%0 Journal Article
%T Taricco principles beyond Taricco:  Some thoughts on three pending cases (Scialdone, Kolev and Menci)
%A Fabio Giuffrida
%J New Journal of European Criminal Law
%@ 2399-293X
%D 2018
%R 10.1177/2032284418761068
%X This contribution examines whether the principles laid down in M.A.S., M.B. (¡®Taricco II¡¯) may play a role in some forthcoming decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In Scialdone, the Court will be asked to strike a balance between the effectiveness of national legislation on VAT offences and the principle of lex mitior. The key difference between Taricco and Scialdone lies in the fact that the lex mitior principle, unlike the regulation of the statute of limitation, falls within the scope of the principle of legality at the European level. Kolev concerns instead an alleged incompatibility between Article 325 TFEU and the Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure. Unlike Taricco, therefore, the CJEU will have to deal with national rules that form part of procedural criminal law. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded that the Court may reach a Taricco II-like conclusion (i.e. disapplication in theory, exception to the disapplication in practice), especially if the reasoning of the CJEU will rely on the importance of foreseeability and legal certainty in criminal matters. These same principles could lead the CJEU, in Menci, not to endorse the partial revirement of the European Court of Human Rights in the A. and B v. Norway ruling and, as a consequence, not to lower the EU standard of protection of the right not to be tried or punished twice for the same offence
%K Taricco
%K Scialdone
%K Kolev
%K Menci
%K principle of legality
%U https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2032284418761068