In its decision in the case of Krombach v. France (application no. 67521/14) the European Court of
Human Rights has unanimously declared the application inadmissible. The decision is final.
The case concerned Mr Krombach’s criminal conviction in France for events in respect of which he
submitted that he had previously been acquitted in Germany. The facts concerned the
circumstances surrounding the death of Kalinka Bamberski in 1982 at Mr Krombach’s home in
Germany. The case raised the question of the right not to be tried or punished twice (ne bis in idem).
Pursuant to its constant case-law, the Court held that Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried
or punished twice) did not prevent an individual from being prosecuted or punished by the courts of
a State Party to the Convention on the grounds of an offence of which he or she had been acquitted
or convicted by a final judgment in another State Party. Since Mr Krombach had been prosecuted by
courts in two different States, namely Germany and France, Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 did not apply.
Human Rights has unanimously declared the application inadmissible. The decision is final.
The case concerned Mr Krombach’s criminal conviction in France for events in respect of which he
submitted that he had previously been acquitted in Germany. The facts concerned the
circumstances surrounding the death of Kalinka Bamberski in 1982 at Mr Krombach’s home in
Germany. The case raised the question of the right not to be tried or punished twice (ne bis in idem).
Pursuant to its constant case-law, the Court held that Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried
or punished twice) did not prevent an individual from being prosecuted or punished by the courts of
a State Party to the Convention on the grounds of an offence of which he or she had been acquitted
or convicted by a final judgment in another State Party. Since Mr Krombach had been prosecuted by
courts in two different States, namely Germany and France, Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 did not apply.
Principal facts
The applicant, Dieter Krombach, is a German national who was born in 1935. According to the
information available to the Court, he is in prison in Paris.
Kalinka Bamberski, aged 15, was Mr Krombach’s stepdaughter and the daughter of
André Bamberski. The latter had lodged a complaint in Germany and France against Mr Krombach,
whom he suspected of raping and then murdering his daughter. Between 1982 and 1986 the
German authorities carried out several investigations and issued four decisions discontinuing
proceedings, on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to justify a prosecution. As Ms
Bamberski was a French national, criminal proceedings had also been opened in France against Mr
Krombach.
In 1995 the Paris Assize Court sentenced him in his absence to 15 years’ imprisonment for assault
resulting in unintentional death. In its judgment Krombach v. France (no. 29731/96) of 13 February
2001, the European Court of Human Rights held that this conviction had been in violation of Article 6
(right to a fair trial) of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal
matters). By a judgment of 10 December 2008, the Court of Cassation quashed and set aside, in the
interests of the law, the assize court judgment of 1995.
Mr Krombach remained at liberty in Germany until André Bamberski organised his abduction and
removal to France: on 18 October 2009 he was deposited in Mulhouse (France), having been tied up,
gagged and injured; he was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention. In October 2011 the Paris
Assize Court sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment for assault resulting in Ms Bamberski’s
unintentional death. That judgment was upheld on appeal, and an appeal on points of law by
Mr Krombach was dismissed.
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 9 October 2014.
Mr Krombach complained of a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or
punished twice).
The decision was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:
Angelika Nußberger (Germany), President,
Erik Møse (Norway),
Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine),
André Potocki (France),
Síofra O’Leary (Ireland),
Mārtiņš Mits (Latvia),
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (Austria), Judges,
and also Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar.
Decision of the Court
Article 4 of Protocol No. 7
The Court had consistently held that Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 only concerned “courts in the same
State” and therefore did not prevent an individual from being prosecuted or punished by the courts
of a State Party to the Convention on the grounds of an offence of which he or she had been
acquitted or convicted by a final judgment in another State Party.
Furthermore, the Court considered that the fact that France and Germany were members of the
European Union did not affect the applicability of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. Although European
Union law lent a trans-State dimension to the ne bis in idem principle at the EU level, the Court
reiterated that it had no jurisdiction to apply European Union rules or to assess alleged violations of
the latter, unless and in so far as such violations might have infringed the rights secured under the
Convention. It was therefore not the Court’s task to judge whether Mr Krombach’s prosecution in
France and his subsequent conviction had contravened European Union law. Moreover, the Court
emphasised that the Convention did not prevent States Parties from granting wider legal protection
to the rights and freedoms which it guaranteed than that which it implemented under domestic law,
other international treaties or European Union law.
In conclusion, the Court held that since Mr Krombach’s prosecution had been carried out by courts
in two different States, that is to say Germany and France, Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 did not apply to
the present case.
The complaint under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 was incompatible with the provisions of the
Convention. It therefore had to be rejected as being inadmissible.
The decision is available only in French
(This press release is a document produced by the Registry)
Un comentario sobre esta decisión de inadmisibilidad:
"Although France and Germany are both EU Member States
and a broader, “transnational” ne bis in idem rule in the form of Article 54 of
the Convention on the Implementation of the Schengen Agreement is in force
within the EU, this provision has no bearing on the scope of application of
Article 4 of Protocol 7 ECHR. The Court finds that it lacks competence to apply
rules contained in EU law or to rule on a possible breach of those rules,
except where a breach of a rule of EU law incidentally also breaches a right
from the Convention. It is therefore up to the member states and in particular
the national judiciary to interpret and apply national law in the light of the
applicable provisions of Union law, and the Court is not in a position to rule
on a potential breach of EU law. The application is declared inadmissible. In
itself the decision does not come as a surprise given the wording of Article 4
of Protocol 7 ECHR. Although the question of the international
(non-)application of that provision was debated around the time that the 7th
Protocol was drafted and adopted (1984), that debate has now been put to rest
because the wording of the provision excludes the possibility of international
application of the ne bis in idem provision contained in it.
The decision raises interest because of what the Court says about its own role in relation to European Union law. In the decision, the Court sets out a seemingly straightforward division of tasks under which the national judiciary interprets and applies national law in the light of any relevant EU law. According to it, the ECtHR “merely” establishes the compatibility of the result with ECHR law, without prejudice to any national or EU arrangement in the field of human rights. This could be interpreted as further clarifying where the line between EU and ECHR law is drawn as far as the Court is concerned, while at the same time making it clear that the Court does not intend to overstep
The decision raises interest because of what the Court says about its own role in relation to European Union law. In the decision, the Court sets out a seemingly straightforward division of tasks under which the national judiciary interprets and applies national law in the light of any relevant EU law. According to it, the ECtHR “merely” establishes the compatibility of the result with ECHR law, without prejudice to any national or EU arrangement in the field of human rights. This could be interpreted as further clarifying where the line between EU and ECHR law is drawn as far as the Court is concerned, while at the same time making it clear that the Court does not intend to overstep
