Recent publications in English: Archive of European Integration 2016 HAL Archives-Ouvertes 2017 IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 2019 In Hungarian: Magyar Jog 2004 (English summary)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 

 

Reasons withheld and insufficient reasoning as due process violations: two cases before the ECHR 
Archive of European Integration 2016  http://aei.pitt.edu/71761/

Comments on the notion of information system in the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime,
the EU Directive, and selected penal codes  
HAL Archives-Ouvertes 2017  https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01588889

The meet operation in the imbalance lattice of maximal instantaneous codes:
alternative proof of existence 
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 2019 (with co-authors D. Stott Parker and S. Radeleczki) 
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8782615

Short summary of the article "A piacbefolyásolás kétszeres szankcionálása: a strasbourgi Grande Stevens ügy tanulságai"  Magyar Jog 2014 (co-author Géza Kajtár)          Double jeopardy for market manipulation: lessons of the Grande Stevens case before the Eurpean Court of Human Rights                                                                               The Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy case, decided by the ECHR in 2014, originated in questions of public disclosure arising in 2005 in relation to the planning of massive transactions involving securities of the Italian car maker FIAT. Administrative fines in the aggreagate amount of 16 000 000 euros were assessed in 2007 against two investment companies holding a substantial part of FIAT stock, two executives of these companies, as well as their legal advisor, Franzo Grande Stevens, for deficiencies that the CONSOB - the Italian stock market supervisory authority - found to have occurred in the making of these disclosures. Subsequently, in 2008 criminal proceedings were also initiated against the same individuals and investment companies. The defendants unsuccessfully invoked the prohibition of double jeopardy, - the ne bis in idem principle -, which is contained both in the Italian code of criminal procedures and in Protocol 7 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Therefore the defendants lodged an application at the ECHR in Strasbourg. The Italian government argued that the criminal prosecution initiated in 2008 was not a second criminal prosecution. because the CONSOB's procedure was an administrative procedure, not a criminal procedure. The ECHR ruled otherwise, relying on its substantial case law developed over the years. According to this a sanction imposed by a national authority cannot be exempted from the strict guarantees of criminal law on the grounds that it is not considered a criminal sanction in a state's domestic legal system. The ECHR's criteria of what constitutes criminal proceedings take into account, but do not solely depend on national law: these criteria allow the ECHR to make an autonomous determination of whether administrative sanctions imposed by a state should in fact be considered penal sanctions or not. As the CONSOB's proceedings concluded in 2007 satisfied these criteria, the criminal prosecution initiated in 2008 was considered repeated crimiminal proceedings, leading to the ECHR's determination that this violated the applicants' right not to be punished twice guaranteed by the Convention. The article is devoted to the analysis of these criteria, with some conclusions about their possible application to administrative proceedings in Hungary.