{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.008017492711370262, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0029154518950437317, 'mean_word_length': 5.129464285714286, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Solutions to the accumulation of different penal responsibilities for the same act and their assessment from the perspective of the ne bis in idem principle

The autonomous meaning of criminal responsibility introduced in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, and adopted by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), has influenced the need for providing proper guarantees in relation to the assignment of legal responsibility for acts situated outside the core of criminal law. It has also helped to clarify that if the same act fulfils the description of a crime and an administrative offence, this may lead to an accumulation of penal responsibility. Assuming that the coexistence of various types of crimes and administrative offenses that may relate to the same act should not be eliminated, various legislative directives have been adopted as solutions that help to avoid the negative consequences of the accumulation of penal responsibility. Analysis of the directives adopted by the selected European legislators leads to formulation of four basic models on which the directives are based. They are assessed from the perspective of the ne bis in idem principle enshrined in Article 4 Protocol No 7 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.