Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 37394/11   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2014,10347
EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 37394/11 (https://dejure.org/2014,10347)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20.05.2014 - 37394/11 (https://dejure.org/2014,10347)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20. Mai 2014 - 37394/11 (https://dejure.org/2014,10347)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,10347) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    GLANTZ v. FINLAND

    Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
    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)

 
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 ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01

    NILSSON c. SUEDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 37394/11
    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).

    However, the Court has also found in its previous case-law (see R.T. v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 31982/96, 30 May 2000; and Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, 13 December 2005) that although different sanctions (suspended prison sentences and withdrawal of driving licences) concerning the same matter (drunken driving) have been imposed by different authorities in different proceedings, there has been a sufficiently close connection between them, in substance and in time.

  • EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 67335/01

    ACHOUR c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 37394/11
    The High Contracting Parties are free to develop their criminal policy and legal system in accordance with their applicable international obligations, in particular the Convention and its Protocols (see mutatis mutandis Achour v. France [GC], no. 67335/01, § 44, ECHR 2006-IV).
  • EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 60619/00

    ROSENQUIST v. SWEDEN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 37394/11
    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 - 37394/11
    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, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90

    GRADINGER c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 37394/11
    The Court reiterates that the aim of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 is to prohibit the repetition of criminal proceedings that have been concluded by a "final" decision (see Franz Fischer v. Austria, no. 37950/97, § 22, 29 May 2001; Gradinger v. Austria, 23 October 1995, § 53, Series A no. 328-C; and Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], cited above, § 107).
  • EGMR, 03.10.2002 - 48154/99

    ZIGARELLA contre l'ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 37394/11
    There is no problem from the Convention point of view either when, in a situation of two parallel sets of proceedings, the second set of proceedings is discontinued after the first set of proceedings has become final (see Zigarella v. Italy (dec.), no. 48154/99, ECHR 2002-IX (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 15.03.2005 - 70982/01

    HORCIAG c. ROUMANIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 37394/11
    This approach is well entrenched in the Court's case-law (see, for example, Nikitin v. Russia, no. 50178/99, § 37, ECHR 2004-VIII; and Horciag v. Romania (dec.), no. 70982/01, 15 March 2005).
  • EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 65831/01

    Schutz der Infragestellung der von den Nazis am jüdischen Volk begangenen

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 37394/11
    In such a situation it cannot be said that an applicant is prosecuted several times "for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted" (see Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

    Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 37394/11
    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, 11.12.2007 - 11187/05

    HAARVIG v. NORWAY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 37394/11
    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).
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 02.09.2021 - C-117/20

    Generalanwalt Bobek schlägt eine einheitliche Prüfung für den Schutz gegen

    57 Vgl. EGMR, Urteile vom 13. Dezember 2005, Nilsson / Sweden (CE:ECHR: 2005:1213DEC007366101); vom 20. Mai 2014, Glantz / Finnland (CE:ECHR:2014:0520JUD003739411, § 61); vom 20. Mai 2014, Nykänen / Finnland (CE:ECHR:2014:0520JUD001182811, §§ 50 und 51); vom 27. November 2014, Lucky Dev / Schweden (CE:ECHR:2014:1127JUD000735610, § 62); vom 17. Februar 2015, Boman / Finnland (CE:ECHR:2015:0217JUD004160411, §§ 42 und 43).
  • EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51111/07

    Prozess gegen Kreml-Kritiker Chodorkowski war "unfair"

    It was therefore important to focus on those facts which constituted a set of concrete factual circumstances involving the same defendant and inextricably linked together in time and space, the existence of which had to be demonstrated in order to secure a conviction or institute criminal proceedings (see Glantz v. Finland, no. 37394/11, § 52, 20 May 2014).
  • EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 3453/12

    KAPETANIOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

    Le respect de ce principe aurait été assuré si le juge pénal avait suspendu le procès après le déclenchement de la procédure administrative et, ensuite, cesser la poursuite pénale après la confirmation définitive de l'amende en cause par le Conseil d'État (voir Glantz c. Finlande, no 37394/11, §§ 59-60, 20 mai 2014 ; Häkkä c. Finlande, no 758/11, §§ 48-49, 20 mai 2014, et Nykänen c. Finlande, no 11828/11, § 49-50, 20 mai 2014).
  • EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 66602/09

    SISMANIDIS ET SITARIDIS c. GRÈCE

    Même si au départ de la procédure administrative on aurait pu y voir un lien temporaire entre les deux procédures, compte tenu de la tournure ultérieure de cette procédure, on ne saurait raisonnablement considérer en l'espèce que des procédures entretenant un lien substantiel entre elles ont été conduites contre le premier requérant par des autorités appartenant à différents ordres juridictionnels (voir en ce sens Glantz c. Finlande, no 37394/11, § 60, 20 mai 2014 ; Häkkä c. Finlande, no 758/11, § 49, 20 mai 2014, et Nykänen c. Finlande, no 11828/11, § 50, 20 mai 2014).
  • EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 17039/13

    RINAS v. FINLAND

    However, when no such discontinuation occurs, the Court has found a violation (see Tomasovic v. Croatia, cited above, § 31; Muslija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 32042/11, § 37, 14 January 2014; Nykänen v. Finland, no. 11828/11, § 52, 20 May 2014; and Glantz v. Finland, no. 37394/11, § 62, 20 May 2014).
  • EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12

    KIIVERI v. FINLAND

    However, when no such discontinuation occurs, the Court has found a violation (see Tomasovic v. Croatia, cited above, § 31; Muslija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 32042/11, § 37, 14 January 2014; Nykänen v. Finland, no. 11828/11, § 52, 20 May 2014; and Glantz v. Finland, no. 37394/11, § 62, 20 May 2014).
  • EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53197/13

    ÖSTERLUND v. FINLAND

    However, when no such discontinuation occurs, the Court has found a violation (see Tomasovic v. Croatia, cited above, § 31; Muslija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 32042/11, § 37, 14 January 2014; Nykänen v. Finland, no. 11828/11, § 52, 20 May 2014; and Glantz v. Finland, no. 37394/11, § 62, 20 May 2014).
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