Aimed at establishing an effective and consistent enforcement of market abuse regulation, the regime introduced by Regulation (EU) No. 596/2014 (‘MAR’) and Directive 2014/57/EU (‘MAD II’) relies on a mix of criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, both of which are subject to the principles of double jeopardy and due process. In the light of a few cases decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’), the features of this regime are, however, unclear, and it is doubtful whether the current framework is adequate to achieve its goals. This article criticizes the decision to criminalize market abuse at the EU level and argues that a credible EU supervisory system is better served by an enforcement system based on administrative sanctions. Moreover, the article discusses the solution offered by the ECtHR to the trade-off between efficiency and fairness in administrative proceedings and proposes an allocation of prosecution and decision-making to independent bodies within the same supervisory authority as a means to better balance efficiency and fairness.

中文翻译：

---

欧盟市场滥用监管：执法之谜

旨在建立有效和一致地执行市场滥用监管，(EU) No. 596/2014 ('MAR') 和 Directive 2014/57/EU ('MAD II') 引入的制度依赖于刑事犯罪的混合处罚和行政处罚，两者均受双重危险和正当程序原则的约束。但从欧盟法院和欧洲人权法院（“ECtHR”）裁决的几起案件来看，该制度的特点尚不明确，目前的框架是否合理也值得怀疑。足以实现其目标。本文批评在欧盟层面将市场滥用定为刑事犯罪的决定，并认为基于行政制裁的执法系统可以更好地服务于可信的欧盟监管体系。而且，