Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PIRTTIMÄKI v. FINLAND

  Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  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) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Pirttimäki v. Finland

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PIRTTIMAKI v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 7, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

  Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 35232/11

  The Court acknowledged in the case of Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia (see Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, §§ 81-84, ECHR 2009) the existence of several approaches to the question whether the offences for which an applicant was prosecuted were the same.
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 35232/11

  The Court reiterates that an individual can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention when the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention and afforded redress (see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51; for the application of this principle in the context of Article 6, see Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, § 34, Series A no. 238; and Schlader v. Austria (dec.), no. 31093/96, 7 March 2000).
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 35232/11

  The Court reiterates that an individual can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention when the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention and afforded redress (see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51; for the application of this principle in the context of Article 6, see Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, § 34, Series A no. 238; and Schlader v. Austria (dec.), no. 31093/96, 7 March 2000).

 
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01

  NILSSON c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 35232/11

  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-XIII).
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04

  STORBR?TEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 35232/11

  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 ne 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 for example 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, 20.05.2014 - 35232/11

  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-XIII).
• EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 11187/05

  HAARVIG v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 35232/11

  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-XIII).
• EGMR, 02.10.2003 - 13596/02

  ISAKSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 35232/11

  First of all, the legal entities involved in these proceedings were not the same: in the first set of proceedings it was the applicant and in the second set of proceedings the company (see Isaksen v. Norway (dec.), no. 13596/02, 2 October 2003; and, mutatis mutandis, Pokis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 528/02, ECHR 2006-XV; and Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, §§ 66-68, Series A no. 330-A).
• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 528/02

  POKIS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 35232/11

  First of all, the legal entities involved in these proceedings were not the same: in the first set of proceedings it was the applicant and in the second set of proceedings the company (see Isaksen v. Norway (dec.), no. 13596/02, 2 October 2003; and, mutatis mutandis, Pokis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 528/02, ECHR 2006-XV; and Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, §§ 66-68, Series A no. 330-A).
• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 61222/00

  UOTI v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 35232/11

  It can therefore be said that the District Court afforded the applicant express and quantifiable redress for the breach of the reasonable time requirement (see Beck v. Norway, cited above, §§ 27-29; see also Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X; and Uoti v. Finland, no. 61222/00, § 30, 9 January 2007).

• EuGH, 22.03.2022 - C-117/20

  Kumulierung von Verfolgungsmaßnahmen und Sanktionen strafrechtlicher Natur im …

  Die Identität der materiellen Tat ist nämlich als die Gesamtheit der konkreten Umstände zu verstehen, die sich aus Ereignissen ergeben, bei denen es sich im Wesentlichen um dieselben handelt, da dieselbe Person gehandelt hat und sie zeitlich sowie räumlich unlösbar miteinander verbunden sind (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, Urteil vom 10. Februar 2009, Sergueï Zolotoukhine/Russland, CE:ECHR:2009:0210JUD001493903, §§ 83 und 84, sowie EGMR, Urteil vom 20. Mai 2014, Pirttimäki/Finnland, CE:ECHR:2014:0520JUD003523211, §§ 49 bis 52).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 30.03.2023 - C-27/22

  Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Campos Sánchez-Bordona kann Volkswagen in Italien …

  34 Urteile des EGMR vom 10. Februar 2009, Sergueï Zolotoukhine/Russland, (CE:ECHR:2009:0210JUD001493903, §§ 83 und 84), sowie vom 20. Mai 2014, Pirttimäki/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2014:0520JUD003523211, §§ 49 bis 52), auf die im Urteil bpost (…Rn. 36 und 37) verwiesen wird.
• EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 947/13

  HEINANEN v. FINLAND

  Even assuming that in both cases it had in fact been the applicant who had made incomplete tax declarations or no declaration at all, the circumstances could still not be regarded as the same: making a tax declaration in personal taxation differs from making a tax declaration for a company as these declarations are made in different forms, they may have been made at a different point in time and, in the case of the companies, may also have involved other persons (see Pirttimäki v. Finland, no. 35232/11, § 51, 20 May 2014).

 
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 8516/07

  BUTNARU ET BEJAN-PISER c. ROUMANIE

  En revanche, dans l'affaire Pirttimäki c. Finlande (no 35232/11, 20 mai 2014), la Cour a conclu qu'il n'y avait pas eu violation de l'article 4 du Protocole no 7 à la Convention, au motif que les deux procédures visées n'avaient pas trait à des faits essentiellement les mêmes puisque les circonstances factuelles et les parties étaient différentes (ibidem, §§ 51-52).
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 9542/11

  ISAKSSON v. SWEDEN

  Thus, the applicant's trial and conviction for this tax offence do not disclose any failure to comply with the requirements of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (see Isaksen v. Norway (dec.), no. 13596/02, 2 December 2003; Pirttimäki v. Finland, no. 35232/11, §§ 49-52, 20 May 2014; Larsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 64102/10, 13 January 2015; and Heinanen v. Finland (dec.), no. 947/13, 6 January 2015).
• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 3714/16

  AIGAION OIL A.E. c. GRÈCE

  Il s'ensuit qu'une des conditions primordiales pour l'applicabilité de l'article précité est l'identité des personnes ou des entités juridiques qui sont poursuivies ou punis deux fois (voir, à titre d'exemple, Pirttimäki c. Finlande, no 35232/11, §§ 50-51, 20 mai 2014, et Heinänen c. Finlande (déc.), no 947/13, §§ 37-38, 6 janvier 2015).