Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2015,1864
EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11 (https://dejure.org/2015,1864)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.02.2015 - 41604/11 (https://dejure.org/2015,1864)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. Februar 2015 - 41604/11 (https://dejure.org/2015,1864)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,1864) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    BOMAN 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)

 
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 ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

  • EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90

    GRADINGER c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11
    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, 28.10.1999 - 26780/95

    ESCOUBET v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11
    The Court has taken a stand on the criminal nature of a driving ban in several cases, either in the context of Article 6 or in the context of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. In the case Escoubet v. Belgium, the Court found in the context of Article 6 of the Convention that the temporary withdrawal of the applicant's driving licence for six days, before the commencement of any proceedings, on account of a suspected drink-driving offence did not concern a criminal charge (see Escoubet v. Belgium [GC], no. 26780/95, § 38, ECHR 1999-VII).
  • EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37211/97

    MULOT contre la FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11
    In that case the applicant's driving licence was temporarily withdrawn by a prefect for six months for safety reasons before the commencement of any court proceedings (see Mulot v. France (dec.), no. 37211/97, 14 December 1999).
  • EGMR, 20.03.2001 - 38716/97

    HANGL v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11
    Also in the case Hangl v. Austria, the driving ban imposed by the police authorities for two weeks was considered to be of a preventive nature and not of criminal character (see Hangl v. Austria (dec.), no. 38716/97, 20 March 2001).
  • EGMR, 03.10.2002 - 48154/99

    ZIGARELLA contre l'ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11
    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, 24.06.2003 - 65831/01

    Schutz der Infragestellung der von den Nazis am jüdischen Volk begangenen

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11
    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, 14.09.2004 - 60619/00

    ROSENQUIST v. SWEDEN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11
    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, 15.03.2005 - 70982/01

    HORCIAG c. ROUMANIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11
    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, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01

    NILSSON c. SUEDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11
    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, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11
    As to the criminal nature of a driving ban, 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, 11.12.2007 - 11187/05

    HAARVIG v. NORWAY

  • EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

    Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

  • EuG, 26.10.2017 - T-704/14

    Marine Harvest / Kommission - Wettbewerb - Zusammenschlüsse - Beschluss zur

    Im Übrigen hat sich der EGMR im Urteil vom 17. Februar 2015, Boman/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2015:0217JUD004160411), wie folgt geäußert:.
  • 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, 08.10.2019 - 72051/17

    KORNEYEVA v. RUSSIA

    The Court has also held that an approach which emphasises the legal characterisation of the two offences is too restrictive on the rights of the individual and risks undermining the guarantee enshrined in Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 (see Sergey Zolotukhin, cited above, § 81, and Boman v. Finland, no. 41604/11, § 33, 17 February 2015).
  • EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 21563/12

    RIVARD c. SUISSE

    Dans des circonstances similaires à celles de l'espèce, la Cour a déjà eu l'occasion de préciser que, si les diverses sanctions infligées à l'intéressé ont été prononcées par deux autorités différentes à l'issue de procédures distinctes, il existait entre elles un lien matériel et temporel suffisamment étroit pour que l'on puisse considérer le retrait de permis comme l'une des mesures prévues par le droit interne pour la répression des délits de conduite (Boman c. Finlande, no 41604/11, § 43, 17 février 2015).
  • EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 38771/15

    MATIJASIC v. CROATIA

    Subsequently, in Boman v. Finland (no. 41604/11, § 32, 17 February 2015) the Court found that the two-month a driving ban imposed on the applicant following his criminal conviction for driving a vehicle without a licence had been "criminal" in nature.
  • EGMR, 12.04.2016 - 32106/08

    DUNGVECKIS v. LITHUANIA

    Previously in its case-law the Court has found a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 when all the following elements were present: (a) the applicant has been convicted or acquitted by a final decision; (b) there has been a duplication of proceedings in respect of the applicant; (c) all those proceedings were criminal in nature; and (d) they all concerned the same offence allegedly committed by the applicant (see Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, §§ 48-122, ECHR 2009; Muslija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 32042/11, §§ 22-40, 14 January 2014; and Boman v. Finland, no. 41604/11, §§ 22-44, 17 February 2015).
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