PENAL EUROPEO EUROPEAN CRIMINAL LAW 1/2019 VII Reati culturalmente motivati Delitos culturalmente motivados Culturally Motivated Crimes Fabio Basile Le “parole preparatorie”. I reati antiterrorismo di parola nell’era dei new media Las “palabras preparatorias”. Los delitos antiterrorismo de palabra en la era de los nuevos medios de comunicación Crimes of Word. Anti-terrorism Offences of Word in the Age of the Means of Communication Fabio Fasani Il profiling dell’autore di reato La caracterización del autor del delito The Profiling of the Offender Luca Lupária Crimine organizzato e corruzione: dall’attrazione elettiva alle convergenze repressive Crimen organizado y corrupción. De la atracción electiva a las convergencias represivas Organised Crime and Corruption: from Elective Attraction to Enforcement Convergence Vincenzo Mongillo Circa alcune aporie della teoria della pena nel diritto penale continentale* Sobre algunas aporías de la teoría de la pena en el derecho penal continental About Some Aporias of the Theory of Punishment in Continental Criminal Law Íñigo Ortiz de Urbina Gimeno Riserva di codice o di legge organica: significato, questioni di legittimità costituzionale e impatto sul sistema penale Reserva de código o de ley orgánica: significado, cuestiones de legitimidad constitucional e impacto en el sistema penal Reservation to the Criminal Code or to a Consolidated Law: Meaning, Constitutionality and Impact on the Criminal Law System Carlo Ruga Riva Contents 98 104 142 158 192 206 L’obiettivo su… OBJETIVO SOBRE... FOCUS ON… 1/2019 VIII Diritto penale europeo DERECHO PENAL EUROPEO EUROPEAN CRIMINAL LAW 1/2019 1 ABSTRACTS This paper aims to reflect on the deficiencies, from the criminal safeguards perspective, that can be found in the current procedure for the settlement of conflicts of criminal jurisdiction in the European Union. After a brief introduction and overview of the legal framework on conflicts of jurisdiction and the system of protection of rights and procedural safeguards in the European Union, the paper is divided into two different parts. The first part will focus on identifying and examining the principles, rights and safeguards at stake in a transnational situation of conflict of criminal jurisdiction between Member States. In the second part of this paper, the author will reflect on the improvements that should be adopted to grant a better standard of protection for the suspected or accused person, including the critical analysis of proposals made by scholars on this matter. El objetivo del presente trabajo es reflexionar sobre las deficiencias, desde el punto de vista de las garantías procesales, que pueden encontrarse en el procedimiento de prevención y resolución de conflictos de jurisdicción penal actualmente en vigor en la Unión Europea. Tras una breve introducción y panorámica general sobre el marco legal sobre conflictos de jurisdicción y el sistema de protección de derechos y garantías procesales en la Unión Europea, el trabajo se divide en dos partes diferentes. La primera parte se centrará en identificar y examinar los principios, derechos y garantías susceptibles de vulneración en una situación transnacional de conflicto de jurisdicción penal entre Estados miembros. En la segunda parte del trabajo, el autor reflexionará sobre las mejoras que deberían adoptarse para garantizar un mejor estándar de protección para el sospechoso o acusado, incluyendo el análisis crítico de propuestas realizadas por otros investigadores en esta materia. L’obiettivo del presente lavoro è quello di riflettere sulle lacune, dal punto di vista delle garanzie processuali, in cui ci si può imbattere nel procedimento di risoluzione dei conflitti di giurisdizione nell’Unione europea. Dopo una breve introduzione e panoramica generale circa il quadro normativo sui conflitti di giurisdizione e sul sistema di protezione dei diritti e delle garanzie processuali nell’Unione europea, il lavoro si divide in due distinte parti. La prima parte si concentra nell’identificare e analizzare i principi, i diritti e le garanzie che possono essere violati in una situazione di conflitto di giurisdizione transnazionale tra Stati membri. Nella seconda parte del lavoro, l’autore riflette sulle possibili modifiche volte a garantire un più alto standard di protezione dell’indagato o dell’imputato, includendo l’analisi critica delle proposte già avanzate da altri studiosi di questa materia. Diritti processuali fondamentali, Giusto processo, Ne bis in idem Fundamental Procedural Rights, Fair Trial, Ne bis in idem Derechos procesales fundamentales, Debido proceso, Ne bis in idem Granting Due Process of Law to Suspected and Accused Persons Involved in Parallel Criminal Proceedings in the EU* Asegurar el derecho al debido proceso a investigados y acusados sujetos a procedimientos penales paralelos en la UE Assicurare il diritto al giusto processo agli indagati e agli imputati sottoposti a procedimenti penali paralleli nell’UE Alejandro Hernández López Lecturer-PhD Candidate - University of Valladolid [email protected] Diritto penale europeo DERECHO PENAL EUROPEO EUROPEAN CRIMINAL LAW This paper is part of the author’s research carried out in the framework of the research projects “Garantías procesales de investigados y acusados: la necesidad de armonización y fortalecimiento en el ámbito UE” (MINECO ref. DER2016-78096-P); “Sociedades seguras y garantías procesales: el necesario equilibrio (Junta de Castilla y León, Consejería de Educación, ref. VA135G18). Alejandro Hernández López 1/2019 8 Diritto penale europeo DERECHO PENAL EUROPEO EUROPEAN CRIMINAL LAW aid32. The main objective of these directives is to grant that, no matter the competent criminal jurisdiction, the suspected or accused person will have a minimum equivalent standard of protection with regard to these safeguards. The establishment of a minimum standard of protection also aims to strengthen the mutual trust between national legal systems and, therefore, to foster judicial cooperation in criminal matters between Member States based on the mutual recognition principle. Conversely, it does not mean that the differences between national legal systems have been abolished, not even with respect to these safeguards. While criminal procedure law safeguards are not fully harmonized, we must bear in mind that all the provisions laid down in these directives act as minimum rules. This implies that Member States shall not use the directive for reducing the standard of protection previously established by the CFREU, the ECHR and domestic provisions, and they shall maintain any previously established higher standard —the so-called non-regression clauses33—. Consequently, in a situation of conflict of criminal jurisdictions, the suspected or accused person will unavoidably encounter, even on these rights that have been partially harmonized, a different degree of protection depending on the Member State in which the criminal proceedings are being conducted. Moreover, despite the clear transnational dimension that they intend to achieve, the provisions laid down in these directives are meant to be applied to domestic criminal proceedings, so they do not address nor place special emphasis on the exercise of these safeguards in specific transnational circumstances34. The provisions laid down in the directives regarding the specific exercise of safeguards in EAW proceedings35 constitute the only exception to this. This notwithstanding, these specific provisions, combined with the most recent case law of the ECJ on the EAW, are leading, in practice, to achieve a higher standard of protection for requested persons via establishing fundamental rights-based grounds for refusal. In the Aranyosi and Căldăraru case36, the ECJ ruled that it is in accordance with EU law to refuse the surrender of persons if there is a real risk of violation of fundamental rights —particularly, inhuman or degrading treatment, a violation of art. 4 CFREU—, even though the Framework Decision on the EAW does not specifically include this ground for refusal37. Particularly interesting is the recent judgment of the Court in the Minister for Justice and equality v. LM. judgment38, in which the Luxembourg Court put the justice system of Poland on the spot declaring that the existence of an ongoing procedure of infringement of fundamental rights against this Member State concerning the independence of the judiciary could justify the non-surrender of a person39. Accepting these possible fundamental rights-based grounds for refusal, it seems that the current case law of the ECJ is trying to find the right balance between the effectiveness and primacy of the European Union law in criminal matters on the one hand, and the protection of fundamental rights of the individuals on the other40. However, this practice could arguably be understood as a system which distinguishes between the rights and safeguards of individuals involved in national and transnational criminal proceedings, which could also hinder mutual trust and the effectiveness of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Since the EU directives on criminal safeguards do not specifically address the rights of the suspected and accused persons subjected to parallel transnational criminal proceedings —except for EAW proceedings—, unfortunately, the suspect or accused will be hampered by this situation until the conflict is finally settled. This would only happen where the national 32 Directive (EU) 2016/1919 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings (OJ L 297, 4 November 2016). 33 E.g. art. 14 Directive 2013/48/EU: “Nothing in this Directive shall be construed as limiting or derogating from any of the rights and procedural safeguards that are ensured under the Charter, the ECHR, or other relevant provisions of international law or the law of any Member State which provides a higher level of protection”. 34 See BACHMAIER (2018), pp. 56-63. 35 E.g. art. 10 Directive 2013/48/EU; art.5 Directive 2016/1919. 36 ECJ case Aranyosi and Căldăraru (C-404/15), ECLI: EU:C:2016:198. 37 The reasoning of this judgment has been further clarified by the ECJ, cfr. Generalstaatsanwaltschaft (detention conditions in Hungary) (C220/18 PPU), ECLI:EU:C:2018:589. 38 ECJ case Minister for Justice and Equality v. LM (C-216/18), ECLI:EU:C:2018:586. 39 For a critical opinion on this practice, see VILAS ÁLVAREZ, (2018), pp. 64-71. However, we have to bear in mind that fundamental rights-based grounds for refusal have been introduced in the wording of the latest mutual recognition instruments, see art. 11.1 (f) Directive 2014/41/EU. 40 For a quick perspective of the evolution of the ECJ case-law on this issue, cfr. cases Melloni (C-399/11), ECLI:EU:C:2013:107; Taricco (C-105/14), ECLI:EU:C:2015:555; M.A.S. & M.B. (Taricco II) (C-42/17), ECLI:EU:C:2017:936. Alejandro Hernández López 1/2019 9 Diritto penale europeo DERECHO PENAL EUROPEO EUROPEAN CRIMINAL LAW judicial authorities reach an agreement to decide which jurisdiction is best placed, or where everything fails and the principle ne bis in idem becomes applicable. But, even then, transnational side-effects could still persist after all (e.g. when the enforcement of the penalty has to be served in another Member State). Therefore, it is not yet guaranteed that in every single criminal jurisdiction involved in the conflict and, in particular, in those which differ from the nationality or legal residence of the suspected or accused person, an equivalent standard of protection of these rights and safeguards, which are all stemmed from the right of defence, is effectively provided. The interest of the victim on the allocation of jurisdiction. The suspected or accused person is not the only party in the criminal proceedings that could be harmed by the negative consequences stemmed by a conflict of criminal jurisdictions. Analogously, the interests of the victim of the criminal offence could be at stake by the allocation of the competent jurisdiction, making the role of the victim in the criminal proceedings a matter that should be, at least, considered. With the aim of guaranteeing that victims in criminal proceedings can count on a minimum standard of rights and protection within the AFSJ, the European Union adopted a specific directive41 and a mutual recognition instrument, the European Protection Order42 —which was actively promoted by Spain—, to ensure that a minimum standard of protection is granted to victims of criminal offences within the Union43. However, despite the efforts made at the European level, victims in criminal proceedings will still experience a different status or role in the criminal proceedings depending on the Member State where the criminal investigation or proceedings is being conducted. In this sense, the role of the victim in criminal proceedings varies enormously attending to the different European legal systems44. Some national legal systems permit the victim to exercise the criminal action independently of the opinion of the Public Prosecutor, allowing them to act before a Court as an independent accusation —which is the case under Spanish criminal procedure law—. Meanwhile, some national legal systems void this possibility to the victim with respect to public felonies, leaving the monopoly of the prosecution to the Public Prosecutor’s Office —that is the case of the Dutch and German criminal systems—. Moreover, it is important to note that, in some criminal systems, in application of the expediency principle, the Public Prosecutor has a wide margin of discretion to not prosecute an offence or to dispose a criminal investigation, even against the opinion of the victim —Dutch system—; whereas, in other systems, the Public prosecutors are strongly bound by the principle of legality and, therefore, cannot decide not to prosecute a criminal act that may constitute a public criminal offence according to the Penal Code —current Spanish system, with very few exceptions45—. While it is right, as has been previously mentioned, that the European Union has adopted a Directive establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, it is also true that its scope of application with regard to the participation of victims in criminal proceedings was practically limited to ensuring the right of the victim to be heard and to providing evidence and, in the event that the public prosecutor decides not to prosecute, to having the right to appeal for a review of the decision. Consequently, this minimum standard is far from guaranteeing an equivalent role of the victim in any criminal proceedings in any Member State. For that reason, in a situation of conflict, the victim might have a rightful interest in participating in the procedure for the allocation of the competent jurisdiction, in order to try to retain the investigation/proceedings allocated to the jurisdiction that offers him/her a more important role in the same. From the safeguards of the victim perspective, this should be a concern for the national authorities involved in the conflict. As a consequence, the guidelines issued by Eurojust already state that the interests of the 41 Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA (OJ L 315, 14 November 2012). 42 Directive 2011/99/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the European protection order (OJ L 338, 21 December 2011). 43 On this topic, see ARANGÜENA FANEGO (2015), pp. 491-535. 44 On this topic, see HOYOS SANCHO (2017), pp. 125-261. 45 See e.g. art. 803 bis LECrim. 2.5. Alejandro Hernández López 1/2019 10 Diritto penale europeo DERECHO PENAL EUROPEO EUROPEAN CRIMINAL LAW victim shall be a main factor that must be taken into account to decide which is the bestplaced jurisdiction in a situation of conflict of criminal jurisdictions46. However, while I think it is true that it is necessary to protect and respect the interests of the victim in criminal proceedings, we must remember at the same time that the victim does not truly have any kind of “right of punishment” towards the suspected or accused person. Nonetheless, ius puniendi is and should be an exclusive prerogative of the State as it constitutes a classic sign of national sovereignty47. Therefore, even though the interests of the victim have to be borne in mind and might be relevant as a factor to determine the competent jurisdiction, particularly in view of some kind of crimes —e.g. Trafficking in Human Beings—, from my point of view these interests should only be taken into account as a complementary or secondary factor, which means that the allocation of the best-placed jurisdiction could never be solely based on the best interests of the victim of the crime but on a conjunction and ponderation of different criteria. The way forward. Reflections and proposals from the perspective of the protection of rights and criminal safeguards of individuals. The rocky road to legal certainty: establishing clear rules to allocate the criminal jurisdiction in the AFSJ. In order to assure that the procedure of settlement is in accordance with the requirements of due process of law that have been previously outlined —inter alia: legal certainty, right to be heard by a court previously established by law, respect of the principle of legality—, the first and foremost step to be taken in order to protect the rights and safeguards of the suspected or accused person shall be to establish a system for the allocation of jurisdiction that clearly determines which criminal jurisdiction would be competent in case of conflict. Therefore, establishing clear rules to allocate the criminal jurisdiction in the European Union shall become the main priority of any future instrument on this matter, making the determination of the competent criminal jurisdiction foreseeable and made according to connecting factors previously established by law. Perhaps, it could be thought that the best way to achieve this objective would be to create a model to allocate criminal jurisdiction within the European Union based on the principle of territoriality and, subsequently, limiting the extraterritorial grounds for claiming jurisdiction currently applied by the national jurisdictions of the Member States. Switching to this system would prevent, a priori, the genesis of any conflict of criminal jurisdiction, avoiding the most part of the issues mentioned above. Some scholars have reflected on and explored this possibility, making proposals in this sense48. However, from my point of view, this system presents significant practical problems that would be extremely hard to resolve. Primarily, it would be impossible to determine the competent jurisdiction solely based on the principle of territoriality in those multi-territorial cases, where the criminal offence has been committed in more than one Member State’s soil. Furthermore, Member States might be reluctant to accept this degree of intromission into their national sovereignty, especially considering the current political situation at the European level, where Euroscepticism is clearly on the rise. The recent experience with other ambitious initiatives in the field of European criminal justice like the establishment of the EPPO, that has been adopted by means of an enhanced cooperation mechanism, could anticipate that this model might be rejected by the States in terms of due respect of EU law principles of proportionality and subsidiarity. From a different perspective, it could be thought that, to guarantee due respect for the principle of legal certainty and the right to be judged by a court previously established by law, 46 “In accordance with Directive 2012/29/EU on victims’ rights, judicial authorities must take into account the significant interests of victims, including their pro tection, and whether they would be prejudiced if any prosecution were to take place in one jurisdiction rath er than another. Such consideration would include the possibility of victims claiming compensation.”, see Guidelines for deciding “which jurisdiction should prosecute?”, op. cit., p. 3. 47 See AMBOS (2006), p. 84. 48 See the different approaches and proposals made by BÖSE et al. (2014), pp. 381 et seq; MAPELLI MARCHENA (2014), pp. 503 et seq.; LIGETI et al. (2018), pp. 70-76. 3. 3.1. Alejandro Hernández López 1/2019 11 Diritto penale europeo DERECHO PENAL EUROPEO EUROPEAN CRIMINAL LAW it would be mandatory to establish, at least, some kind of priority or hierarchy between the different connecting factors that are being commonly used by the national authorities to settle the conflict. Some scholars have defended that this option would be the most reasonable to attain this purpose49. Even though I agree with them to the extent that it could be the best solution to allocate criminal jurisdiction in transnational cases in terms of foreseeability and legal certainty, from my perspective this option should not be accepted as the best solution in terms of good administration of justice. Legal expertise in judicial cooperation in criminal matters shows that each transnational criminal investigation/proceedings has particularities that must be borne in mind on a caseby-case basis. Thus, giving an absolute priority to one main factor (e.g. principle of territoriality) with respect to other secondary or tertiary factors (e.g. location of the suspect or accused person, availability of evidence, stage of proceedings) would not automatically lead to a good decision on the jurisdiction with respect to the interests of the individuals and the national authorities involved. Moreover, even if a hierarchized list of factors is used to allocate the jurisdiction, those situations in which several states claim an equal link to the case would still be problematic50 and will have to be solved by means of using additional mechanisms51. All things considered, the option that in my opinion should prevail is the establishment of a non-hierarchized list of connecting factors to resolve a conflict of criminal jurisdictions on a case-by-case basis. But, unlike the current situation, in which there are no factors laid down in the main instrument at the European level on conflicts of jurisdiction —the preamble of the FD 2009/948/JHA just refers to the guidelines issued by Eurojust in 200352—, I think that these factors should be included in a new legal instrument of the European Union, which must replace and repeal the Framework Decision currently in force53 . However, this measure will not on its own be enough to improve the current system of settlement of conflicts regarding the rights and safeguards of individuals. There are other numerous gaps that must be filled in order to adequate the decision on the choice of forum to the post-Lisbon requirements and to respect the fundamental rights enshrined by the CFREU. For that reason, I will finally reflect on two specific issues that are currently neglected in the Framework Decision on conflicts of jurisdiction: the obligation to issue a reasoned decision on the conflict and the possibility for the suspected and accused person to be heard and to appeal the decision on the allocation of jurisdiction. Compulsory issue of a reasoned decision on the conflict. According to the wording of the FD 2009/948/JHA, national authorities are not strictly obliged to reach a consensus. It just states that, where it has not been possible to reach consensus, the case shall be referred, “where appropriate” (emphasis added), to Eurojust by any competent authority of the Member States involved54. Provided that the national authorities are not currently legally bound to request the assistance of Eurojust and, even if they do, the role of Eurojust in the conflict is currently limited to that of a “mediator” between the positions held by the national authorities involved, it would be perfectly feasible that, after wasting lots of time, resources and efforts, the conflict still persists just because the national authorities were not able to come to an agreement. If the latter scenario occurs, the conflict will be unnecessarily extended until there is a final decision in one jurisdiction and the principle of ne bis in idem then becomes directly applicable. In view of this, I would suggest two main amendments to the European legal framework. First, if national authorities are not able to reach a consensus, requesting the assistance of Eurojust should always be mandatory and not only “where appropriate”, which could be easily misunderstood as a euphemism for discretionary. Although Eurojust has no binding powers 49 In this sense, see ZIMMERMAN (2015); ORTIZ PRADILLO (2012), p. 535. 50 Therefore, applying a cumulative criterion to settle the conflict, as suggested by ORTIZ PRADILLO (2012), op.cit., pp. 35-36, might not be the best solution in practice. 51 For that reason, the solution suggested by ZIMMERMAN (2015), op. cit., pp. 14-21, combines hierarchy of factors, a flexibility clause and a “strictly regulated” (emphasis added) direct consultations procedure as a last resort mechanism to settle the conflict. 52 See recital 9 FD 2009/948/JHA. 53 In the same sense, LIGETI et al. (2018), op. cit. 54 Art. 12 FD 2009/948/JHA. 3.2. Alejandro Hernández López 1/2019 12 Diritto penale europeo DERECHO PENAL EUROPEO EUROPEAN CRIMINAL LAW to solve the conflict, it is best placed to address this issue thanks to its resources and expertise on the topic. In this sense, the new Regulation of Eurojust55 seems to slide towards this approach, when it states that where two or more Member States cannot agree as to which of them should undertake an investigation or prosecution, Eurojust “shall” (emphasis added) issue a written opinion on the case56. Although this written opinion remains to be non-binding57, Member States may only refuse to follow it whether doing so would harm essential national security interests, would jeopardise the success of an ongoing investigation or would jeopardise the safety of an individual58. Nonetheless, national authorities tend to follow Eurojust’s suggestions and opinions on the allocation of jurisdiction, even though they are not bound to do so. Second, if even after requesting the assistance of Eurojust, the national judicial authorities involved in the conflict are still not able to come to an agreement on the best-placed jurisdiction, they must be bound to issue a written and reasoned resolution stating the outcome of the settlement procedure. This resolution should be notified to Eurojust and to the individuals involved in the conflict unless there is a good and extraordinary reason which prevents it (e.g. if it would put the investigation at risk), letting them know all the relevant circumstances and criteria applied to the merits of the case. The suspected or accused should also have the opportunity to appeal that decision where appropriate59. Alternatively, some authors have explored the possibility of switching to a new vertical mechanism for the settlement of conflicts of criminal jurisdiction in the European Union60. In this new system, Eurojust would have binding powers to resolve the conflict in case of lack of agreement between the national authorities involved. This hypothetical new role of Eurojust, which goes beyond the provisions laid down in the new Regulation (EU) 2018/1727, would be still possible in accordance with the treaties, given the wording of art. 85.1 (c) TFEU61, and will ensure that, once the conflict has been detected, it shall be settled after a thorough study of the merits of the case. However, this model raises a lot of concerns, once more, in the view of the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, but also in terms of legitimacy. Could the current Eurojust be legitimated to decide in a binding way on a purely jurisdictional matter? Would national judicial authorities accept a decision on the choice of forum issued by a non-jurisdictional European Union body that clearly undermines their own grounds for claiming jurisdiction? What about the judicial control of the decision issued by Eurojust? I believe that all these concerns are well-founded, particularly considering the current nature and structure of Eurojust, which is composed by national members that are frequently appointed by national governments in a discretionary way. Thus, granting binding powers on this matter to the present Eurojust would be an extremely tough decision to make. The right to access to a legal remedy: towards a supranational judicial review on the choice of forum? The current legal framework neither addresses the issue of hearing individuals before taking a decision on the choice of forum nor specifically includes a judicial review of the decision taken by the authorities. Thus, this matter must be referred to the different legal remedies available at national level. In this sense, the Spanish national law of transposition offers both possibilities —hearing and judicial review— to the individuals subject to a procedure for the settlement of a conflict of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings62. That said, it would be very 55 Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) (OJ L 295 21 November 2018). According to art. 82.2, it shall apply from 12 December 2019. 56 Art. 4.4 Regulation (EU) 2018/1727. 57 Recital 14 Regulation (EU) 2018/1727. 58 Art. 4.6 Regulation (EU) 2018/1727. 59 In similar terms, LIGETI et. al. (2018), op. cit., pp. 48-50. 60 Ibidem, pp. 54-69. 61 Art. 85.1(c) TFEU: “the strengthening of judicial cooperation, including by resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction and by close cooperation with the European Judicial Network”. On this matter, see WEYEMBERGH (2011), pp. 75-99. 62 See arts. 30-32 Spanish Act 16/2015 (BOE n.º 162, 8 July 2015). For an overview of this topic, see HERNÁNDEZ LÓPEZ (2016), pp. 117-127. 3.3. Alejandro Hernández López 1/2019 13 Diritto penale europeo DERECHO PENAL EUROPEO EUROPEAN CRIMINAL LAW difficult in practice to appeal successfully, particularly considering that the judicial authorities have such an all-embracing power to decide which factors should be applied to the merits of the case. Certainly, this situation would not be substantially improved if, as I proposed before, a non-hierarchized list of factors is included in a new legal instrument. In that case, besides the legal remedies envisaged at national level, it is true that it might be possible to access a supranational judicial review of the case, via preliminary ruling, on the interpretation and application of the factors included in the hypothetical new instrument. But, despite the fact that this decision would affect the rights and safeguards of the individuals involved in the conflict, the preliminary ruling procedure before the ECJ can only be requested by the national judicial authorities and not by individuals63. Furthermore, the preliminary ruling should be solely requested, in principle, by the national court before which the dispute has been brought and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision64. A completely different judicial review system would be necessary if the European Union decides to implement a vertical mechanism granting binding powers to Eurojust on the resolution of the conflict. In this new scenario, it would be indispensable to establish a judicial review of the decision issued by the agency, and that judicial review should necessarily be granted at supranational level, allowing individuals to intervene in the proceedings and to access an effective legal remedy. But, is there a legal basis in the treaties to make this kind of supranational judicial review possible? Despite the initial doubts that this matter brought to me, after examining the judicial review system envisaged for the EPPO activity65, I strongly believe that it is actually feasible. In this sense, the judicial review system proposed by LIGETI, KLIP and VERVAELE66 as part of its proposed vertical mechanism shows that it would be perfectly possible to grant the suspected or accused persons this access to an effective legal remedy in accordance with the current wording of the treaties. Provided that he or she should be considered directly affected by the decision on the choice of forum issued by Eurojust, art. 263 paragraphs 4 and 5 TFEU would be directly applicable. Thus, the suspected or accused person —as well as the national judicial authorities involved— may request an action for annulment before the ECJ. To avoid any loopholes, the system is completed with the possibility to launch an action for failure to act (art. 265 paragraph 1 TFEU) in case of inertia of Eurojust67. Last but not least, we could briefly reflect on a third possible and unexplored way to opt for a supranational judicial review on the conflict of jurisdiction. According to art. 257 TFEU, specialized courts attached to the General Court may be established to hear and determine, at first instance, certain classes of action or proceeding in specific areas. In other words, the current treaty offers the opportunity to create a special chamber which would deal with cases on choice of forum in criminal proceedings68. However, would this hypothetical solution be reasonable and proportional? According to the statistics on problematic conflicts of jurisdiction issued by Eurojust69, this option does not seem to be proportional at all. The relatively low volume of cases of conflicts of jurisdiction that requires the assistance of Eurojust, in comparison with other legal issues which are frequently dealt with by the agency (e.g. issues on the transmission of EAW), plus the fact that the intervention of the College in the settlement of the conflict is rather exceptional as it is considered a last resort mechanism reserved for the most problematic cases70, there are no solid grounds to trigger this provision and, subsequently, to create a court exclusively specialized in conflicts of criminal jurisdiction in the AFSJ. Nevertheless, the opportunity to establish a specialized court with a wider competence 63 See art. 267 TFEU; cfr. ECJ case Kelly (C-104/10), ECLI:EU:C:2011:506. 64 Cfr. ECJ case Sleutjes, (C-278/16), ECLI:EU:C:2017:757, Paragraph 21. However, in the framework of an EAW, the most recent ECJ case law has admitted a preliminary ruling requested by the issuing national authority. Cfr. ECJ case AY (C-268/17), ECLI:EU:C:2018:602, paragraphs 23-31. 65 Art. 42 Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (OJ L 283, 31 October 2017). 66 LIGETI et al. (2018), op. cit., p. 66. 67 Ibidem. 68 See PATRONE (2013), op. cit., p. 222. 69 See Eurojust Annual Reports 2002-2017. 70 Actually, the power laid down on Article 7 (2) of the Eurojust Decision —as amended in 2008— to issue a written non-binding writing opinion on the case has not been used yet according to the Report on Eurojust’s casework in the field of prevention and resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction (updated 2018), DOI: 10.2812/03988. Alejandro Hernández López 1/2019 14 Diritto penale europeo DERECHO PENAL EUROPEO EUROPEAN CRIMINAL LAW could be explored, namely, a specialized court to deal with all the cases related to criminal law provisions in the AFSJ. In point of fact, statistics show that the ECJ is currently overloaded, a situation that may prevent a due response within a reasonable time71. Considering that the amount of cases —as well as their complexity— shall increase in the future, this could be, in my opinion, a reasonable step forward that would benefit both individuals’ and Member States’ interests in this field. Concluding remarks As occurs in any cross-border situation, conflicts of criminal jurisdiction represent a burden from the point of view of the exercise of the procedural safeguards, guarantees and fundamental rights of the suspected or accused person in criminal proceedings. After an in-depth analysis of the current situation, it must be stated that the procedure for the settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction currently in force presents systemic deficiencies in terms of respect of these rights and safeguards. As far as the current legal framework was adopted in a context where the development of the AFSJ was extremely unbalanced in favour of security and effectiveness of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, it does not devote any special attention to the situation of individuals. Therefore, is clear that it is no longer in line with the renewed approach on criminal justice adopted in Europe after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Some of the proposals and recommendations that have been explored in this paper to improve this situation would be relatively easy to implement: establishing a non-hierarchized list of factors in any new instrument on conflicts of criminal jurisdiction could be easily done by simply transposing the newest guidelines issued by Eurojust into the text of the instrument. In fact, some national legal systems have already established their own national list of connecting factors when transposing FD 2009/948/JHA, despite there not being any mandate to do so —as in the case of Spain—. Moreover, that would allow to the automatic establishment of a clear legal basis for a supranational judicial review on the choice of forum by the ECJ via preliminary ruling requests. On the other hand, some other proposals and models could be more difficult to adopt, but it would still possible to succeed according to the current wording of the treaties: moving to a vertical mechanism granting binding powers to Eurojust to settle the conflict could be done by means of art. 85 TFEU and provided that a supranational judicial review of its decision would be possible. However, in view of the recently adopted new regulation for Eurojust, which shall apply from December 2019, this possibility will remain unexplored in the short term. At any rate, the defective status quo should not be maintained any longer. Hence, no matter the path Member States decide to choose, it is about time to move on and replace the current legal framework on prevention and settlement of conflicts of criminal jurisdiction in the EU with new post-Lisbon instruments and rules on this matter observing higher standards of due process. 71 According to the statistics issued by the ECJ, the average duration of the proceedings before the court is above fifteen months. See Court of Justice of the European Union Annual Report 2017 – Judicial activity, DOI:10.2862/531984, pp. 114 and 216. 4. Alejandro Hernández López 1/2019 15 Diritto penale europeo DERECHO PENAL EUROPEO EUROPEAN CRIMINAL LAW Full reference list AMBOS, Kai (2006): Temas de Derecho penal internacional y europeo, (Madrid, Marcial Pons). ARANGÜENA FANEGO, Mª del Coral (2015): “Emisión y ejecución en España de órdenes europeas de protección (Ley de reconocimiento mutuo de resoluciones penales en la Unión Europea y transposición de la Directiva 2011/99/UE)”, Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo, n.º 51, 2015, pp. 491-535. BACHMAIER WINTER, Lorena (2018): “Fundamental Rights and Effectiveness in the European AFSJ. The continuous and never easy challenge of striking the right balance”, EUCRIM, n.º 1, pp. 56-63. BÖSE, Martin, MEYER, Frank, SCHNEIDER, Anne. (eds.) (2014): Conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal matters in the European Union. Volume II: Rights, principles and model rules, (Baden-Baden, Nomos), pp. 381 et seq. CONWAY, Gerard (2003): “Ne bis in idem in International Law”, International Criminal Law Review, Vol. 3, n.º 3, pp. 217-244. HOYOS SANCHO, Montserrat de (2017): El ejercicio de la acción penal por la víctima. Un estudio comparado, (Madrid, Thomson Reuters Aranzadi). GALLI, Francesca and WEYEMBERGH, Anne (Eds.) (2013): Approximation of substantive criminal law in the EU: The way forward (Brussels, Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles). HERNÁNDEZ LÓPEZ, Alejandro (2016): “Los conflictos de jurisdicción penal en el ámbito de la UE: situación en España tras la Ley 16/2015”, in FUENTES SORIANO, Olga (coord.): El proceso penal: cuestiones fundamentales (Valencia, Tirant lo Blanch) pp. 117-127. JAVATO MARTÍN, Antonio Mª (2018): “La entrega de Puigdemont por el delito de quebrantamiento de la paz pública (§ 125 Código Penal alemán)”, in ARROYO ZAPATERO, Luis, NIETO MARTÍN, Adán and MUÑOZ DE MORALES ROMERO, Marta (Dirs.): Cooperar y Castigar: el caso Puigdemont (Cuenca, Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha), pp. 65-70. LELIEUR, Juliette (2013): ““Transnationalising” Ne Bis In Idem: How the Rule of Ne Bis In Idem Reveals the Principle of Personal Legal Certainty”, Utrecht Law Review, 9 (4), pp. 198-210. LIGETI, Katalin, KLIP, André, VERVAELE, John A.E. (2018): Preventing and resolving conflicts of jurisdiction in EU Criminal Law. A European Law Institute Instrument. PART I: Instrument of the European Law Institute (London, Oxford University Press). LUCHTMAN, Michiel (2013): “Towards a Transnational Application of the Legality Principle in the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice?”, Utrecht Law Review, 9 (4), pp. 11-33. MAPELLI MARCHENA, Clara (2014): El Modelo Penal de la Unión Europea, (Cizur Menor, Thomson Reuters-Aranzadi). MITSILEGAS, Valsamis (2016): EU Criminal Law after Lisbon: Rights, Trust and the Transformation of Justice in Europe, (Oxford, Hart publishing). ORTIZ PRADILLO, Juan C. (2012): “Cibercrimen y conflictos de jurisdicción penal: una cuestión por resolver”, in CASTILLEJO MANZANARES, Raquel (Dir.) and SANDE MAYO, María J. (Coord.): Temas actuales en la persecución de los hechos delictivos (Madrid, La Ley) pp. 501-539. Alejandro Hernández López 1/2019 16 Diritto penale europeo DERECHO PENAL EUROPEO EUROPEAN CRIMINAL LAW OUWERKERK, Jannemieke (2011): Quid Pro Quo? A comparative law perspective on the mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters, (Cambridge-Antwerp-Portland, Intersentia). PATRONE, Ignazio (2013): “Conflicts of jurisdiction and judicial cooperation instruments: Eurojust’s role”, ERA Forum, vol. 14, issue 2, pp. 215-225. RAFARACI, Tommaso (2010): “Ne bis in idem y conflictos de jurisdicción en materia penal en el Espacio de Libertad, Seguridad y Justicia de la Unión Europea”, in ARANGÜENA FANEGO, Mª del Coral (Coord.): Espacio Europeo de Libertad, Seguridad y Justicia: últimos avances en cooperación judicial penal (Valladolid, Lex Nova) pp. 126-140. VAN BOCKEL, Bas (2010): The ne bis in idem Principle in EU Law (Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer Law International). VERVAELE, John A.E. (2013): “Ne Bis In Idem: Towards a Transnational Constitutional Principle in the EU?”, Utrecht Law Review 9 (4), pp. 211-229. VILAS ÁLVAREZ, David (2018): “Use and Abuse of the Concept of Fundamental Rights, An Obstacle for Judicial Cooperation?”, EUCRIM, n.º 1, pp. 64-71. WEYEMBERGH, Anne (2013): “The Development of Eurojust: Potential and Limitations of Article 85 of the TFEU”, New Journal of European Criminal Law, n.º 2, issue 1, pp. 75-99. ZIMMERMAN, Frank (2015): “Conflicts of Criminal Jurisdiction in the European Union”, Bergen Journal of Criminal Justice, n.º 3, issue 1, pp. 1-21. http://dpc-rivista-trimestrale.criminaljusticenetwork.eu