Prevenirea şi soluţionarea conflictelor de jurisdicţie în materie penală
The prevention and the settlement of the conflict of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings

Summary/Abstract: The development of the European area of freedom, security and justice attracted by itself a series of negative consequences. Owing to the increase in the movement of persons in the European Union, the national authorities of the Member States extended their jurisdiction for prosecuting criminal cases. Consequently, the criminal justice systems of the European Union are now confronted with situations where several Member States have criminal jurisdiction to investigate and bring to trial the same facts relating to the commission of criminal offences. When two or more Member States have initiated parallel proceedings for the same facts against the same person, the conflict of jurisdiction should be resolved while proceedings are ongoing in two or more Member States and before a final judgement, as otherwise the principle of ne bis in idem becomes applicable. Before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Member States adopted a new legal instrument to regulate the conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings, namely the Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA. However, by analysing the framework decision, one will find that it is rather empty of legal content, thus requiring a change of the legal framework through the adoption of a new directive. In order to suggest changes, it is necessary to make comparisons with Romanian domestic law, with civil law and with private international law, but also with other instruments contributing to judicial cooperation in criminal proceedings under European law, like the European arrest warrant (EAW), the European Protection Order (OEP), and the European Investigation Order (EIO). Moreover, a legislative proposal presented by the Freiburg Team in 2003 suggested a much wider approach, which, in short, puts forward solutions for preventing and resolving conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings. The proposal arose from the fact that, under the current rules, many of the consequences are detrimental both to the rights and the interests of individuals and to those of the Member States, putting the national authorities to more work.

• Details
• Contents