Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RUOTSALAINEN v. FINLAND

  Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of P7-4 Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 13079/03

  The relative lack of seriousness of the penalty cannot divest an offence of its inherently criminal character (see Öztürk v. Germany, judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, § 54, and Lutz v. Germany, judgment of 25 August 1987, Series A no. 123, § 55).
• EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01

  JUSSILA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 13079/03

  This does not exclude a cumulative approach where separate analysis of each criterion does not make it possible to reach a clear conclusion as to the existence of a criminal charge (see, as recent authorities, Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, §§ 30-31, ECHR 2006-..., and Ezeh and Connors, cited above, § 82-86).
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01

  NILSSON c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 13079/03

  The notion of "penal procedure" in the text of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 must be interpreted in the light of the general principles concerning the corresponding words "criminal charge" and "penalty" in Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention respectively (see Haarvig v. Norway (dec.), no. 11187/05, 11 December 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; Malige v. France, 23 September 1998, § 35, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; and Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-...).

 
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04

  STORBR?TEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 13079/03

  The Court reiterates that the legal characterisation of the procedure under national law cannot be the sole criterion of relevance for the applicability of the principle of non bis in idem under Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7. Otherwise, the application of this provision would be left to the discretion of the Contracting States to a degree that might lead to results incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (see, most recently, Storbråten v. Norway (dec.), no. 12277/04, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), with further references).
• EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 60619/00

  ROSENQUIST v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 13079/03

  The notion of "penal procedure" in the text of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 must be interpreted in the light of the general principles concerning the corresponding words "criminal charge" and "penalty" in Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention respectively (see Haarvig v. Norway (dec.), no. 11187/05, 11 December 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; Malige v. France, 23 September 1998, § 35, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; and Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 14.09.1999 - 36855/97

  PONSETTI ET CHESNEL contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 13079/03

  The applicant argued that his case was distinguishable from the case of Ponsetti and Chesnel v. France (dec.) (nos. 36855/97 and 41731/98, ECHR 1999-VI), which involved failure to file tax returns, whereas the present case involved failure to file prior notification.
• EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 11187/05

  HAARVIG v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 13079/03

  The notion of "penal procedure" in the text of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 must be interpreted in the light of the general principles concerning the corresponding words "criminal charge" and "penalty" in Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention respectively (see Haarvig v. Norway (dec.), no. 11187/05, 11 December 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; Malige v. France, 23 September 1998, § 35, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; and Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-...).

• 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.
• EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 18640/10

  GRANDE STEVENS AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  As to the case-law of the Court cited by the applicants (Gradinger v. Austria (23 October 1995, Series A no. 328-C), Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, ECHR 2009), Maresti v. Croatia (no. 55759/07, 25 June 2009) and Ruotsalainen v. Finland (no. 13079/03, 16 June 2009)), it was not relevant to this case, since it concerned cases where a single act had been punished by criminal and administrative penalties and where the latter had a punitive element and could include a custodial sentence or (as in the Ruotsalainen case) were for a sum higher than the criminal fine.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.06.2012 - C-617/10

  Nach Ansicht des Generalanwalts Cruz Villalón steht die Charta der Grundrechte …

  30 - Urteil Ruotsalainen/Finnland vom 16. Juni 2009 (Nr. 13079/03).

 
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 47195/06

  MÜLLER-HARTBURG v. AUSTRIA

  The Court has already held that the notions of "criminal proceedings" and "penal procedure" in the text of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 must be interpreted in the light of the general principles concerning the corresponding words of "criminal charge" and "penalty" in Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention respectively (see Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, § 52, ECHR 2009, and Ruotsalainen v. Finland, no. 13079/03, § 42, 16 June 2009, with further references).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 15.12.2011 - C-489/10

  Bonda - Landwirtschaft - Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1973/2004 - Ausschluss und Kürzung …

  Siehe auch EGMR, Urteil Ruotsalainen/Finnland vom 16. Juni 2009 (Beschwerde-Nr. 13079/03, noch nicht im Recueil des arrêts et décisions veröffentlicht, § 46), bezüglich einer Abgabe wegen Verwendung des falschen Treibstoffs.
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 7356/10

  LUCKY DEV v. SWEDEN

  While acknowledging that the European Court's recent judgments in Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 14939/03, judgment of 10 February 2009, ECHR 2009) and Ruotsalainen v. Finland (no. 13079/03, judgment of 16 June 2009) suggested a change in the Strasbourg case-law, the Supreme Administrative Court noted that they did not relate to the Swedish legal system and concluded that this system, allowing for both a conviction for a tax offence and an imposition of tax surcharges, was in conformity with the Convention.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 08.03.2012 - C-262/10

  Döhler Neuenkirchen - Zollkodex der Gemeinschaften - Aktiver Veredelungsverkehr - …

  22 - Vgl. u. a. EGMR, Urteile Zolotoukhine/Russland vom 10. Februar 2009 (Nr. 14939/03) und Ruotsalainen/Finnland vom 16. Juni 2009 (Nr. 13079/03).
• EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 17412/16

  VASILE SORIN MARIN v. ROMANIA

  This recapitulation of the events demonstrates that what is at issue is the same conduct on the part of the same defendant and within the same time frame; what remains to be established is whether the facts of the offence for which the applicant was fined and those of the criminal offence by reason of which he was indicted were identical or substantially the same (see, mutatis mutandis, Ruotsalainen v. Finland, no. 13079/03, § 53, 16 June 2009).
• EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 1735/13

  GOULANDRIS AND VARDINOGIANNI v. GREECE

  The facts in the two sets of proceedings differed in only one element - that of fault on the applicants' part - which had not been mentioned in the first set of proceedings but is not relevant for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (see Ruotsalainen v. Finland, no. 13079/03, § 56, 16 June 2009).
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 18640/10

  GRANDE STEVENS ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Quant à la jurisprudence de la Cour citée par les requérants (Gradinger c. Autriche (23 octobre 1995, série A no 328-C), Sergueï Zolotoukhine c. Russie ([GC], no 14939/03, CEDH 2009-..), Maresti c. Croatie (no 55759/07, 25 juin 2009), et Ruotsalainen c. Finlande (no 13079/03, 16 juin 2009)), elle n'était pas pertinente en l'espèce, car elle se rapportait à des cas où un même fait était puni par des sanctions pénales et administratives et où ces dernières avaient un caractère punitif et pouvaient comprendre des privations de liberté ou bien (affaire Ruotsalainen) étaient d'un montant supérieur à l'amende pénale.
• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 19961/17

  C.Y. c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 8516/07

  BUTNARU ET BEJAN-PISER c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 51531/14

  MANFREDI c. ITALIE
• EGMR - 40994/21 (anhängig)

  CULIBRK v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 37697/13

  PRINA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 7396/10

  HENRIKSSON v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 7362/10

  SHIBENDRA DEV v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 3714/16

  AIGAION OIL A.E. c. GRÈCE