Es decir, alguien condenado o absuelto [14] por un delito cometido en el Estado miembro A no debería ser procesado por el mismo hecho en el Estado miembro B, aun cuando el Estado miembro B tenga jurisdicción sobre los hechos (porque, por ejemplo, la persona en cuestión sea nacional del Estado miembro B) o en el Estado miembro B hubiera podido pronunciarse una sentencia diferente (por ejemplo, porque dicho delito pueda ser castigado con una pena de privación de libertad más larga).
Full mutual recognition as en
visaged to be achieved among EU Member States would have to be based on the principle that a decision taken by no matter which authority in the EU fully deals with the issue and that no further decision needs to be taken at all, i.e. the principle of exhaustion. In other words, if someone was convicted or acquitted [14] for a criminal offence committed in Member State A, he should not be prosecuted for the same facts, however they may be qualified, in Member State B, even if Member State B has jurisdiction over the facts (because e.g. the person in question is a national of Member State B) and even if in Memb
...[+++]er State B, a different judgement could have been pronounced (e.g. because the offence in question can be punished by longer deprivation of liberty).
