When Market Abuse Rules Violate Human Rights: Grande Stevens v. Italy and the Different Approaches to Double Jeopardy in Europe and the US

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The 2014 decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy raises numerous complex issues concerning the regulation of market abuse in Italy and Europe, as well as in other systems. The broad questions that the Strasbourg Court addresses, specifically concerning the nature of administrative sanctions and civil penalties, due process in administrative sanctioning procedures, and double jeopardy issues when both criminal and civil sanctions can be imposed, not only are extremely practically relevant for the current and future regulation of insider trading and market manipulation, but also open a more theoretical discussion on the relationships between the only apparently unrelated fields of human rights and enforcement in financial markets. This article offers an analysis of the decision, also in the light of future developments due to the recent reform of European law on market abuse, and compares this landmark European decision with corresponding US case law.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)145-165
Number of pages21
JournalEuropean Business Organization Law Review
Volume16
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 18 2015

Fingerprint

Italy
human rights
abuse
sanction
market
regulation
European Law
financial market
case law
manipulation
penalty
reform
Market abuse
Human rights
Sanctions
Enforcement
Penalty
Financial markets
Insider trading
Market manipulation

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Business and International Management
  • Political Science and International Relations
  • Law

Cite this

@article{431004122f8c4f329834f08d9e840644,
title = "When Market Abuse Rules Violate Human Rights: Grande Stevens v. Italy and the Different Approaches to Double Jeopardy in Europe and the US",
abstract = "The 2014 decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy raises numerous complex issues concerning the regulation of market abuse in Italy and Europe, as well as in other systems. The broad questions that the Strasbourg Court addresses, specifically concerning the nature of administrative sanctions and civil penalties, due process in administrative sanctioning procedures, and double jeopardy issues when both criminal and civil sanctions can be imposed, not only are extremely practically relevant for the current and future regulation of insider trading and market manipulation, but also open a more theoretical discussion on the relationships between the only apparently unrelated fields of human rights and enforcement in financial markets. This article offers an analysis of the decision, also in the light of future developments due to the recent reform of European law on market abuse, and compares this landmark European decision with corresponding US case law.",
author = "Marco Ventoruzzo",
year = "2015",
month = "4",
day = "18",
doi = "10.1007/s40804-015-0002-2",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "145--165",
journal = "European Business Organization Law Review",
issn = "1566-7529",
publisher = "Baikal National University of Economics and Law",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - When Market Abuse Rules Violate Human Rights

T2 - Grande Stevens v. Italy and the Different Approaches to Double Jeopardy in Europe and the US

AU - Ventoruzzo, Marco

PY - 2015/4/18

Y1 - 2015/4/18

N2 - The 2014 decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy raises numerous complex issues concerning the regulation of market abuse in Italy and Europe, as well as in other systems. The broad questions that the Strasbourg Court addresses, specifically concerning the nature of administrative sanctions and civil penalties, due process in administrative sanctioning procedures, and double jeopardy issues when both criminal and civil sanctions can be imposed, not only are extremely practically relevant for the current and future regulation of insider trading and market manipulation, but also open a more theoretical discussion on the relationships between the only apparently unrelated fields of human rights and enforcement in financial markets. This article offers an analysis of the decision, also in the light of future developments due to the recent reform of European law on market abuse, and compares this landmark European decision with corresponding US case law.

AB - The 2014 decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy raises numerous complex issues concerning the regulation of market abuse in Italy and Europe, as well as in other systems. The broad questions that the Strasbourg Court addresses, specifically concerning the nature of administrative sanctions and civil penalties, due process in administrative sanctioning procedures, and double jeopardy issues when both criminal and civil sanctions can be imposed, not only are extremely practically relevant for the current and future regulation of insider trading and market manipulation, but also open a more theoretical discussion on the relationships between the only apparently unrelated fields of human rights and enforcement in financial markets. This article offers an analysis of the decision, also in the light of future developments due to the recent reform of European law on market abuse, and compares this landmark European decision with corresponding US case law.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84946171519&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84946171519&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s40804-015-0002-2

DO - 10.1007/s40804-015-0002-2

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84946171519

VL - 16

SP - 145

EP - 165

JO - European Business Organization Law Review

JF - European Business Organization Law Review

SN - 1566-7529

IS - 1

ER -