This judgment of the Grand Chamber in the case of *Jesus Pinhal v. Portugal* (9 July 2026) represents a landmark development in the Court\u2019s jurisprudence regarding the *ne bis in idem* principle (the right not to be tried or punished twice). The case involved three parallel sets of proceedings\u2014criminal, administrative (by the Securities Market Commission, CMVM), and banking-regulatory (by the Banco de Portugal, BdP)\u2014initiated against a former bank executive for the same underlying conduct of market manipulation and false reporting. The Court first declared that Portugal\u2019s reservation to Protocol No. 7 was invalid due to a lack of a “brief statement of the law concerned,” thereby confirming its jurisdiction to review the case. On the merits, the Court established a “new approach” for assessing *ne bis in idem* complaints, moving away from a rigid interpretation toward a more flexible, integrated assessment. Ultimately, the Grand Chamber held that the proceedings, while overlapping, formed a “coherent whole” that was foreseeable and proportionate, and therefore did not constitute a prohibited duplication of proceedings. Consequently, the Court found no violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.<\/p>\n
### Structure and Key Provisions
\nThe decision is structured to systematically address the three components of the *ne bis in idem* principle:
\n1. **Criminal Nature:** The Court reaffirmed the *Engel* criteria (domestic classification, nature of the offence, and severity of the penalty) to determine if administrative proceedings are “criminal” for the purposes of the Convention.
\n2. **The “Idem” (Same Offence) Concept:** The Court refined the “same offence” test. It clarified that “similarity” of facts is no longer sufficient; the material facts must be “identical” or “substantially the same,” involving the same perpetrator and being inextricably linked in time and space.
\n3. **The “Bis” (Duplication) Concept:** The Court refined the “integrated punitive system” doctrine. It confirmed that dual proceedings are permissible if they are “sufficiently closely connected in substance and in time.”<\/p>\n
**Changes compared to previous versions:** The Grand Chamber has significantly tightened the *idem* test (rejecting mere similarity) while simultaneously providing a more structured, multi-factor “bis” test to determine if proceedings form a “coherent whole.”<\/p>\n
### Most Important Provisions for Use
\nFor legal practitioners and researchers, the following provisions are the most critical:<\/p>\n
* **The “New Approach” (Paragraph 250):** The Court provided a definitive five-part checklist to determine if dual proceedings are Convention-compliant:
\n * **Different Legal Interests:** Do the proceedings address distinct social values or protected legal interests?
\n * **Foreseeability:** Was the multiplicity of proceedings provided for by domestic law?
\n * **Coordination Rules:** Does domestic law provide clear rules for coordination and the prevention of excessive cumulative sanctions?
\n * **Proportionality in Practice:** Was the overall sanction proportionate to the seriousness of the acts, and were acquittals in earlier proceedings taken into account?
\n * **Connection in Time:** Were the proceedings conducted in a manner that protects the individual from uncertainty and delay?
\n* **The “Idem” Clarification (Paragraph 223):** The Court explicitly stated that “mere similarity shall no longer suffice” to trigger the *ne bis in idem* protection. This raises the threshold for applicants to prove they are being prosecuted for the “same offence.”
\n* **The “Bis” Role of Proportionality (Paragraph 234):** The Court elevated the requirement that the overall sanction be proportionate to a “prominent\u2014if not decisive\u2014role” in determining whether the proceedings form a coherent whole.<\/p>\n
**:** This decision has significant implications for Ukraine and Ukrainian legal professionals. As Ukraine continues to harmonize its financial and administrative regulatory frameworks with European standards, this judgment provides the definitive “blueprint” for how parallel administrative and criminal proceedings must be structured to avoid violating the Convention. It offers a clear defense for states maintaining specialized regulatory authorities (like the NBU or NSSMC) while simultaneously setting strict requirements for coordination and proportionality that Ukrainian courts must now apply when reviewing multi-track enforcement actions.<\/p>\n