Ricerc@Sapienza

: In its recent case law, the CJEU has significantly contributed to the international struggle against impunity. This contribution was made possible by the use of two interpretative techniques. The first one consists in enlarging the scope of EU law when the application of a domestic procedural provision may directly or indirectly prevent a national trial. The second technique consists in narrowing down the scope of EU law when application of an EU provision granting individual rights may directly or indirectly prevent a national criminal proceeding from starting or being carried on.

In spite of the many decisions adopted by the International Criminal Court with regard to the in-terpretation of Art. 17 of the Rome Statute, establishing the principle of complementarity, some issues still remain unsettled. In particular, it is not entirely clear what is the measure of discretion of the Court in determining if a State is unable or unwilling to conduct a genuine proceeding. Build-ing on the recent case law of the Court, this article attempts to shed some light on that issue.