Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11, 29758/11   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2016,39052
EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11, 29758/11 (https://dejure.org/2016,39052)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15.11.2016 - 24130/11, 29758/11 (https://dejure.org/2016,39052)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15. November 2016 - 24130/11, 29758/11 (https://dejure.org/2016,39052)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,39052) 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

    A ET B c. NORVÈGE

    Non-violation de l'article 4 du Protocole n° 7 - Droit de ne pas être jugé ou puni deux fois-général (article 4 du Protocole n° 7 - Droit à ne pas être jugé ou puni deux fois;Infraction pénale) (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    A AND B v. NORWAY

    No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-general (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice;Criminal offence) (englisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    A AND B v. NORWAY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

    [DEU] No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-general (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice;Criminal offence)

  • 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 ... (73)Neu Zitiert selbst (36)

  • EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01

    NILSSON c. SUEDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11
    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).

    See Nykänen v. Finland, no. 11828/11, § 38, 20 May 2014; Haarvig v. Norway (dec.), no. 11187/05, 11 December 2007; Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-XIII; 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, 23 September 1998, § 35, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII.

  • EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 11187/05

    HAARVIG v. NORWAY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11
    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).

    See Nykänen v. Finland, no. 11828/11, § 38, 20 May 2014; Haarvig v. Norway (dec.), no. 11187/05, 11 December 2007; Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-XIII; 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, 23 September 1998, § 35, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII.

  • EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 53785/09

    TOMASOVIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11
    It had been based on one admissibility decision (Zigarella v. Italy (dec.), no. 48154/99, ECHR 2002-IX (extracts)) and two Chamber judgments (Tomasovic v. Croatia, no. 53785/09, 18 October 2011, and Muslija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 32042/11, 14 January 2014).

    Finally, the Court has also rejected the tautological, organic criterion, according to which offences dealt with by administrative courts or "minor offence" courts are administrative and therefore their classification as "criminal" is precluded (see Tomasovic v. Croatia, no. 53785/09, § 22, 18 October 2011).

  • EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01

    JUSSILA v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11
    The Government also pointed to a number of further differences in regard to the manner in which the two provisions had been interpreted and applied in the Court's case-law, including the absolute character of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (non-derogable under Article 15) as opposed to the differentiated approach which the Court applied under Article 6. They referred to Jussila v. Finland ([GC], no. 73053/01, § 43, ECHR 2006-XIV), where the Grand Chamber had stated that there were "clearly "criminal charges" of differing weight" and that "[t]ax surcharges differ[ed] from the hard core of criminal law" such that "the criminal-head guarantees w[ould] not necessarily apply with their full stringency".

    Ibid., § 54. "The relative lack of seriousness of the penalty at stake... cannot divest an offence of its inherently criminal character." See also Lutz v. Germany, 25 August 1987, § 55, Series A no. 123, and Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, § 31, ECHR 2006-XIII.

  • EGMR, 03.10.2002 - 48154/99

    ZIGARELLA contre l'ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11
    It had been based on one admissibility decision (Zigarella v. Italy (dec.), no. 48154/99, ECHR 2002-IX (extracts)) and two Chamber judgments (Tomasovic v. Croatia, no. 53785/09, 18 October 2011, and Muslija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 32042/11, 14 January 2014).

    See Zigarella v. Italy (dec.), no. 48154/99, ECHR 2002-IX (extracts), and Falkner v. Austria (dec.), no. 6072/02, 30 September 2004.

  • EGMR, 23.07.2002 - 34619/97

    JANOSEVIC c. SUEDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11
    In comparable cases concerning Sweden (involving tax penalties at rates of 40% and 20%), the Court has held that the proceedings in question were "criminal", not only for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention (see Janosevic v. Sweden, no. 34619/97, §§ 68-71, ECHR 2002-VII; and Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic v. Sweden, no. 36985/97, §§ 79-82, 23 July 2002), but also for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (see Manasson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 41265/98, 8 April 2003; Rosenquist, cited above; Synnelius and Edsbergs Taxi AB v. Sweden (dec.), no. 44298/02, 17 June 2008; Carlberg v. Sweden (dec.), no. 9631/04, 27 January 2009; and Lucky Dev, cited above, §§ 6 and 51).

    Janosevic v. Sweden, no. 34619/97, ECHR 2002-VII.

  • EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

    Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11
    In this connection it noted the developments in the Convention case-law expounded in the Grand Chamber judgment of Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 14939/03, §§ 52, 53, 80-82, 84, ECHR 2009) and the attempt in that judgment to harmonise through the following conclusion:.

    Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, §§ 82 and 84, ECHR 2009.

  • EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 11143/04

    MJELDE v. NORWAY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11
    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, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04

    STORBR?TEN v. NORWAY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11
    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, 07.06.2012 - 4837/06

    SEGAME SA v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11
    In Segame SA v. France (no. 4837/06, § 59, 7 June 2012) the Court found that supplementary taxes on works of art and related penalties "differ from the hard core of criminal law for the purposes of the Convention".
  • EGMR, 23.07.2002 - 36985/97

    VASTBERGA TAXI AKTIEBOLAG AND VULIC v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 6072/02

    FALKNER v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 51269/07

    PÁKOZDI v. HUNGARY

  • EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90

    GRADINGER c. AUTRICHE

  • EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

    Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  • EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 60619/00

    ROSENQUIST v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 19946/04

    POPA AND TANASESCU v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 11.01.2001 - 43862/98

    INOCÊNCIO contre le PORTUGAL

  • EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 11828/11

    NYKÄNEN v. FINLAND

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.02.2003 - C-213/00

    Italcementi - Fabbriche Riunite Cemento / Kommission

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  • EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 12547/86

    BENDENOUN c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 37376/05

    TALABER v. HUNGARY

  • EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 65831/01

    Schutz der Infragestellung der von den Nazis am jüdischen Volk begangenen

  • EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

    KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 17735/06

    CHOPENKO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 44759/98

    Verletzung des Rechts auf ein faires Verfahren durch überlange Verfahrensdauer;

  • EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 19611/04

    SUBINSKI v. SLOVENIA

  • EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92

    DIKME c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 14.09.1999 - 36855/97

    PONSETTI ET CHESNEL contre la FRANCE

  • EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 26958/05

    SANDOR LAJOS KISS v. HUNGARY

  • EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

    BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 27765/09

    Italiens Flüchtlingspolitik: Rechte auch auf hoher See

  • EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

    Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  • EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 9631/04

    CARLBERG v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 13079/03

    RUOTSALAINEN v. FINLAND

  • EuGH, 22.03.2022 - C-117/20

    Kumulierung von Verfolgungsmaßnahmen und Sanktionen strafrechtlicher Natur im

    Hierzu ist darauf hinzuweisen, dass die Behörden berechtigt sind, auf bestimmte für die Gesellschaft schädliche Verhaltensweisen einander ergänzende rechtliche Antworten zu geben, indem in verschiedenen Verfahren in zusammenhängender Weise unterschiedliche Aspekte des betreffenden sozialen Problems behandelt werden, sofern diese kombinierten rechtlichen Antworten keine übermäßige Belastung für die betreffende Person darstellen (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, Urteil vom 15. November 2016, A und B/Norwegen, CE:ECHR:2016:1115JUD002413011, §§ 121 und 132).

    Hinsichtlich der zwingenden Erforderlichkeit einer solchen Kumulierung von Verfolgungsmaßnahmen und Sanktionen ist zu prüfen, ob es klare und präzise Regeln gibt, anhand deren sich vorhersehen lässt, bei welchen Handlungen und Unterlassungen eine Kumulierung von Verfolgungsmaßnahmen und Sanktionen in Frage kommt, und die eine Koordinierung zwischen den verschiedenen Behörden ermöglichen; weiter ist zu prüfen, ob die beiden Verfahren in hinreichend koordinierter Weise und in einem engen zeitlichen Zusammenhang geführt wurden und ob die gegebenenfalls im Rahmen des chronologisch zuerst geführten Verfahrens verhängte Sanktion bei der Bestimmung der zweiten Sanktion berücksichtigt wurde, so dass die Belastungen, die sich aus einer solchen Kumulierung für die Betroffenen ergeben, auf das zwingend Erforderliche beschränkt bleiben und die Gesamtheit der verhängten Sanktionen der Schwere der begangenen Straftaten entspricht (vgl. in diesem Sinne Urteil vom 20. März 2018, Menci, C-524/15, EU:C:2018:197, Rn. 49, 52, 53, 55 und 58, sowie EGMR, Urteil vom 15. November 2016, A und B/Norwegen, CE:ECHR:2016:1115JUD002413011, §§ 130 und 132).

    Wie nämlich aus Rn. 51 des vorliegenden Urteils hervorgeht, setzt eine solche Rechtfertigung die Feststellung voraus, dass die Kumulierung der in Rede stehenden Verfahren zwingend erforderlich war, wobei in diesem Kontext im Wesentlichen zu berücksichtigen ist, ob ein hinreichend enger sachlicher und zeitlicher Zusammenhang zwischen den beiden in Rede stehenden Verfahren bestand (vgl. in diesem Sinne Urteil vom 20. März 2018, Menci, C-524/15, EU:C:2018:197, Rn. 61, sowie entsprechend EGMR, Urteil vom 15. November 2016, A und B/Norwegen, CE:ECHR:2016:1115JUD002413011, § 130).

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 02.09.2021 - C-117/20

    Generalanwalt Bobek schlägt eine einheitliche Prüfung für den Schutz gegen

    47 EGMR, Urteil vom 15. November 2016, A und B / Norwegen (CE:ECHR:2016:1115JUD002413011).

    55 EGMR, Urteil vom 15. November 2016, A und B / Norwegen (CE:ECHR:2016:1115JUD002413011, § 130).

    58 EGMR, Urteil vom 15. November 2016, A und B / Norwegen (CE:ECHR:2016:1115JUD002413011, § 132).

    83 EGMR, Urteil vom 15. November 2016, A und B / Norwegen (CE:ECHR:2016:1115JUD002413011, §§ 105 bis 107).

    93 In welchem Kontext solche Vorschläge ursprünglich im Rahmen der EMRK unterbreitet wurden - siehe EGMR, Urteil vom 30. Juli 1998, 01iveira / Schweiz (CE:ECHR:1998:0730JUD002571194, § 27), und in jüngerer Zeit EGMR, Urteil vom 15. November 2016, A und B / Norwegen (CE:ECHR:2016:1115JUD002413011, § 130).

    105 EGMR, Urteil vom 15. November 2016, A und B / Norwegen (CE:ECHR:2016:1115JUD002413011, §§ 131 und 132).

  • EuGH, 20.03.2018 - C-524/15

    Der Grundsatz ne bis in idem kann zum Schutz der finanziellen Interessen der

    Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte hat insoweit entschieden, dass eine Kumulierung von steuer- und strafrechtlichen Verfolgungsmaßnahmen und Sanktionen, mit denen derselbe Verstoß gegen Steuergesetze geahndet wird, den in Art. 4 des Protokolls Nr. 7 zur EMRK verankerten Grundsatz ne bis in idem nicht verletzt, wenn es zwischen dem Steuerverfahren und dem Strafverfahren einen hinreichend engen sachlichen und zeitlichen Zusammenhang gibt (EGMR, 15. November 2016, A und B gegen Norwegen, CE:ECHR:2016:1115JUD002413011, § 132).
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