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

1 Scopus citations

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

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

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

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'When Market Abuse Rules Violate Human Rights: Grande Stevens v. Italy and the Different Approaches to Double Jeopardy in Europe and the US'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this