non bis in idem Nasıl Anlaşılmalı?: idem Unsurunun AIHM’e Göre Yorumu

Abstract

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesinin non bis in idem ilkesi bağlamında idem kavramının yorumlanmasında temel olarak üç yaklaşımı bulunmaktadır. Bunlar “aynı davranış testi”, “esaslı unsurlar testi” ve “aynı hareket testi”dir. Bu üç yorum da eleştiriye son derece açıktır. Bu bağlamda maddi ceza hukuku ve ceza muhakemesi hukuklarının uygulanmasında fiil kavramının bu iki hukuk bakımından birbirinden ayrılması gereklidir. Neyin idem kavramını oluşturduğuna karar vermek için muhakemesel fiil kavramı göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır. Ayrıca idem kavramının somut ve tutarlı uygulanması idem ve aynı idem kavramlarının farklılaştırılması yoluyla sağlanacaktır.

Keywords

• non bis in idem ilkesi,idem kavramı,İki kere yargılama yasağı,Muhakemesel fiil,Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi Protokol 7 m. 4

How to Understand non bis in idem?: The Element of idem According to the ECtHR

Abstract

The European Court of Human Rights essentially has three approaches on the issue of the interpretation of idem within the context of the non bis in idem principle, namely “same conduct test”, “essential elements test” and “same act test”. These three interpretations are highly open to criticism. In this regard, it is clear that a new concept is necessary to distinguish act in terms of substantive criminal law and act in procedural criminal law practice. In order to determine what constitutes an idem, one should consider the concept of “procedural act”. Moreover, I contend that providing a concrete and consistent interpretation of idem depends on the differentiation of the terms idem and same idem. 

Keywords

• Principle of non bis in idem,Concept of idem,Double jeopardy,Procedural act,Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights

Supporting Institution

The author received no grant support for this work.

References

1. Books & Articles
2. Bahçeci, Barış: “Vergi Cezalarında Ne Bis In Idem”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol: 67, No: 2, 2018, pp. 253-278.
3. Bockel, Bas Van: “Introduction and Set-Up of the Study”, Ne bis in idem in EU Law, Ed. by: Bas Van Bockel, Cambridge University Press, 2016, pp. 1-12.
4. Bockel, Bas Van: “The European ne bis in idem Principle: Substance, Sources and Scope”,Ne bis in idem in EU Law, Ed. by: Bas Van Bockel, Cambridge University Press, 2016, pp. 13-53 Carter, Linda E: “The Principle of Complementarity and the International Criminal Court: The Role of Ne Bis in Idem”, Santa Clare Law Journal of International Law, Vol: 8, No: 1, 2010, pp. 165-198.
5. de La Cuesta José Luis / Eser Albin : “Concurrent national and international criminal jurisdiction and the principle ‘ne bis in idem’”, Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal, Vol. 72, 2001/3-4, pp. 753-764.
6. Fletcher, Maria: “Some Developments to the ne bis in idem Principle in the European Union: Criminal Proceedings Against Hüseyn Gözütok and Klaus Brügge”, The Modern Law Review, Vol. 66, No. 5, September 2003, pp. 769-780.
7. Greco, Luis: Strafprozesstheorie und materielle Rechtskraft: Grundlagen und Dogmatik des Tatbegriffs, des Strafklage, verbrauchs und derWiederaufnahme im Strafverfahrensrecht, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 2015.
8. Groussot Xavier / Ericsson Angelica: “Ne bis in Idem in the EU and ECHR Legal Orders A Matter of Uniform Interpretation”, Ne bis in idem in EU Law, Ed. by: Bas Van Bockel, Cambridge University Press, 2016, pp. 53-102.

9. Kindhäuser, Urs: Strafprozessrecht, 3. Auflage, 2013.
10. Lee, Kyung-Lyul: Die Präzisierung der “Tateinheit” und Reichweite des Strafklage, verbrauchs nach der Entscheidung BGHSt 40, 138 zum “Fortsetzungszusammenhang”, Logos, Berlin, 2002.
11. Mansdörfer, Marco: Das Prinzip des ne bis in idem im europäischen Strafrecht, Dencker & Humblot, Berlin, 2004.
12. Neagu, Norel: “The Ne Bis in Idem Principle in the Interpretation of European Courts: Towards Uniform Interpretation”, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 25, 2012, pp. 955-977.
13. Ravasi, Elisa: Human Rights Protection by te ECtHR and the ECJ: A Comparative Analyisis in Light of the Equivalency Doctrine, Boston Brill, 2017.
14. Roxin/ Schünemannn: Strafverfahrensrecht, 29. Ed,. München, Beck, 2017.
15. Schomburg, Wolfgang: Germany, “Concurrent National and International Criminal Jurisdiction and the Principle “ne bis in idem””, Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal, Vol. 73, 2002/3, pp. 941-964.
16. Schomburg, Wolfgang: “Ne bis in idem. Vom Auslieferungshindernis zum internationalen strafrechtlichen Doppelverfolgungsverbot als EU-Grundrecht. Eine Einführung anhand von Texten”, “Ne bis in idem” in Europa, Ed. by: Gudrun Hochmayr, Nomos, 2015, pp. 9-26.
17. Spinellis, Dionysios: “Global Report the ne bis in idem Principle in “Global” Instruments”, Revue international de droit pénal, Vol. 73, 2002/3, pp. 1149-1162.
18. Wyngaert, Christine van den / Stessens, Guy: “The International Non Bis In Idem Principle: Resolving Some of the Unanswered Questions”, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol: 48, No: 4, October 1999, pp. 779-804.
19. Online Resources
20. Beck’scher Online Kommentar Grundgesetz, Herausgegeben von Epping/Hillgruber, 30. Ed. 2016, § 103, Rn. 44 (BeckOK GG/Radtke-Hagemeier, §103). https://beck-online.beck.de/ Dokument?vpath=bibdata%2Fkomm%2Fbeckokgg_40%2Fgg%2Fcont%2Fbeckokgg.gg.a103. htm
21. The Principle of Ne Bis in Idem in Criminal Matters in the Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, (Çevrimiçi) http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/doclibrary/Eurojustframework/caselawanalysis/The%20principle%20of%20Ne%20Bis%20in%20Idem%20 in%20criminal%20matters%20in%20the%20case%20law%20of%20the%20Court%20of%20 Justice%20of%20the%20EU%20(Sept.%202017)/2017-09_CJEU-CaseLaw-NeBisInIdem_ EN.pdf 27.03.2019
22. https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf 17.01.2019
23. https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Non_bis_in_idem_ENG.pdf Guide on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights, (Çevrimiçi) https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_4_Protocol_7_ENG.pdf , 27.03.2019
24. Cases
25. Bachmaier v. Austria, 2 September 2004.
26. Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976.
27. Franz Fischer v. Austria, 29 May 2001.
28. Garretta v. France, 4 March 2008.
29. Gradinger v. Austria, 23 October 1995.
30. Hauser-Sporn v. Austria, 7 December 2006.
31. Sailer v. Austria, 6 June 2002.
32. Manasson v. Sweden, 8 April 2003.
33. Oliveira v. Switzerland, 30 July 1998.
34. Schutte v. Austria, 26 July 2007.
35. W.F. v. Austria, 30 May 2002.
36. Zolotukhin v. Russia, 10 February 2009.