Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MJELDE v. NORWAY

  Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01

  NILSSON c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 11143/04

  Where, as is the case here, the Court is satisfied that the first decision is "final", it must examine whether it concerned a "criminal" matter within the autonomous meaning of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7. This notion must be interpreted in the light of the general principles concerning the corresponding words "criminal charge" and "penalty" respectively in Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention (see Rosenquist v. Sweden (dec.), no. 60619/00, 14 September 2004; Manasson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 41265/98, 8 April 2003; Göktan v. France, no. 33402/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-V, and Malige v. France, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII, p. 2935, § 35; Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-).

  Nor would the latter be considered to be part of the sanctions under Norwegian law for the offences in respect of which the applicant was tried in the criminal case (cf. Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, cited above).

• EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 60619/00

  ROSENQUIST v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 11143/04

  Where, as is the case here, the Court is satisfied that the first decision is "final", it must examine whether it concerned a "criminal" matter within the autonomous meaning of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7. This notion must be interpreted in the light of the general principles concerning the corresponding words "criminal charge" and "penalty" respectively in Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention (see Rosenquist v. Sweden (dec.), no. 60619/00, 14 September 2004; Manasson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 41265/98, 8 April 2003; Göktan v. France, no. 33402/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-V, and Malige v. France, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII, p. 2935, § 35; Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-).

  It may in addition be noted that the two measures not only pursed different purposes - prevention and deterrence in the case of the first and also retribution in the case of the second, but also differed in their essential elements (see Rosenquist v. Sweden (dec.), no. 60619/00, 14 September 2004).

• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04

  STORBR?TEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 11143/04

  The parallel judgment became the subject of an application (no. 12277/04) lodged under the Convention by Mr Yngvar Storbråten against Norway, which is being dealt with simultaneously with the present case.

  Moreover, as observed in paragraph 44 of the Supreme Court's judgment in the parallel case of Mr Storbråten (quoted in the Court's decision in Storbråten v. Norway (no. 12277/04) delivered on the same date as the present case), the application of item 1 depended on a broad assessment based on the Administrator's report rather than on a specific assessment of the strength of the evidence in relation to each possible offence mentioned in the report.

• EGMR, 03.10.2002 - 48154/99

  ZIGARELLA contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 11143/04

  The Court will only review the decision of the High Court (see Zigarella v. Italy (dec.), no. 48154/99, ECHR 2002-IX (extracts) and Isaksen v. Norway (dec.), no. 13596/02).
• EGMR, 02.10.2003 - 13596/02

  ISAKSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 11143/04

  The Court will only review the decision of the High Court (see Zigarella v. Italy (dec.), no. 48154/99, ECHR 2002-IX (extracts) and Isaksen v. Norway (dec.), no. 13596/02).

• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11

  A ET B c. NORVÈGE

  The Supreme Court further had regard to the Court's more recent case-law (Mjelde v. Norway (dec.), no. 11143/04, 1 February 2007; Storbråten v. Norway (dec.), no. 12277/04, 1 February 2007; Haarvig v. Norway (dec.), no. 11187/05, 11 December 2007, with references to Malige v. France, 23 September 1998, § 35, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; and Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-XIII) to the effect that a wider range of criteria than merely the Engel criteria applied to the assessment under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. It found confirmation in Sergey Zolotukhin (cited above, §§ 52-57) - later followed in Ruotsalainen v. Finland (no. 13079/03, §§ 41-47, 16 June 2009) - that the three Engel criteria for establishing the existence of a "criminal charge" for the purposes of Article 6 applied equally to the notion of criminal punishment in Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.

  The Government invited the Grand Chamber to confirm the approach taken in a series of cases predating the Zolotukhin judgment, namely that a wider range of factors than the Engel criteria (formulated with reference to Article 6) were relevant for the assessment of whether a sanction was "criminal" for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. They contended that regard ought to be had to such factors as the legal classification of the offence under national law; the nature of the offence; the national legal characterisation of the sanction; its purpose, nature and degree of severity; whether the sanction was imposed following conviction for a criminal offence; and the procedures involved in the adoption and implementation of the sanction (they referred to Malige v. France, 23 September 1998, § 35, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-XIII; Haarvig v. Norway (dec.), no. 11187/05, 11 December 2007; Storbråten v. Norway (dec.), no. 12277/04, 1 February 2007; and Mjelde v. Norway (dec.), 11143/04, 1 February 2007).

• EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 39627/05

  TALIADOROU AND STYLIANOU v. CYPRUS

  The Court considers that this provision is not applicable to the facts of the present case, since the relevant procedure followed was not criminal in nature (see Storbråten v. Norway (dec.), no. 12277/04, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), and Mjelde v. Norway (dec.) 11143/04, 1 February 2007).
• EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 11187/05

  HAARVIG v. NORWAY

  The first issue to be decided is whether the proceedings relating to the suspension of the applicant's licence to duty practice concerned a "criminal" matter within the autonomous meaning of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7. This notion must be interpreted in the light of the general principles concerning the corresponding words "criminal charge" and "penalty" respectively in Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention (see Storbråten v. Norway (dec.), no. 12277/04, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); Mjelde v. Norway (dec.) 11143/04, 1 February 2007; Rosenquist v. Sweden (dec.), no. 60619/00, 14 September 2004; Manasson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 41265/98, 8 April 2003; Göktan v. France, no. 33402/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-V, and Malige v. France, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII, p. 2935, § 35; Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-).