Right To Silence For Individuals Charged With Market Abuse Offences

EH
ELVINGER HOSS PRUSSEN, société anonyme

Contributor

Independent in structure and spirit, Elvinger Hoss Prussen guides clients on their most critical Luxembourg legal matters. Committed to excellence and creativity in legal practice, our firm delivers the best possible advice for businesses, institutions and entrepreneurs, playing a unique role in the development of Luxembourg as a financial centre.
In a recent judgment (case C-481/19, Consob), the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") has recognised for the first time that individuals subject...
European Union Government, Public Sector
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In a recent judgment (case C-481/19, Consob), the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") has recognised for the first time that individuals subject to an administrative investigation for insider dealing cannot be penalised for refusing to provide answers to the competent authority when their answers might establish their liability for an offence punishable by administrative sanctions of a criminal nature or their criminal liability.

This preliminary ruling case concerns Directive 2003/6/EC and Regulation No 596/2014, both on market abuse, which provide that administrative sanctions must be determined for failure to cooperate in an investigation. In accordance with these provisions, the Italian financial markets authority, Consob, had imposed an additional penalty of EUR 50,000 on an individual, who had committed an administrative offence of insider dealing, for his failure to cooperate during the investigation since he had postponed the date of his hearing several times and had eventually refused to answer the investigators' questions.

The CJEU recalls that the right to silence is protected by Articles 47 (fair trial) and 48 (presumption of innocence and right of defence) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and is recognised by the European Court of Human Rights, in its case law on the right to a fair trial.

Pursuant to the CJEU, this right to silence is not confined to statements of admission of wrongdoing or to remarks which directly incriminate the person questioned, but rather also covers information on questions of fact which may subsequently be used in support of the prosecution and may thus have a bearing on the conviction or the penalty imposed on that person.

However, the right to silence recognised in market abuse proceedings is limited to natural persons and does not protect legal entities. Furthermore, this right to silence cannot justify every failure to cooperate with the competent authorities, such as a refusal to appear at a hearing planned by those authorities or using delaying tactics to postpone it.

Originally Published by Elvinger Hoss, April 2021

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More