text:
1856 Last Island hurricane

The 1856 Last Island hurricane (also known as the Great Storm of 1856) was a deadly and destructive tropical cyclone that is tied with 2020's Hurricane Laura and 2021's Hurricane Ida as the strongest hurricane on record to make landfall in the U.S. state of Louisiana, as measured by maximum sustained winds. The first known tropical cyclone of 1856 Atlantic hurricane season, it was observed first as a minimal hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico near Dry Tortugas on August 9. Moving northwestward, the cyclone quickly intensified into a strong Category 4 hurricane on the modern-day Saffir–Simpson scale by the following day. Late on August 10, the hurricane made landfall on Last Island, Louisiana, with winds at 150 mph, hours before striking near New Iberia. The system rapidly weakened after moving inland, falling to tropical storm intensity on August 11. The storm would be last noted over Mississippi on the next day.

Offshore, at least 183 people drowned after steamers and schooners sank in rough seas produced by the hurricane. A storm surge between 11 and 12 ft completely submerged Last Island in Louisiana, destroying virtually every structure, including the hotels and casinos, while all crops were ruined. Additionally, Last Island itself was split in two. Inland, heavy rainfall caused the Mermentau River to flood, destroying crops and every house in Abbeville. The storm produced as much as 13.14 in of precipitation in New Orleans. In Plaquemines Parish, rice fields were under several feet of water, while many orange trees lost their fruit. Overall, the hurricane resulted in at least 300 fatalities.

Meteorological history
The cyclone was first detected in the eastern Gulf of Mexico 125 mi west-northwest of Key West, Florida, on August 8, 1856. Because it was already a hurricane when it was first observed, it probably had developed further east than here. It advanced steadily northwest, strengthening to the equivalent of a Category 3 hurricane. The hurricane gradually slowed prior to landfall on August 10, and it attained its estimated peak intensity of 150 mph. It was a tropical cyclone of small diameter, and its maximum sustained winds may have reached Category 5 status, but were unrecorded. During the early evening of August 10 the northeastern edge of the eye crossed over Last Island (Official name: Isle Dernière) before making landfall a few hours later south of New Iberia, Louisiana. The cyclone is believed to have struck southern Louisiana at peak intensity with an approximate central pressure of 934 mbar. A ship reported a peripheral pressure of 955 mbar, so a lower pressure was based on the small size of the hurricane. It quickly weakened over land, and it diminished to a tropical storm on August 11. It dissipated over southwestern Mississippi on August 12 with fully tropical characteristics.

Last Island
Many Last Island vacationers hoping to escape the approaching storm were awaiting the scheduled arrival of the ship Star, which provided regular service to the mainland. However, the Star was blown off course, barely escaping sailing into the open gulf, directly into the hurricane, where it would have almost certainly been lost. Passenger Tom Ellis, an experienced captain in local waters, and a few other passengers observed the ship was off course. Ellis alerted Captain Abe Smith, who corrected the course and barely making headway against the winds, managed to pull into the channel behind the hotel. The Star was swept, crashing into shore and beached on the sand, where it stayed through the storm.

Visibility during the storm was extremely limited and eyes were blasted by sand until water covered the beaches. Sometime between 4:00 and 5:00 PM, the storm surge occurred suddenly, with the water rising several feet in a matter of minutes. The storm surge submerged the entire island and destroyed all of the buildings. The hotel, which held many women and children on the second floor and men on the first, collapsed, crushing many and sweeping others out to sea.

Several survivors managed to make their way to the hull of the Star. By tying himself with a rope to the Star, Captain Abe Smith was able to rescue at least 40 people from the storm surge. The Star would serve as a shelter for the survivors until rescuers arrived three days later.

Many managed to survive by sheltering in or behind overturned cisterns, which were large wooden cylindrical tanks reinforced with iron hoops. Some clung to the raised foundations of the cisterns and a few to trees. A dozen people survived by clinging to a large piece of rotating playground equipment atop a levee. Many people floated on debris, including wall sections, logs and furniture. A sturdy wooden enclosure that held large terrapins, a regional delicacy, provided enough protection to save several individuals. Another group survived by burying their feet in the sand and holding hands. Some survivors were carried to the marshes on the mainland, although some perished from injuries or lack of food and water.

Of the approximately 400 vacationers on the island, 198 were known or presumed dead and 203 were known survivors. Dixon (2009) provides lists of survivors and the dead.

Several of the victims were enslaved people. Some of the enslaved people were credited with rescuing others, including several children.

The tragedy had a major impact on the planter society, which lost many members. At the time of the hurricane approximately two-thirds of the millionaires in the U.S. lived in Louisiana, many of those being plantation owners, especially sugar growers. Of the social group affected, many were friends, acquaintances, or related by marriage or known through business.

The family home of three of the Last Island casualties was Shadows-on-the-Teche in New Iberia, Louisiana, now a National Historic Landmark. Mrs. Frances Weeks (Magill) Pruett and her children Mary Ida Magill and Augustine Magill died in the natural disaster. The two children were buried in the plantation's cemetery.

The island itself was split into the Last Islands (Isles Dernieres). The island reportedly stayed submerged for several days before parts of it re-emerged as large sandbars. After the storm surge, the remains of the Star were the only sign that an island had ever existed there. Presently, the area is the Isles Dernieres Barrier Islands Refuge owned and managed by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to provide protected nesting grounds for pelicans and other waterbirds.

Elsewhere
The following are the numbers of deaths offshore:
 * Steamer Nautilus: 85
 * Steamer Manilla: 13
 * Schooner Ellen: 15
 * Other losses at sea: 20

On Calliou Island, which was located near Last Island, four homes were destroyed, and the others suffered substantial damage. Tides generated by the storm capsized two boats and swept away stock. The city of New Orleans was inundated with 13.14 in of rain. Every building in Abbeville was destroyed, including St. Mary Magdalen Church. Crops along the Mermentau River suffered large losses from freshwater flooding. Farther east, storm surge and abnormally high tides left some sections of Plaquemines Parish inundated by several feet of water, resulting in a near-total loss of rice crops. Severe losses to orange crops were reported in the area. Extensive damage occurred in St. Tammany Parish at Lewisburg, Mandeville, and other areas near the Tchefuncte River. The storm swept away bathhouses and wharves, while also downing fences, trees, and vegetation.

In print
The disaster became national news as soon as three survivors salvaged a small boat and sailed to the mainland for help.

In addition to the several firsthand accounts, the story of Last Island has been republished periodically. The list below includes only a few versions:

 * In 1871, Harper's New Monthly had a story about the capsizing of the steamer Nautilus and Jim Frisbee, the ship's second steward, the only survivor.
 * Lafcadio Hearn's novel Chita: A Memory of Last Island (1889), based on the Last Island hurricane of 1856, was a popular story when published; however, it either created or perpetuated several myths about the tragedy. One of the main sources of Hearn's novel was identified as the account written by Iberville Parish sugar planter Michael Shlatre. After publication of Chita, Michael Shlatre's document became lost after being borrowed and not returned. The document was recovered during 1936, when it was found in the Iberville Parish courthouse in Plaquemine, La.
 * Bill Dixon's Last Days of Last Island (2009) was written using information from various archives in an attempt to be historically accurate. The numerous references include a newspaper article, a few books, and accounts of the survivors, many of whom are quoted.

title: 1856 Last Island hurricane


text:
User talk:Thelimulus

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips:
 * Take a look at the Simplified Ruleset.
 * Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style.
 * Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
 * Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
 * Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
 * Use the Show preview button
 * Provide an Edit summary
 * Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
 * Take a look at Consensus of standards
 * Create a User page
 * Be bold
 * Ignore all rules

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the  link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alf 16:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC).

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Thelimulus


text:
Kleinwort Benson

Kleinwort Benson was a leading investment bank that offered a wide range of financial services from offices throughout the United Kingdom and Channel Islands. Two families, the Kleinworts and the Bensons, founded two different merchant banks in London. They merged in 1961 to create Kleinwort Benson Lonsdale, later Kleinwort Benson. Following its acquisition by Société Générale in June 2016, it was merged with SG Hambros, already a subsidiary of Société Générale, to form Kleinwort Hambros in November 2016.

Kleinworts
The earliest known Kleinwort to go into banking was 24-year-old Heinrich Kleinwort, a grandfather of Sir Alexander Drake Kleinwort, 1st Baronet. In 1786, Heinrich set up a partnership with Otto Mueller in Holstein to finance trade with England. Kleinworts established a successful trading business in Cuba, profiting from the expansion of the H. Upmann and Sons cigar business. Edward Cohen and James Drake joined the firm in the 1830s and for a while it was known as Drake, Kleinwort and Cohen; it was then renamed Kleinwort, Sons and Company in the 1880s.

The firm helped finance Francisco Franco's coup d'état in Spain by approving a credit of 800,000 pounds at 4% interest on 15 September 1937. A month later Kleinworts agreed another loan of 1,500,000 pounds sterling at 3%.

Robert Benson & Co.
In 1786, Robert Benson, a Quaker, joined with William Rathbone IV of the existing house of William Rathbone & Co. to form Rathbone & Benson, a Liverpool business trading mainly with America. Over the course of the 19th century, the Benson family, under the control of Robin Benson, grew its wealth through railway finance in Britain, Europe and America. For example it became part of a syndicate that marketed shares in the Illinois Central Railroad in 1852.

In 1947 Robert Benson and Co. merged with Lonsdale Investment Trust (founded by Leo Lonsdale) to form Robert Benson, Lonsdale and Co. The Benson family interest in the group was watered down but operational control of bank remained with its Chairman, Rex Benson.

Kleinwort Benson
Kleinworts and Robert Benson, Lonsdale and Co. merged to form Kleinwort Benson Lonsdale in 1961. The merged firm acquired the bullion dealer Sharps Pixley in 1966 thereby securing a seat on the London gold price fixing committee that met twice daily in the offices of N M Rothschild & Sons. Kleinwort Benson worked on several major mergers and acquisitions at this time including the merger of Cadbury with Schweppes in 1969.

The firm decided to enter the securities market buying Charlesworth and Co., a stock jobber, in October 1984 and Grieveson Grant, a leading stockbroker, in April 1986.

In the 1980s, Kleinwort Benson was a pioneer in privatisation. It managed the reprivatisation of British Aerospace, the first of the British Government's programme of disposals in 1981. It also managed the flotation of Cable & Wireless in the same year. It next advised on the privatisation of Associated British Ports in 1983. It went on to advise the British Government on the sale of 50.2% of British Telecom, the largest ever share issue at the time, in 1984. It assisted with the privatization of Enterprise Oil in the same year. Important private sector transactions at that time included the takeover of Harrods by the Fayed brothers in 1984.

The firm also worked on overseas privatisations advising the Italian government on the IPO of Enel in 1993. In the United Kingdom it advised on Carlton Communications' £723 million takeover of Central Television in the same year.

Dresdner Kleinwort
In 1995, Kleinwort Benson was acquired by Dresdner Bank and, as Dresdner Kleinwort, became its investment banking arm. It added global reach through the acquisition of the US investment bank Wasserstein Perella in 2001 (from Bruce Wasserstein). The Frankfurt branch of the bank was instrumental in initiating trading in emissions credits in 2003. In 2004, the Russian government hired Dresdner Kleinwort to value Yukos's Yuganskneftegaz which was later sold to Russian state oil major Rosneft. In January 2006, the bank became the target of a US$1.4 billion class action suit by six employees alleging bias and systematic discrimination against female workers.

In December 2008 Commerzbank, which was in the process of acquiring Dresdner Bank, decided to close Dresdner Kleinwort's Mergers & Acquisitions Unit. Then in March 2009 it became clear that the office in Japan would close. It also became clear that the capital markets and equities units would close and that advisory work would only be undertaken for Commerzbank's German clients.

In February 2009 the Commerzbank management announced that no bonuses would be paid across the Commerzbank group including Dresdner Kleinwort. This was clarified to mean that Front Office staff would receive 10% of the bonus promised in December 2008 but support functions would receive their full bonus. This, together with issues regarding severance payments and guaranteed bonus payments, led to a number of lawsuits. Jens-Peter Neumann, former head of Capital Markets sued in Germany in April 2009 for €1.5 million in severance pay. Former senior managers Martin Newson, Eduardo Listorti and Michael Adams sued but settled out of court. Other executives (Areski Iberrakene, Efstratios Hatzistefanis, Kaveh Taleghani and Stefan Guetter) won their bonus suits against the bank in August 2009. Additional cases were brought by Dresdner Kleinwort executive committee members John McIntyre, Bertrand Pinel and Alberto Piedra in August 2009 seeking €11 million. In September 2009, 72 former and current Dresdner Kleinwort front office employees sued for £30 million in disputed bonus payments.

BHF Kleinwort Benson Group
In September 2009 Commerzbank decided to abandon use of the Dresdner Kleinwort name and, in October 2009, sold the firm, by then renamed Kleinwort Benson, to RHJ International.

In July 2011, RHJ International announced that its subsidiary, Kleinwort Benson, was in exclusive negotiations with Deutsche Bank regarding a potential acquisition of BHF Bank, one of Germany's strongest banking brands, with operations in private banking, asset management, financial markets and corporate banking. In September 2012, it announced that it had reached agreement with Deutsche Bank for Kleinwort Benson to acquire BHF Bank for €384 million.

In November 2011 Saffron Tax Partners announced the acquisition of the private client tax compliance business from Kleinwort Benson. In December 2012 London-based independent advice firm SK Financial bought about 1,000 clients from Kleinwort Benson that Kleinwort Benson felt it could no longer support profitably after the implementation of the Retail Distribution Review. The bank moved to new premises at St George Street in London in 2012.

RHJ International became "BHF Kleinwort Benson Group" in March 2015 and was acquired by Oddo & Cie in early 2016. Then in June 2016, Société Générale acquired Kleinwort Benson from Oddo et Cie. It merged the bank with its existing private banking subsidiary SG Hambros in November 2016 to form Kleinwort Hambros.

Business

 * Sir Alan Yarrow, former Lord Mayor of London (2014–2015)
 * Bruce Wasserstein, former chairman and CEO of Lazard
 * Xavier Rolet, London Stock Exchange Group, CEO
 * Sir David Clementi, Prudential, Chairman (2002–2008)
 * Sir Adrian Montague, Friends Provident, Chairman
 * Callum McCarthy, HM Treasury, Non-executive board member
 * Ronald Kramer, former President of Wynn Resorts; current CEO of Griffon Corporation
 * Luke Johnson, Royal Society of Arts, Chairman
 * The Hon. Sir Nicholas Redmayne (1938–2008), Joint Head of Equity Securities, Joint Chief Executive of Investment Banking with David Clementi, 1994—1996 and from 1995 chairman of KBIM.
 * Máxima Zorreguieta, former Vice-President at the department Emerging Markets, and queen consort of the Netherlands

Politics and public service

 * Rahm Emanuel, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives (2003–2008); White House Chief of Staff (2008–2010)
 * Peter Walker, Baron Walker of Worcester, Member of the British Parliament (1961–1992)

title: Kleinwort Benson


text:
Talk:Evolutionary game theory

EGT != Biological game theory
I edited the page to remove the text which seemed to be equating evolutionary game theory to game theory as practised by biologists', and refocussed on the definition of EGT as game theory with dyamical systems. Text removed placed below. I also removed the text about not behaving rationally, since biological game theory models (e.g. Hawk Dove, etc) don't assume rationality, and yet aren't EGT models. Pete.Hurd 04:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * EGT studies the dynamics and equilibria of games played by populations of players. The strategies players employ in the games determine their interdependent payoff or fitness. In contrast with the traditional applications of game theory, the players do not act rationally when choosing their strategies, but act instead according to a pre-programmed behavior pattern. A pure strategy is encoded in an individual's genome, which can evolve over time while repeatedly playing a game against other players in a population.  The more successful strategies result in more offspring and the game is then iterated and studied.

 * Recently, evolutionary game theory has increasingly become of interest to economists, sociologists, and anthropologists, as well as philosophers. In these expanded contexts, the ‘evolution’ treated by EGT can refer to systems such as cultural evolution or economic behavior.

I also changed evolutionarily stable state to evolutionarily stable strategy, the former may have been correct. Given the lack of lucid discussion (errrr, any discussion really) on the distinction page for ESS, I used the term that is well defined, rather than the one no one has provided a literature reference or definition for... Pete.Hurd 04:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Ummm, ok, state was correct, changed back, really ought to fix ESS page... Pete.Hurd 04:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Economists, biologists, dynamics, and equilibria

 * Thank you for your interest in this article, I'm glad to see someone is coming by our little corner! With respect to the claim that more economists use it than biologists: we had a brief discussion at Talk:Game theory about it and the referenced google scholar search there is helpful.  Besides that, User:Pete.Hurd is a real live biologist working in game theory and he added the comment to the article.

 * With respect to the focus question, this goes more to motivation than to content I think. The idea in traditional game theory is that one uses equilibrium concepts to solve a game and then says "people will play equilibrium strategies."  In my opinion, this last statement is incredibly unsatisfying since it doesn't do much to explain why people will play equilibrium strategies.  Combined with the fact that many people don't appear to play equilibrium strategies, this naturally leads one to ask: what causes people to play the strategies that they do?  A dynamic answer is one of the available explanations.  So, its right to say that the fact that x is a equilibrium is part of the explanation of why people are playing strategy x.  But its equally part of the explanation to say that the reason people play x is because their dynamics of strategy change resulting in them converging to x.

 * With respect to your other comments, I invite you to improve the article in anyway you see fit. We are very overwhelmed with work at WikiProject Game theory, but you could also add a note there.  (Despite the list of members there are really only two of us contributing on a regular basis to game theory articles.)  Since you seem to know something about the area, perhaps you would like to join and help out?
 * :) --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi.
 * 1) EGT used more by economists than biologists: I havn't collected quantitative data, but it's my strong impression (fallible, and subject to confirmation biases) that those in working in econ departments use EGT far more than those in biology departments, that a very small proportion of articles using EGT are produced by biologists. I could be wrong.  My motivation when putting that sentence in was (as I recall) that many of the game theory pages asserted, or strongly implied that EGT was game theory applied to biological applications, which is obviously not true. I may have over-compensated (but I don't think so).
 * 2) Focus on dynamics rather than equilibria: You have a point here. Something about differences in emphasis on dynamics, relative sizes of basins of attraction etc between EGT and traditional game theory might be a better comparision than between dynamics and equilibria in EGT.  You probably know better than I do...
 * 3) Lots of references, little content: Sure is, the article ought to have a stub tag on it. The references include the early and inflential articles (Taylor & Maynard Smith) and more recent authoritative texts, and represent more what would be appropriate to cite in a complete article than what is necessary to support what is curently written.
 * It would be nice if you could spare some time fixing this. It's outside my area of core competence, and not high on my list of things to learn. Pete.Hurd 21:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The references list may have been intended as 'further reading,' which may have value for inclusion.--Nectar 01:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Formulas are not properly annotated
I see a nice formula p(x)=e^(-x/V)/V and keep wondering what "x" stands for. Formulas should be annotated in situ. Hunting the whole text for an explanation is a waste of time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilanCela (talk • contribs) 12:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Evolutionary game theory


text:
Racławicka metro station

Metro Racławicka is a station on Line M1 of the Warsaw Metro. It is located in the Mokotów district of Warsaw, at the junction of ulica Racławicka (Racławicka Street) and Aleja Niepodległości (Independence Avenue).

The station was opened on 7 April 1995 as part of the inaugural stretch of the Warsaw Metro, between Kabaty and Politechnika.

title: Racławicka metro station


text:
Chea

Chea is a surname in various cultures.

Origins
Chea may be a Cambodian surname (ជា; ). That surname is derived from the Chinese surname Xiè, specifically Southern Min pronunciations of that surname, e.g. Hokkien Chinese. Other spellings derived from Southern Min pronunciations of that Chinese surname include Chia and Cheah.

Chea may also be an alternative spelling of the Korean surname more commonly romanised as Chae (IPA: ).

Statistics
French government statistics show 161 people with the surname Chea born in France from 1991 to 2000, 230 from 1981 to 1990, 45 from 1971 to 1980, five from 1961 to 1970, and none in earlier time periods.

The 2000 South Korean Census found 119,251 people with the family name usually romanised as Chae. This surname is only rarely spelled as Chea; in a study based on year 2007 applications for South Korean passports, 87.8% of the applicants chose to spell this surname as Chae, and 7.5% as Chai, as compared to only 1.7% who chose the spelling Chea.

The 2010 United States Census found 4,492 people with the surname Chea, making it the 7,411th-most-common name in the country. This represented an increase from 3,404 (8,850th-most-common) in the 2000 Census. In both censuses, slightly more than four-fifths of the bearers of the surname identified as Asian, while the proportion of bearers who identified as black increased from 4.9% in the 2000 Census to 6.3% in the 2010 Census. Chea was the 359th-most-common surname among respondents to the 2000 Census who identified as Asian.

People
Cambodian surname Chea (ជា):
 * Chea Soth (1928–2012), Cambodian politician, MP for Prey Veng Province
 * Chea Sim (1932–2015), Cambodian politician, President of the National Assembly (1981–1998)
 * Veasna Chea Leth (born 1944), Cambodian lawyer
 * Chea Sophara (born 1953), Cambodian politician, Minister of Rural Development (2008–2016)
 * Chea Vichea (1968–2004), Cambodian trade unionist
 * Chea Poch (born 1974), Cambodian politician, MP for Prey Veng Province
 * Chea Serey (born 1981), Cambodian economist
 * Chea Samnang (born 1994), Cambodian football midfielder

Other:
 * José Luis Chea Urruela (fl. 1960s–present), Guatemalan politician
 * Alvin Chea (born 1967), American gospel singer
 * Chea Song-joo (born 1998), South Korean figure skater
 * Leanna Chea, French actress

title: Chea


text:
Non bis in idem

Non bis in idem (sometimes rendered non-bis in idem or ne bis in idem) which translates literally from Latin as 'not twice in the same [thing]', is a legal doctrine to the effect that no legal action can be instituted twice for the same cause of action. It is a legal concept originating in Roman civil law, but it is essentially the equivalent of the double jeopardy doctrine found in common law jurisdictions, and similar peremptory plea (autrefois acquit/convict, 'previously acquitted/convicted') in some modern civil law countries.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees the right to be free from double jeopardy; however, it does not apply to prosecutions by two different sovereigns (unless the relevant extradition treaty or other agreement between the countries expresses a prohibition). The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court employs a modified form of non bis in idem.

Rome Statute and ad hoc UN tribunals
The Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) states that the non bis in idem principle has a peculiar meaning, especially in comparison to European supranational law. The ICC jurisdiction is complementary to national law, and Article 20 of the Rome Statute specifies that even if the principle remains in general terms, it cannot be taken in consideration if there is unwillingness or incapability of the existence of the supranational court's jurisdiction.

Article 10 of the ICTY Statute and Article 9 of the ICTR Statute both state that the principle can be enforced mainly to clarify that the ad hoc tribunal's sentences are "stronger" than the ones in domestic courts.

In other words, national courts cannot proceed against the responsible parties of crimes within the tribunal's jurisdiction if the international tribunal has already pronounced sentence for the same crimes. However, the ICTY and the ICTR can judge alleged criminals already sentenced by national courts if both of the following occur:
 * the sentence defined the crimes as "ordinary".
 * the judiciary of the state is not considered impartial or the domestic trial is considered to be a pretense to protect the accused from the legal action of international justice or is considered to be unfair on some fundamental legal basis.

Legal Framework
The legal basis for the non bis in idem principle in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights. All EU States have ratified this optional protocol other than Germany, the Netherlands, and, formerly, the UK. Section 1 of Article 4 outlines the procedure relevant to rights against being prosecuted or punished twice in criminal proceedings. Thus, trials involving breaches of non bis in idem can only be commenced contingent on the criminal nature of the tried act, the duplication of proceedings seen via the bis concept, and the same offense seen via the idem concept—as discussed infra. Questions pertaining to the scope of non bis in idem have been developed relevant to administrative and tax affairs, which sometimes are not tried under criminal courts at the national level despite their “criminal nature.” Accordingly, Section 2 of Article 4 establishes the right for the accused to present newly discovered evidence to higher tribunal for review. While there exist guarantees against punishment or prosecution twice under the ECHR, post-trial discovery can warrant a change in the outcome of a case. This also includes significant procedural errors that may affect the fairness or outcome of a case. However, reopening a case through the ECtHR can only occur when critical pieces of evidence were not sufficiently adduced or discussed, necessitating a referral to the Grand Chamber. Finally, Section 3 of Article 4 prevents the full protections of non bis in idem under the conditions of Article 15 of the Convention, which includes during war and times of national public emergencies.

Engel Criteria
To determine the criminality of an offense in non bis in idem, the Court refers to the “Engel criteria,” taken from its judgment in Engel and Others v. Netherlands App no. 5100/71; 5101/71; 5102/71; 5354/72; 5370/72 (ECtHR, 8 June 1976). This is critical to assess when penalties that are not considered criminal at the national scale should be treated as “criminal” for the purposes of invoking non bis in idem protections. The three criteria are as follows to determine if a penalty is of “criminal nature”: (1) the national classification of the offense, (2) the criminal nature of the offense, and (3) the severity of the penalty. If penalties are primarily intended to compensate for the shortfall and encourage future compliance, they may not be considered criminal according to the severity and purpose principles of the Engel Criteria—as seen in certain cases related to tax withholding. Through the application of these criteria, the ECtHR can ensure that states do not circumvent human rights protections through non-criminal punitive measures at the national level and harmonize criminal proceedings at the ECtHR.

Kremzow v. Austria App no. 16417/90 (ECtHR, 7 November 1990)
Since considerable cases that have reached the ECtHR have involved applicants with both criminal offenses along with disciplinary proceedings, non bis in idem has become a principal issue when assessing if the disciplinary proceedings also have reached a criminal nature. In Kremzow, the applicant, who was a retired judge sentenced for murder and unlawful possession of a firearm, appealed to the ECtHR based on the “criminal nature” of his disciplinary proceedings. These disciplinary penalties included the deprivation of his former privileges as a judge, such as his pension rights. Thus, he claimed that his rights relevant to Article 6 of the ECHR were violated, implying that the Engel criteria were relevant in raising his disciplinary proceedings. If the Court deemed the disciplinary charges criminal in nature, his rights under non bis in idem would be violated.

Ultimately, the ECtHR concluded that application was inadmissible and upheld the indictment decided by the Vienna Court of Appeal acting as Disciplinary Court (Oberlandesgericht als Disziplinargericht). The ECtHR decided that the disciplinary proceedings did not reach a criminal level according to the Engel Criteria, thus not constituting a break of Article 6. Regarding the national standards of the Engel Criteria, while the ECtHR agreed that Kremzow had separate criminal charges, the disciplinary consequences were distinguished, and the Disciplinary Court did not “convict” him for the aforementioned criminal charges. Thus, the duty of the Disciplinary Court in Austria was tasked with dealing with the repercussions of Kremzow’s actions as a defendant but also as a civil servant. Since the disciplinary proceedings were treated as a separate matter from his criminal penalties, non bis in idem was not applicable in Kremzow’s case.

Ruotsalainen v. Finland App no. 13079/03 (ECtHR, 16 June 2009)
Ruotsalainen tested the scope of non bis in idem relevant to the criminal nature of national administrative proceedings and penalties. The applicant, a Finnish national, was stopped by the police in 2001 during a road check when police found Ruotsalainen to be driving with leniently taxed fuel that was illegal given his type of vehicle. Thereafter, he was charged for petty tax fraud due to the illegally cheaper fuel alongside his admission to refueling the vehicle himself. Ruotsalainen was charged the difference between the tax in administrative proceedings brought against him from the same event. When domestic authorities refused to grant a reduction in the tax charge, Ruotsalainen brought the case before the ECtHR. According to his complaint, he cited that his rights pursuant to Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 were breached since he was penalized twice for the fuel tax offense.

The ECtHR decided that both penalties imposed upon Ruotsalainen were criminal in nature with the first contingent upon the classification of Finnish criminal law and the second, although administrative technically, had a “criminal nature” due to its intent to punish and dissuade a repeated offense. While both penalties were handled separately, they converged towards the same criminal subject matter. Thus, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of non bis in idem according to Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.

A and B v. Norway [GC] App nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11 (ECtHR, 15 November 2016)
A and B was a landmark case since it established the “substance and time connection” requirement relevant to assessing a duplication of proceedings in non bis in idem. The two applicants, represented through aliases Mr. A and Mr. B, were charged for failing to report taxes. The first applicant—Mr. A—was indicted for violating section 12-1(1) of the Tax Assessment Act of 1980 (ligningsloven) for failing to declare tax transactions with Software Innovation AS in 2008. In 2009, following his failure to pay an outstanding tax due without an appeal, the Follo District Court (tingrett) convicted Mr. A of aggravated tax fraud, sentencing him to a year’s imprisonment due to his failure to declare. The second applicant—Mr. B—similarly failed to declare his tax return for the tax year 2002 but was given an amendment to his tax assessment and penalty in 2008 by the Tax Administration under the criminal investigation. While the second applicant paid the tax due along with the penalty, the public prosecutor indicted him for violating section 12-1 as well given his failure to declare his full income on his tax return in 2002. Like Mr. A, Mr. B was charged for aggravated tax fraud and sentenced to a year’s imprisonment in 2009. Given the criminal and tax penalties of their respective cases, the two applicants contended that their rights relevant to non bis in idem were violated according to Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 ECHR.

The primary task of the ECtHR was to examine whether the invocation of section 12-1(1) of the Tax Assessment Act and the aggravated tax fraud charge were both criminal, which would jeopardize the protections of Mr. A and Mr. B. First, the ECtHR acknowledged that due to the optional ratification of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 ECHR, the Court generally had to acknowledge national sensitivities to defining the “criminal nature” of an act. This reiterated the first principle of the Engel criteria. Secondly, the Court addressed the chronology of the two proceedings and found that a “final decision” resulting from a single proceeding was irrelevant when there did not exist a duplication of proceedings. Instead, this would constitute a combination of proceedings, meaning they were complementary. Finally, to avoid misinterpreting administrative proceedings that were criminal in nature, the ECtHR would assess the proceedings’ compliance with Article 4 through a single-track procedure onwards, which could enable “parallel strands of legal regulation” with the national government.

Since the Court separated the criminal and administrative procedures of the case, non bis in idem could only be violated in dual proceedings when there existed “complementary responses to socially offensive conducts” that were integrated in a way to demonstrate a “coherent whole” of indictments from the original criminal and administrative facets of the penalties. Moreover, A and B set the precedent of requiring “sufficiently close connection in substance and in time” between proceedings according to the bis principle, or duplication of proceedings. The substance and the chronological closeness of proceedings were not intended to be mutually exclusive but to be assessed conjunctively to justify the relevance of both cases and guarantee the protections of individuals from unduly delay over prolonged proceedings. The Court ruled in both applicants’ cases that their respective criminal and administrative proceedings had proportionate and foreseeable cumulative penalties. Thus, the Court ruled there had not been a violation of non bis in idem according to Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.

Marguš v. Croatia [GC] App no. 4455/10 (ECtHR, 27 May 2014)
Marguš was a Grand Chamber judgment that dealt with an alleged duplication of criminal offenses under a change in international war crimes law. The applicant, a Croatian national, was tried by the Osijek Military Prosecutor in 1993 on the grounds of serious offense against civilians through the Croatian army in 1991. However, with the establishment of the General Amnesty Act in 1996, which applied to criminal offenses from the Yugoslav Wars other than crimes against humanity, charges brought against Marguš were dropped. However, in 2007, the Supreme Court of Croatia decided that the termination of the proceedings was in fact in violation of the General Amnesty Act. This was due to the severity of Marguš’ actions during the war—killing four persons and seriously wounding a child—on top of his cited offenses as a member of the reserve forces following his duty. Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled that amnesty could not be granted, leading him to be tried and imprisoned for war crimes. Subsequently, Marguš appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction on the grounds that the second set of proceedings dealt with a broader scope since a Geneva Convention violation was applied. Thus, Marguš brought his application to the ECtHR in 2009 on the grounds of his rights under Article 6 to a fair trial and Article 4 to not be tried or punished twice were violated such that the subject of the 1997 and 2007 proceedings were the same.

While the Court found there to be no violation of Article 6 given the lack of proof of the judge’s partiality in initial proceedings, the Court found that the invocation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to be non-applicable. The Court did acknowledge that both sets of proceedings handled the same offense. Yet, the Court noted that contemporary granting of amnesties for war crimes was unacceptable and that the decisions taken in Croatia aligned with the fundamentals in the Convention—Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of degrading treatment and torture). Thus, the renewed indictment against Marguš concerning war crimes was compliant to Article 2 and 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 was inherently out of the scope of the case and hence not applicable.

Gradinger v. Austria App no. 15963/90 (ECtHR, 23 October 1995)
In Gradinger, the applicant faced criminal and administrative punishment based on the same offense but at a regional and national level. The applicant was convicted of driving under the influence and death by negligence, resulting in fines and imprisonment first under Article 81 of the Criminal Code and then Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act in Austria. After failing to appeal his convictions under the non bis in idem principle in the Austrian legal system, Gradinger brought an appeal to the ECtHR citing a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 on the premise that the administrative and criminal proceedings pursued against him were based on identical facts from the same offense.

The Court determined that despite the administrative action in the procedures, they were criminal in nature based on the fact that Gradinger’s fine was accompanied with a prison sentence contingent on his default on payment. Thus, Gradinger’s case fulfilled the initial prong of the Engel criteria and could be assessed for potential violations of the dual-track criminal and administrative sentence. Due to the inherently criminal nature of the two proceedings regarding the same offense, the Court determined that his rights under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 were violated.

Zolotukhin v. Russia App no. 14939/03 (ECtHR, 10 February 2009)
Zolotukhin was a landmark case brought before the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR, which broadened the idem—or same offense principle—and harmonized the procedural laws for multiple prosecutions in contracting states in the CoE. It also established the precedent of “criminal procedure” in Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to take into account broader application related to “criminal charge” of Article 6 and “penalty” of Article 7. Since Zolotukhin, both the CJEU and the ECtHR have broadened the usage of non bis in idem related to charges and procedures with the same offenses regardless of their national legal assessment.

The applicant, Sergey Zolotukhin, served as a Russian soldier and took his girlfriend into military property without permission, acted threateningly, and used obscene insulting language toward the police officers who arrested him in 2002. On 4 January 2002, the Gribanovskiy District Court, where he was first tried, found Zolotukhin guilty of an administrative offense under Article 148 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Soviet Federative Republic (RSFSR). Following, on 23 January 2002, the District Court tried him in a criminal case, which cited him violating Article 213 § 2(b) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for “disorderly acts, including resisting a public official dealing with a breach of public order.” While the Russian Constitution provides a clause pursuant to protections against re-trials under Article 50 § 1, the penalties brought against Zolotukhin were an administrative charge under minor disorderly acts and a criminal charge, constituting separate offenses in Russia’s dual-track system. However, Zolotukhin complained that the detention tied to his disorderly acts and his criminal sentence culminated in double penalty under the same offense, breaching his rights under Article 4 Protocol No. 7.

The Court similarly decided that despite the initial administrative proceedings, the guilty finding and detention under the Code of Administrative Offenses constituted a “criminal nature,” satisfying the first of the Engel criteria. In this landmark case, the Court decided to synthesize approaches it had used in past to determine whether the same offense had been invoked in Zolotukhin. These approaches included whether the lower courts had penalized the applicant for the “same conduct” (idem factum) seen in Gradinger, whether the lower courts had produced several offenses in separate proceedings from the same conduct (concours ideal d’infractions) seen in Oliveira, and whether there existed “essential elements” in both proceedings seen in Franz Fischer. The Court decided to change its approach toward the interpretation of “offense” according to Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, favoring a broader, liberal approach. From Zolotukhin, the presiding judges commented that limiting the scope of the offenses based on different legal classification undermined the rights of the individual guaranteed under Article 4. Moreover, the Court found that the administrative judgment was autonomously and inherently final when criminal proceedings began a week after against Zolotuhkin. As noted, the Russian legal system did not recognize a breach in the non bis in idem principle relevant to Zolotukhin since both proceedings were not legally classified as criminal. Thus, the Court ruled that there had been a violation of Zolotukhin’s rights under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. Since Zolotukhin, the ECtHR has revolutionized its approach to determining the criminal nature of multiple offenses in contracting states with dual-track procedures such as Russia.

Legal Framework
The legal basis for the non bis in idem principle for the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is Article 50 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is applicable in all member states. Since the scope of the Charter is relevant to EU member states, cases related to cross-border double jeopardy and third-party affairs are clarified under Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA) and Article 3(2) of the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision (EAW FD) respectively. When cases pertain to a duplication of proceedings or penalties between several member states, especially pertaining to extradition, CISA and EAW become critical instruments, as discussed infra. Moreover, given the judicial framework of the EU, the CJEU has the potential to invoke direct effect via non bis in idem, altering the fundamental approach to member states discretion in related proceedings. Granted certain exceptions, the wording and scope of the non bis in idem principle are identically applied to the corresponding fundamental right in Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 under the ECHR. For example, the criteria to determine violations of non bis in idem in the CJEU includes instruments from the ECtHR such as the Engel criteria, which is employed in the ECtHR to determine the criminal nature of a penalty. Conversely, the major exception between the two courts is the decision-making in cross-border proceedings, in which ECtHR rulings may only apply within a given State while CJEU rulings may apply across relevant contracting states. Moreover, since the EU derives its legal functioning from legal cooperation mechanisms within the member states, it maintains more flexibility in its interpretation of non bis in idem.

Case C-617/10, Åklagaren v. Hans Åkerberg Fransson (2013)
In Åkerberg Fransson, the non bis in idem principle in Article 50 of the Charter was tested if it could be invoked to prevent criminal proceedings for tax evasion contingent on an existing administrative tax penalty. Accordingly, Fransson was tried in Sweden by tax authorities on the grounds that he falsified his value added tax and income tax. Thus, he had been fined by the Swedish government with administrative tax penalties. Subsequently, Fransson was tried for failing to report sizable employer’s contributions in taxes, culminating to a criminal offense due to the copious amounts of money not reported and the significant impact of his failure to declare. Accordingly, Fransson brought the matter to the Court on the grounds that his rights to not be tried and punished twice for a criminal offense had been violated according to Article 50 of the Charter and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 ECHR. By doing so, he implied that the initial administrative tax penalty was criminal in nature, subjecting him to trial and punishment twice.

In response, the CJEU concluded that Article 50 of the Charter was not breached since the initial tax penalty did not constitute a criminal penalty and left the discretion to the national court. Firstly, the CJEU posited that an invocation of Article 50 necessitated the main proceeding to be of criminal nature, which contested Fransson’s petition. Second, the CJEU emphasized that Article 50 can treat administrative penalties and criminal penalties exclusively for the same cited act so long as the administrative penalty does not reach criminal consequences. Finally, like the ECtHR has determined in matters in non bis in idem contingent on the criminal nature of a proceeding, Fransson additionally relied on the Engel criteria, which it failed to demonstrate. Ultimately, the CJEU concluded the matter to be relevant to the Swedish court’s decision so long as whatever issued penalties are “effective, proportionate, and dissuasive” according to its national standards.

Case C-27/22, Volkswagen Group Italia S.p.A., Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. Associazione Cittadinanza Attiva Onlus (2023)
In Volkswagen Group Italia and Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, the CJEU handled whether an administrative fine by a national consumer protection authority against a company could become criminal in nature when addressing unfair commercial practices and consumer protection under Directive 2005/29/EC. In 2016, the Italian Competition Markets Authority (AGCM) fined both Volkswagen Group Italia (VWGI) and Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (VWAG) 5 million euros on the basis of unfair commercial practices in the automobile industry by distorting their pollutant emissions levels on their vehicles’ interfaces. While VWGI and VWAG were still involved in proceedings with the Italian Regional Administrative Court, the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Braunschweig in Germany imposed a fine of 1 billion euros through a final decision on the same grounds of the misinformation related to Volkswagen’s pollutant emissions levels. Due to the final decision characteristic of the decision at Braunschweig, VWAG surrendered its right to bring action against the decision as it had appealed in Italy, leaving Volkswagen with its 1 billion euro fine alongside a pending case dealing with a similar case matter. Once the decision was reached in 2019, VWGI and VWAG contended that their rights according to non bis in idem under Article 50 of the Charter and Article of the 54 CISA had been violated. By contending the matter to the CJEU, VWGI and VWAG posited that the administrative fines reached a criminal level, therefore hindering their protections from punishment twice.

In response, the Court agreed with the applicants that their rights pertaining to non bis in idem under Article 50 were breached. The Court’s premise laid on the idea that the imposed administrative fine constituted a criminal penalty due to its punitive purpose and higher degree of severity. The nature of the penalty was tested through the Engel criteria, which it passed. As for the former prong related to its punitive purpose, the CJEU held that the cited violation of Article 27(9) by the AGCM had a purpose not just to punish unlawful conduct related to competition practices but to deprive an entity from continuing to pursue its unfair commercial advantage. As for the latter prong related to the degree of severity, the CJEU noted that bearing in mind the maximum potential penalty contingent on relevant provisions, the 5 million euro fine constituted a criminal punishment. While in technical terms, the penalties were under administrative code, they were inherently criminal and cited twice, demonstrating the utility of the Engel criteria in non bis in idem procedure through the CJEU.

Cases C-187/01 and C-385/01, Gözütok and Brügge (2003)
In Gözütok and Brügge, the CJEU dealt with legality of the preclusion of further prosecution given the discontinuation of criminal proceedings in another Schengen Agreement member state under Article 54 of CISA. In Gözütok, the applicant was in possession of illicit hashish products, which the Dutch government cited to pursue criminal proceedings against him. These conditions were also drawn to the attention of German authorities through a German bank alerting them of unusually large sums of money. This led to the discovery of narcotic sales, which the German Regional Court in Aachen tried and sentenced him for. Gözütok appealed the decision against the Aachen court, which they terminated under Article 54 of CISA. However, under the termination, questions remained over whether the Dutch “transactie” under Dutch law served as a final disposition that barred the German courts from taking further action. Similarly, under Brügge, the applicant, who was a German national, was charged by Belgian prosecuting officials for intentionally assaulting and wounding a Belgian national, Leliaert. While proceedings were ongoing in a Belgian criminal court, Brügge had already reached a conclusion in a settlement with the German judicial authority, thus raising questions over a duplication of proceedings across Schengen Agreement member states.

The Court ultimately ruled that the non bis in idem rights under Article 54 of CISA were violated in Gözütok and Brügge. The CJEU confirmed the applicability of the non bis in idem principle such that once the applicant fulfills outlined obligations or negotiations with the public prosecutors, the discontinuation of proceedings constitutes a procedure that cannot be tried again in another member state. The CJEU underscored the initial legal ability of the public prosecutor to discontinue prosecution as an option under the administration of criminal justice. Nevertheless, settlement acts regarding penalties for unlawful conduct still constitute a legal exercise by the state to punish an individual. If the applicant complies with obligations by the public prosecutor, which Gözütok and Brügge did, an additional penalty or prosecution from another Schengen member state is redundant and violates the protections against a duplication of trial under Article 54. Because of the devolvement of power into national courts under CISA, harmonization of criminal procedures (e.g., Dutch “transactie”) is not required. That said, the Court clarified that mutual trust and compliance amongst the member states was necessary to ensure the effet utile (effective application) of Article 54 and protect individuals’ enshrined rights under Article 54 of CISA. Thus, Gözütok and Brügge served as principal cases to bolster the “bis” requirement of non bis in idem by establishing the preclusion of further prosecution at the national level within the EU.

Case C-486/14, Kossowski (2016)
In Kossowski, the CJEU was concerned with whether a decision by a public prosecutor to terminate criminal proceedings and close an investigation against a defendant, without any penalty and a condition that it may be reopened upon the emergence of new essential evidence, may be considered a “final decision.” If so, questions were raised if such a decision could prevent further prosecution in another member state. Accordingly, the public prosecutors’ office of Hamburg accused Kossowski of the criminal offense of extortion with aggravating factors. Kossowski fled in a vehicle belonging to the victim during his proceedings in Germany when he was subsequently stopped, arrested, and sentenced in Poland. The Polish court opened the same charges against him according to its national law but closed the case in the absence of sufficient evidence and considered the termination as final, leading to the potential continuation of the case in Germany. Despite still being wanted in Germany, the Hamburg court refused to open proceedings out of concern of doubling prosecution in violation of Article 54 of CISA. Thus, the CJEU heard an appeal brought forth by the Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office contending that the German law was still applicable given the substantial evidence of its proceeding, finding the Polish decision of termination to be overreaching in barring the respective German trial.

In its decision, the Court ruled that non bis in idem was not violated in Kossowski since it realized that the Polish termination was not considered “final” to invoke Article 54. Thus, reopening proceedings in Germany would not constitute a duplication of proceedings. A fundamental facet of Article 54 is the requirement of a decision made “after a determination has been made as to the merits of the case.” In such, the requirement is not fulfilled when a prosecuting authority failed to undertake a thorough investigation, refused to proceed based on the defendant’s ability to give a statement, or failed to provide substantial hearsay witness testimony. Accordingly, this applies in Kossowski whereby the Polish courts failed to gather substantial evidence to fully administer proceedings and potential penalties to the defendant. Kossowski therefore confirmed two key tenets of the bis principle: (1) a final decision in proceedings from one member state must bar further prosecution and penalty in another member state and (2) a decision must be delivered “after a determination has been made as to the merits of the case.”

Case C-436/04, Van Esbroeck (2006)
In Van Esbroeck, the CJEU assessed the relevant criterion for the application of the “same acts or offense” criteria of non bis in idem in the frame of material acts. The defendant, a Belgian national, was tried and sentenced in Norway for importing illicit narcotics. Van Esbroeck was conditionally released and escorted back to Belgian whereupon his return he was tried and convicted for exporting the aforementioned illicit narcotics. An appeal was then brought before the Belgian Court of Cassation and the preceding court on the grounds that Van Esbroeck’s non bis in idem rights were violated under Article 54 of CISA.

In response, the CJEU ruled that non bis in idem was violated given the existence of “inextricably linked” facts. Regardless of the legal classification, affirming the criminal nature of the acts, the punishable acts of importation in Norway and exportation in Belgium of the same narcotic drugs constitutes “the same acts,” which are protected under non bis in idem. While the CJEU reiterated that definitive assessment would ultimately be under the jurisdiction of the respective national courts, the same offense in Van Esbroeck prevented his re-trial and second punishment.

Case C-435/22 PPU, Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München (2023)
In Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München, the CJEU addressed whether the non bis in idem principle outlined in Article 54 of CISA with Article 50 of the Charter could preclude the extradition of a third-country national from a Member State to another third country. The defendant, whose alias is HF, was a Serbian national who was put into custody in Germany following a red notice issued by Interpol at the request of American authorities. Upon arrest, HF mentioned that he had been imprisoned in Slovenia for the offense of “attacking information systems” and fully served his sentence. Thus, upon calls for extradition, the Higher Regional Court of Munich had doubts towards the application of non bis in idem under the relevant law to prevent the extradition. Given the bilateral extradition treaty between the U.S. and Germany, non bis in idem could be potentially ruled out given its exclusion of considerations of judgments from other Member States, that being Slovenia in this case.

The CJEU ruled that non bis in idem should be upheld, thereby precluding the extradition to the U.S. in light of Article 54 of CISA and Article 50 of the Charter. Since a final judgment was administered in Slovenia, an additional penalty that could be enforced could no longer be applicable since a decision had already been made in the national system of an EU member state. Moreover, the CJEU affirmed that a bilateral extradition treaty could not trump or annul the provisions of Article 54 of CISA and Article 50 of the Charter. However, the Court clarified that it would not have the capacity to bar extradition bilaterally assuming offense were committed outside of the subject matter or relevant time period of prosecution, upholding the “sufficiently close connection” tenet proscribed through the ECtHR. Accordingly, Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München affirmed the supremacy of the Schengen Area and the EU over bilateral treaties in matters related to fundamental rights under extradition processes and double jeopardy.

title: Non bis in idem


text:
Stefani Miglioranzi

Stefani Miglioranzi (born September 20, 1977 in Poços de Caldas) is a retired Brazilian-American footballer. After a successful playing career that spanned 18 years, Stefani Miglioranzi retired from playing professionally and became a Registered Intermediary and licensed FIFA match agent for First Wave Sports International, a full service agency for professional soccer players / footballers.

Early life and college career
Born in Brazil, Miglioranzi moved with his family to the United States when he was 12. He played for FC Westchester as youth player from 12–19 years old. He attended St. John's University in New York City on an athletic scholarship, where he won the 1996 NCAA Championship and also was a member of the 1998 All-American team.

Miglioranzi was drafted by the Chicago Fire in the third round of the 1999 MLS College Draft with the final pick of the draft, but turned down the offer, having already been offered a contract to play in England.

Portsmouth
He went to England in 1998 to take part in trials with Everton and Portsmouth, where manager Alan Ball offered a 3-year contract. Bolton Wanderers were also heavily interested at the time.

Swindon Town
Miglioranzi signed for Swindon in July 2002, after a successful trial spell prompted Andy King to offer him a deal. Due to worries over a serious knee injury he picked up whilst at Portsmouth, his original contract was on a month-to-month basis. He made his debut for the club on the opening day of the 2002/03 season, in a 3–1 win over Barnsley.

Despite the fears for his fitness, Miglioranzi missed just five league games in his first season at the club, and he scored four goals in total - all of which were from the edge of the Penalty area. During this period, there were fears he would be poached, as he remained on a monthly contract - these fears were allayed in May 2003, when, after a good season, he agreed a year's deal, with a second year triggered if a certain number of appearances were reached.

A number of nagging injuries during 2003/04 meant that the extension was not automatically triggered. Miglioranzi had another good season, including a game in the League Cup match at Leeds United (where he missed one of the penalties in the shootout), and only struggled for form when he was rushed back to the first team after groin and ankle injuries kept him out of the side during January and March. Injury also meant that he missed the final game of the season, and the first leg of the play-off semi-final against Brighton and Hove Albion - nevertheless, he was offered a new two-year contract in May 2004, which he signed.

Miglioranzi started the first four games of the 2004/05 season, but went off injured in the first half at Bristol City, and he missed two league games. Worse was to follow at the end of September however, when he ruptured an abductor muscle in a home match with Bradford City - an injury that kept him out of the first team for nearly four months - his rehabilitation not helped by a lack of reserve team fixtures during his comeback. Eventually, he played seventy minutes of a Wiltshire Premier Shield semi-final tie against Supermarine in mid-December, giving a performance that he himself described as "appalling". It was another month before he appeared in the first team, coming on as a late substitute in a home game with Blackpool in mid-January, before being recalled to the starting line-up the following week. In truth, it was probably a bit too soon - Miglioranzi looked to lack any sort of match fitness, and he spent most of February back on the substitutes bench. He returned to the starting eleven in mid-March at table-topping Luton Town, and missed just two more matches toward the end of the season with a cyst on the back of his knee, before returning in an unfamiliar central defensive role for the final game of the campaign.

Having declared that the past season had been disappointing for him, both on the pitch and in terms of injuries, Miglioranzi saw a consultant and returned to pre-season training early in a bid to put his injury woes behind him. No sooner as he declared that he was feeling the best he had for a long time during the build-up, a sprained ankle picked up in a friendly at Aylesbury United forced him to miss the opening four matches of the season - and his campaign started as a second-half substitute in a 4–2 victory over Yeovil Town at the end of August. Just a month later though, Miglioranzi's injury curse struck again, as he hobbled off part way through a home game with Bradford - the medial ligament strain he sustained keeping him out of action for over a month.

He returned to league action with a great performance in a local derby with Bristol City that the Town won 2-1 - but a dead leg he picked up in that game kept him out of the following match - he returned to action the following week and remained in the side for the rest of the year, helping the Town to an undefeated December. Miglioranzi though failed to produce the form of his first two seasons at the club, and in every match in which he featured for the rest of the season, he was either substitute, or substituted - Gareth Whalley taking over his position in mid-March. A first-half substitute appearance versus MK Dons in mid-April proved to be Miglioranzi's last in a Town shirt - a knee injury that lead to surgery preventing him from featuring in any of the Town's last four matches - and come the season's end, it was a mutual decision that he would seek a fresh challenge elsewhere.

Several English clubs were rumoured to be interested in Miglioranzi after the announcement that he would leave Swindon - clubs included the Town's bitter rival Oxford United. However, Miglioranzi rejected the chance to talk to the Non-League outfit.

Return to MLS
In 2006, Miglioranzi signed with the Los Angeles Galaxy in Major League Soccer, but was traded to Columbus Crew in 2007 after making just three appearances for Galaxy. Miglioranzi spent two years in Ohio, winning the MLS Cup, the MLS Supporters' Shield and the Trillium Cup in 2008, before being traded back to Galaxy on January 9, 2009, in exchange for a conditional fourth-round selection in the 2010 MLS SuperDraft.

Miglioranzi was selected by Philadelphia Union in the 2009 MLS Expansion Draft on November 25, 2009. He stayed with Philadelphia for two seasons. After the 2011 season the club declined his 2012 contract option and he entered the 2011 MLS Re-Entry Draft. Miglioranzi was not selected in the draft and became a free agent.

Retirement
After retiring, Miglioranzi became a USSF registered players' agent and holds a FIFA Match Agent License. He currently is the president of First Wave Sports International.

Columbus Crew

 * Major League Soccer Eastern Conference Championship (1): 2008
 * Major League Soccer MLS Cup (1): 2008
 * Major League Soccer Supporter's Shield (1): 2008

Los Angeles Galaxy

 * Major League Soccer Western Conference Championship (1): 2009

St. John's University

 * NCAA Championship (1): 1996

Career statistics
Updated October 30, 2011

title: Stefani Miglioranzi


text:
User talk:Ktchong

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Merovingian (t) (c) 16:22, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

September 2009
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. The next time you make a personal attack as you did at Talk:Eight-Nation Alliance, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ktchong


text:
Adolf Portmann

Adolf Portmann (27 May 1897 – 28 June 1982) was a Swiss zoologist.

Born in Basel, Switzerland, he studied zoology at the University of Basel and worked later in Geneva, Munich, Paris and Berlin, but mainly in marine biology laboratories in France (Banyuls-sur-Mer, Roscoff, Villefranche-sur-Mer) and Helgoland.

In 1931 he became professor of zoology in Basel. His main research areas covered marine biology and comparative morphology of vertebrates. His work was often interdisciplinary comprising sociological and philosophical aspects of life of animals and humans.

Portmann was known for his work in theoretical biology and his comparative studies on morphology and behavior. His research has influenced the field of biosemiotics.

Portmann died in Binningen near Basel on 28 June 1982.

Publications

 * Essai in Philosophical Zoology by Adolf Portmann: The Living Form and the Seeing Eye (1990)
 * Animal Forms and Patterns: A Study of the Appearance of Animals (1967)
 * Metamorphosis in Animals: The Transformations of the Individual and the Type (1964)
 * New Paths in Biology (1964)
 * Animals as Social Beings (1961)
 * The Earth as the Home of Life (1954)

title: Adolf Portmann


text: Category:Fair division

title: Category:Fair division


text:
European Monitoring Centre on Change

The European Monitoring Centre on Change (EMCC) is "a place for exchanging practice, information and ideas on the management and anticipation of change," consisting primarily of an informational website. It was founded at a 2001 conference on "What drives change?", which was organized by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. The EMCC continues to be maintained by that Foundation.

History
The EMCC was one of the remedies proposed by the European Commission in its June, 2000 "Social Policy Agenda."

title: European Monitoring Centre on Change


text: User talk:129.101.7.68

title: User talk:129.101.7.68


text:
European Network of Information Centres for the Performing Arts

The European Network of Information Centres for the Performing Arts (ENICPA) is an organisation dedicated to sharing information and documentation among art professionals in Europe and around the world. Headquartered in Brussels, it maintains a website which provides a database of European events, venues, publications, training opportunities, and information centres for the performing arts, according to the European Monitoring Centre on Change.


text:
Curthoys

Curthoys, Curthose, or Curthoise is an English surname. The surname is derived from the Old French curthose meaning "short stockings".

The name may have been popularised as the epithet of Robert Curthose (c. 1051–1134), who succeeded his father, William the Conqueror, as Duke of Normandy.

The surname is found recorded as Curtehose in 1210-11 and Curthose in 1287–8. Modern variants of the surname include Curthose and Curthoise.

Analysis of the 1881 Census in the United Kingdom shows that the surname was then mostly distributed in what is now the Bristol postal code area.

Some notable individuals with this surname include:

 * Barbara Curthoys (1924–2000), Australian feminist, communist activist, and mother of:
 * Ann Curthoys (b. 1945), Australian historian
 * Jean Curthoys (b. 1947), Australian feminist philosopher

title: Curthoys


text:
Strategy of tension

A strategy of tension (strategia della tensione) is a political policy wherein violent struggle is encouraged rather than suppressed. The purpose is to create a general feeling of insecurity in the population and make people seek security in a strong government.

The strategy of tension is most closely identified with the Years of Lead in Italy from 1968 to 1982, wherein far-left Marxist groups, far-right neo-fascist extra-parliamentary groups and state intelligence agencies performed bombings, kidnappings, arsons, and murders. Some historians and activists have accused NATO of allowing and sanctioning such terrorism, through projects such as Operation Gladio, although this is disputed by other historians and denied by the intelligence agencies involved. Other cases where writers have alleged a strategy of tension include the deep state in Turkey from the 1970s–1990s, the war veterans and ZANU–PF in Zimbabwe which coordinated the farm invasions of 2000, the DRS security agency in Algeria from 1991 to 1999, and the Belgian State Security Service during the Belgian terrorist crisis of 1982–1986.

According to the sociologist Franco Ferraresi, the term "strategy of tension" was first used in an article on the Piazza Fontana bombing in The Observer newspaper, published on 14 December 1969. Neal Ascherson, one of those responsible for that article, later clarified that the expression had been suggested to him by the journalists Antonio Gambino and Claudio Risé, both of L'Espresso, who had been in conversation with him in the days immediately following the explosion of the Piazza Fontana bomb.

Italy
From 1968–1982, Italy suffered numerous terrorist attacks by both the left and the right, which were often followed by government round-ups and mass arrests. Allegations, especially made by adherents of the Italian Communist Party (PCI), are that the government trumped up and intentionally allowed the attacks of communist radicals, or even carried out false flag operations in their name, as an excuse to arrest other communists, and allowed the attacks of far-right paramilitary organizations as an extrajudicial way to silence enemies.

Various parliamentary committees were held to investigate these crimes as well as prosecute them in the 1990s. A 1995 report from the Left Democrats (a merger of former center-left parties and the PCI) to a subcommittee of the Italian Parliament stated that a "strategy of tension" had been supported by the United States to "stop the PCI, and to a certain degree also the PSI, from reaching executive power in the country". Aldo Giannuli [ it], a historian who worked as a consultant to the parliamentary terrorism commission, wrote that he considered the Left Democrats' report as dictated primarily by domestic political considerations rather than historical ones: "Since they have been in power the Left Democrats have given us very little help in gaining access to security service archives," he said. "This is a falsely courageous report." Giannuli did decry the fact that many more leftist terrorists were prosecuted and convicted than rightist terrorists, though.

Swiss academic Daniele Ganser wrote NATO's Secret Armies, a 2004 book that alleged direct NATO support for far-right terrorists in Italy as part of its "strategy of tension". Ganser also alleges that Operation Gladio, an effort to organize stay-behind guerrillas and resistance in the event of a communist takeover of Italy by the Eastern Bloc, continued into the 1970s and supplied the far-right neo-fascist movements with weapons. Ganser's conclusions have been disputed; most notably, Ganser heavily cites the document US Army Field Manual 30-31B, which the US state department claims is a 1976 Soviet hoax meant to discredit the US whilst others such as Ray S. Cline have claimed it is likely authentic and Licio Gelli who claimed it was in fact given to him by the CIA.

In a 1992 BBC documentary on Gladio titled 'Operation GLADIO', the neo-fascist terrorist Vincenzo Vinciguerra reported that the stay-behind armies really did possess this strategy, stating that the state needed those terrorist attacks for the population to willingly turn to the state and ask for security.

title: Strategy of tension


text:
South African Party

The South African Party (Suid-Afrikaanse Party, Zuidafrikaanse Partij) was a political party that existed in the Union of South Africa from 1911 to 1934.

History
The outline and foundation for the party was realized after the election of a 'South African party' in the 1910 South African general election under the leadership of Louis Botha. Botha called for a "South African National Party" (SANP) at Pretoria's Opera House on 14 June 1910, prior to the 1910 elections, but the Party was only formally created in November 1911 in Bloemfontein. It was made up predominantly of Afrikaner parties:
 * Het Volk from the Transvaal
 * Afrikaner Bond and South African Party from the Cape Colony
 * Orangia Unie from the Orange River Colony

The South African Party of the Cape Colony was launched by William Schreiner, the former attorney-general under the leadership of Cecil Rhodes. The party was intended to project a more moderate platform than that of the Afrikaner Bond. This party also advocated more peaceful relations with neighboring states, especially the Transvaal. Schreiner originally formed the party to oppose the "personal domination of Mr. Rhodes." Eventually, the Afrikaner Bond would lend their support to form a new government.

Initially its main political opposition came from Unionist Party, which supported similar policies, but was more English-speaking and took an instinctively pro-British stance.

The SAP would solidify after the departure of Barry Hertzog and more radical Boer nationalists who formed the National Party.

Rising discontent with the economic policies of the SAP during the bad economic times of the early 1920s culminated in a general strike in 1922. Though a combination of military intervention and negotiation ended the strike, the memory of it remained when the government, now a SAP-Unionist coalition government under the leadership of Jan Smuts, faced the 1924 South African general election, in which it was defeated by a National-Labour coalition. The SAP remained in opposition with its Unionist allies until the unrest of the Great Depression forced Prime Minister Barry Hertzog of the Nationalists to form a coalition government and on 5 December 1934 a merger which created the United South African National Party (more commonly known as the United Party).

From the beginning, a hardliner nationalist faction refused to accept the merger. The remaining nationalists later withdrew from the United Party in 1939, after which what remained was essentially the old SAP under a new name. Nevertheless, the United Party name was retained.

title: South African Party