In its recent judgments in bpost and Nordzucker, the CJEU held – in essence – that to prevent a violation of the ne bis in idem guarantee in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, public authorities need to cooperate and coordinate their punitive enforcement actions, also when they are active in different policy areas or in other jurisdictions. According to Michiel Luchtman, the paradoxical result seems to be that to prevent one fundamental right from being violated, it is necessary to accept (sometimes intrusive) interferences with other rights. Has the Court now entered a slippery slope, eliminating fundamental rights barriers, to promote the effective enforcement of EU law? And if so, at the expense of what?

The two pending cases C-117/20 bpost and C-151/20 Nordzucker e.a., both relating to the area of parallel competition proceedings, cast a new light on the interpretation of the idem concept. With two opinions rendered on 2 September 2021, AG Bobek proposed a unified triple identity test. He argued that the CJEU should reverse its jurisprudence based on double identity because it gives rise to legal uncertainty. The present article argues that the AG failed to suggest a viable solution to interpret the idem notion in accordance with ECtHR case law. It is suggested not to get rid of the broader standard of protection against double jeopardy in the EU when justified but to supplement the requirement of “same acts” with the familiar conditions for extracontractual liability, including the conduct, its effects, and casual link.