EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CA0398
Case C-398/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Fermo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against M (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Article 54 — ‘Ne bis in idem’ principle — Scope — Order made by a court of a Contracting State finding that there is no ground to refer a case to a trial court because of insufficient evidence — Possibility of reopening the criminal investigation in the case where new facts and/or evidence come to light — Concept of person whose trial has been ‘finally disposed of’ — Criminal prosecution in another Contracting State of the same person in respect of the same acts — Preclusion of further prosecution and application of the ne bis in idem principle)
Case C-398/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Fermo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against M (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Article 54 — ‘Ne bis in idem’ principle — Scope — Order made by a court of a Contracting State finding that there is no ground to refer a case to a trial court because of insufficient evidence — Possibility of reopening the criminal investigation in the case where new facts and/or evidence come to light — Concept of person whose trial has been ‘finally disposed of’ — Criminal prosecution in another Contracting State of the same person in respect of the same acts — Preclusion of further prosecution and application of the ne bis in idem principle)
Case C-398/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Fermo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against M (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Article 54 — ‘Ne bis in idem’ principle — Scope — Order made by a court of a Contracting State finding that there is no ground to refer a case to a trial court because of insufficient evidence — Possibility of reopening the criminal investigation in the case where new facts and/or evidence come to light — Concept of person whose trial has been ‘finally disposed of’ — Criminal prosecution in another Contracting State of the same person in respect of the same acts — Preclusion of further prosecution and application of the ne bis in idem principle)
OJ C 253, 4.8.2014, p. 7–7
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
4.8.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 253/7 |
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Fermo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against M
(Case C-398/12) (1)
((Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Article 54 - ‘Ne bis in idem’ principle - Scope - Order made by a court of a Contracting State finding that there is no ground to refer a case to a trial court because of insufficient evidence - Possibility of reopening the criminal investigation in the case where new facts and/or evidence come to light - Concept of person whose trial has been ‘finally disposed of’ - Criminal prosecution in another Contracting State of the same person in respect of the same acts - Preclusion of further prosecution and application of the ne bis in idem principle))
2014/C 253/09
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Tribunale di Fermo
Party in the criminal proceedings in the main action
M
Re:
Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Fermo — Interpretation of Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — ‘Ne bis in idem’ principle — Concept of ‘person whose trial has been finally disposed of’ — Final decision of no case to answer made by a court of a Member State
Operative part of the judgment
Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed in Schengen (Luxembourg) on 19 June 1990, must be interpreted as meaning that an order making a finding that there is no ground to refer a case to a trial court which precludes, in the Contracting State in which that order was made, the bringing of new criminal proceedings in respect of the same acts against the person to whom that finding applies, unless new facts and/or evidence against that person come to light, must be considered to be a final judgment, for the purposes of that article, precluding new proceedings against the same person in respect of the same acts in another Contracting State.