Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 08.07.2019 - 54012/10   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2019,18826
EGMR, 08.07.2019 - 54012/10 (https://dejure.org/2019,18826)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08.07.2019 - 54012/10 (https://dejure.org/2019,18826)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08. Juli 2019 - 54012/10 (https://dejure.org/2019,18826)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,18826) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MIHALACHE v. ROMANIA

    Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-general (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Acquittal;Reopening of case;Fundamental defect in proceedings;New or newly discovered facts;Conviction;Criminal offence);Non-pecuniary damage ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MIHALACHE c. ROUMANIE

    Violation de l'article 4 du Protocole n° 7 - Droit à ne pas être jugé ou puni deux fois-général (Article 4 du Protocole n° 7 - Acquittement;Réouverture du procès;Vice fondamental dans la procédure;Faits nouveaux ou nouvellement révélés;Condamnation;Infraction ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MIHALACHE v. ROMANIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

    [DEU] Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-general (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Reopening of case;Fundamental defect in proceedings;Conviction;Criminal offence);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary ...

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges (2)

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (38)Neu Zitiert selbst (24)

  • EuGH, 05.06.2014 - C-398/12

    M - Übereinkommen zur Durchführung des Übereinkommens von Schengen - Art. 54 - …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2019 - 54012/10
    "34. For a person to be regarded as someone whose trial has been "finally disposed of" within the meaning of Article 54 of the CISA, in relation to the acts which he is alleged to have committed, it is necessary, in the first place, that further prosecution has been definitively barred (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 June 2014 in M, C-398/12, EU:C:2014:1057, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited).

    A decision which does not, under the law of the Contracting State which instituted criminal proceedings against a person, definitively bar further prosecution at national level cannot, in principle, constitute a procedural obstacle to the opening or continuation of criminal proceedings in respect of the same acts against that person in another Contracting State (see, to that effect, judgments of 22 December 2008 in Turanský, C-491/07, EU:C:2008:768, paragraph 36, and 5 June 2014 in M, C-398/12, EU:C:2014:1057, paragraphs 32 and 36).

    In order to determine whether a decision such as that at issue in the main proceedings constitutes a decision finally disposing of the case against a person for the purposes of Article 54 of the CISA, it is necessary, in the second place, to be satisfied that that decision was given after a determination had been made as to the merits of the case (see, to that effect, judgments of 10 March 2005 in Miraglia, C-469/03, EU:C:2005:156, paragraph 30, and 5 June 2014 in M, C-398/12, EU:C:2014:1057, paragraph 28).

    Next, referring to the judgments delivered by the CJEU in Filomeno Mario Miraglia (10 March 2005, C-469/03, EU:C:2005:156); M. (5 June 2014, C-398/12, EU:C:2014:1057); and Kossowski (cited above), the Government noted that the CJEU had ruled that even where, under domestic law, further prosecution had been definitively barred by a decision, that decision only qualified as "final" if it was given after a determination had been made as to the merits of the case.

    CJEU, 5 June 2014, M., C-398/12, § 17.

  • EuGH, 10.03.2005 - C-469/03

    Miraglia

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2019 - 54012/10
    In order to determine whether a decision such as that at issue in the main proceedings constitutes a decision finally disposing of the case against a person for the purposes of Article 54 of the CISA, it is necessary, in the second place, to be satisfied that that decision was given after a determination had been made as to the merits of the case (see, to that effect, judgments of 10 March 2005 in Miraglia, C-469/03, EU:C:2005:156, paragraph 30, and 5 June 2014 in M, C-398/12, EU:C:2014:1057, paragraph 28).

    Next, referring to the judgments delivered by the CJEU in Filomeno Mario Miraglia (10 March 2005, C-469/03, EU:C:2005:156); M. (5 June 2014, C-398/12, EU:C:2014:1057); and Kossowski (cited above), the Government noted that the CJEU had ruled that even where, under domestic law, further prosecution had been definitively barred by a decision, that decision only qualified as "final" if it was given after a determination had been made as to the merits of the case.

    "that an order making a finding of "non-lieu" at the end of an investigation during which various items of evidence were collected and examined must be considered to have been the subject of a determination as to the merits, within the meaning of Miraglia EU:C:2005:156, in so far as it is a definitive decision on the inadequacy of that evidence and excludes any possibility that the case might be reopened on the basis of the same body of evidence"[87].

    CJEC, 10 March 2005, Miraglia, Case C-469/03.

  • EuGH, 22.12.2008 - C-491/07

    Turansky - Übereinkommen zur Durchführung des Übereinkommens von Schengen - Art. …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2019 - 54012/10
    A decision which does not, under the law of the Contracting State which instituted criminal proceedings against a person, definitively bar further prosecution at national level cannot, in principle, constitute a procedural obstacle to the opening or continuation of criminal proceedings in respect of the same acts against that person in another Contracting State (see, to that effect, judgments of 22 December 2008 in Turanský, C-491/07, EU:C:2008:768, paragraph 36, and 5 June 2014 in M, C-398/12, EU:C:2014:1057, paragraphs 32 and 36).

    Referring to judgments delivered by the CJEU (for example, those delivered on 29 June 2016 and 22 December 2008 respectively in the cases of Kossowski v. Generalstaatwaltschaft Hamburg (C-486/14, EU:C:2016:483), and Vladimir Turanský (C-491/07, EU:C:2008:768)), they explained that for a person to be regarded as someone whose trial had been "finally disposed of", it was necessary, in the first place, that further prosecution had been "definitively barred", a question which had to be assessed on the basis of the law of the Contracting State in which the criminal-law decision in issue had been taken.

    CJEC, 22 December 2008, Vladimir Turanský, C-491/07, § 30.

     
  • EuGH, 11.02.2003 - C-187/01

    Gözütok / Brügge - Transnationaler Strafklageverbrauch bei Verfahrenseinstellung …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2019 - 54012/10
    The judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 February 2003 in Hüseyin Gözütok and Klaus Brügge (joined cases C-187/01 and C-385/01, EU:C:2003:87, § 31) states that "(t)he fact that no court is involved in such a procedure and that the decision in which the procedure culminates does not take the form of a judicial decision does not cast doubt on that interpretation", that is to say does not prevent the application of the ne bis in idem principle.

    Article 54 of the CISA is also applicable where an authority responsible for administering criminal justice in the national legal system concerned, such as the Ko?‚obrzeg District Public Prosecutor's Office, issues decisions definitively discontinuing criminal proceedings in a Member State, although such decisions are adopted without the involvement of a court and do not take the form of a judicial decision (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 February 2003 in Gözütok and Brügge, C-187/01 and C-385/01, EU:C:2003:87, paragraphs 28 and 38).

    CJEC, 11 February 2003, Hüseyin Gözütok and Klaus Brügge, joined cases C-187/01 and C-385/01, § 28.

  • EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

    Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2019 - 54012/10
    Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention enshrines a fundamental right guaranteeing that no one is to be tried or punished in criminal proceedings for an offence of which he or she has already been finally convicted or acquitted (see Margus v. Croatia [GC], no. 4455/10, § 114, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, § 58, ECHR 2009; Nikitin v. Russia, no. 50178/99, § 35, ECHR 2004-VIII; and Kadusic v. Switzerland, no. 43977/13, § 82, 9 January 2018).

    24130/11 and 29758/11, 15 November 2016, the Court also neglected the comparative law information and in Sergey Zolothukin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, ECHR 2009, only referred to the double-jeopardy rule under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

  • EuGH, 29.06.2016 - C-486/14

    Ein Tatverdächtiger kann in einem Schengen-Staat erneut strafrechtlich verfolgt …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2019 - 54012/10
    In its judgment in Piotr Kossowski v. Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamburg of 29 June 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU; (Grand Chamber), ECLI:EU:C:2016:483) explained the concept of a person whose trial has been "finally disposed of" as follows:.

    Referring to judgments delivered by the CJEU (for example, those delivered on 29 June 2016 and 22 December 2008 respectively in the cases of Kossowski v. Generalstaatwaltschaft Hamburg (C-486/14, EU:C:2016:483), and Vladimir Turanský (C-491/07, EU:C:2008:768)), they explained that for a person to be regarded as someone whose trial had been "finally disposed of", it was necessary, in the first place, that further prosecution had been "definitively barred", a question which had to be assessed on the basis of the law of the Contracting State in which the criminal-law decision in issue had been taken.

  • EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11

    A ET B c. NORVÈGE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2019 - 54012/10
    24130/11 and 29758/11, § 107, 15 November 2016; and Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos.

    24130/11 and 29758/11, 15 November 2016, the Court also neglected the comparative law information and in Sergey Zolothukin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, ECHR 2009, only referred to the double-jeopardy rule under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

  • EGMR, 12.07.2013 - 25424/09

    ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2019 - 54012/10
    The authority must then study or evaluate the evidence in the case file and assess the applicant's involvement in one or all of the events prompting the intervention of the investigative bodies, for the purposes of determining whether "criminal" responsibility has been established (see, mutatis mutandis, Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, § 127, ECHR 2013, a case concerning the scope of the presumption of innocence under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, in which the content, and not the form, of the decision, was the decisive factor for the Court).
  • EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06

    EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2019 - 54012/10
    In that context, the Court is obliged to note that under its well-established case-law, the "lawfulness" requirement set forth in other provisions of the Convention - including the expressions "in accordance with the law", "prescribed by law" and "provided for by law" appearing in the second paragraph of Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention and in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and the expression "under national [emphasis added] or international law" contained in Article 7 - concerns not only the existence of a legal basis in domestic law but also a quality requirement inherent in the autonomous concept of lawfulness; this concept entails conditions regarding the accessibility and foreseeability of the "law", as well as the requirement to afford a measure of protection against arbitrary interferences by the public authorities with the rights safeguarded by the Convention (see, for example, Rohlena v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 59552/08, §§ 50 and 64, ECHR 2015, as regards Article 7; Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, §§ 52-56, ECHR 2000-V; Bernh Larsen Holding AS and Others v. Norway, no. 24117/08, §§ 123-24 and 134, 14 March 2013; and Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, §§ 228-229, ECHR 2015, as regards Article 8; Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 143, ECHR 2012, as regards Article 10; Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos.
  • EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

    Öztürk ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2019 - 54012/10
    A latitude extending so far might lead to results incompatible with the purpose and object of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Engel and Others, cited above, § 81; Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, § 49, Series A no. 73; and Storbråten, cited above), namely to ensure that no one is tried or punished twice for the same offence.
  • EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

    Jens Söring

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  • EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

    ARTICO c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

    SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  • EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 24117/08

    BERNH LARSEN HOLDING AS AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  • EGMR, 22.10.2018 - 35553/12

    Urteil bestätigt Präventivhaft: EGMR lässt Polizei Spielraum im Umgang mit …

  • EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

    GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 08.06.2004 - 40905/98

    HILDA HAFSTEINSDOTTIR v. ICELAND

  • EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

    JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  • EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

    Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  • EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

    DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 26780/95

    ESCOUBET v. BELGIUM

  • EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 43977/13

    KADUSIC c. SUISSE

  • EuGH, 16.10.2014 - C-605/12

    Welmory - Vorabentscheidungsersuchen - Gemeinsames Mehrwertsteuersystem - …

  • EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 21881/20

    COMMUNAUTÉ GENEVOISE D'ACTION SYNDICALE (CGAS) c. SUISSE

    De surcroît, la Cour ne méconnaît pas non plus que la Convention doit se lire comme un tout et s'interpréter en veillant à l'harmonie et à la cohérence interne de ses différentes dispositions (Mihalache c. Roumanie [GC], no 54012/10, § 92, 8 juillet 2019, et Stec et autres c. Royaume-Uni (déc.) [GC], nos 65731/01 et 65900/01, §§ 47-48, CEDH 2005-X).
  • EuGH, 25.01.2024 - C-58/22

    Parchetul de pe lânga Curtea de Apel Craiova

    Wenn strafrechtliche Ermittlungen eingeleitet wurden und eine Beschuldigung gegen die betreffende Person erhoben wurde, der Geschädigte vernommen wurde, die Beweise von der zuständigen Behörde zusammengetragen und geprüft wurden und eine begründete Entscheidung auf der Grundlage dieser Beweise ergangen ist, liegen somit Faktoren vor, die zu der Feststellung führen können, dass eine Prüfung der Strafsache in der Sache stattgefunden hat (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 8. Juli 2019, Mihalache/Rumänien, CE:ECHR:2019:0708JUD005401210, § 98).

    Damit davon ausgegangen werden kann, dass eine solche Prüfung in der Sache von der entscheidenden Behörde vorgenommen wurde, muss diese Behörde die zu den Akten gereichten Beweise geprüft oder bewertet und die Beteiligung der betreffenden Person an einem Ereignis oder an allen Ereignissen beurteilt haben, die zur Befassung der Ermittlungsorgane geführt haben, um festzustellen, ob eine "strafrechtliche" Verantwortlichkeit dieser Person begründet wurde (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 8. Juli 2019, Mihalache/Rumänien, CE:ECHR:2019:0708JUD005401210, § 97 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung).

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 17.06.2021 - C-203/20

    Generalanwältin Kokott: Europäischer Haftbefehl nach Aufhebung einer Amnestie …

    Vgl. auch Urteil des EGMR vom 8. Juli 2019, Mihalache/Rumänien (54012/10, CE:ECHR:2019:0708JUD005401210, Rn. 97 und 98).

    17 Urteile des EGMR vom 20. Juli 2004, Nikitin/Russland (…50178/99, CE:ECHR:2004:0720JUD005017899, Rn. 37), vom 10. Februar 2009, Zolotukhin/Russland (…14939/03, CE:ECHR:2009:0210JUD001493903, Rn. 107), und vom 8. Juli 2019, Mihalache/Rumänien (54012/10, CE:ECHR:2019:0708JUD005401210, Rn. 103 und 109 bis 111).

    22 Urteil des EGMR vom 8. Juli 2019, Mihalache/Rumänien (54012/10, CE:ECHR:2019:0708JUD005401210, Rn. 97), zum identisch formulierten Art. 4 des Protokolls Nr. 7 zur EMRK.

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht