Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KIIVERI v. FINLAND
Art. 35, Art. 41, 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 Criminal offence) Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage Just satisfaction) ...
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Kiiveri v. Finland
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
KIIVERI v. FINLAND
Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (11)
- EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01
NILSSON c. SUEDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12
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, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90
GRADINGER c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12
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, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12
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, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12
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, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12
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, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12
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, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04
STORBR?TEN v. NORWAY
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12
As to the criminal nature of tax surcharge proceedings, 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
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12
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, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03
Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12
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 of whether the offences for which an applicant was prosecuted were the same. - EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 11828/11
NYKÄNEN v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12
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, 20.05.2014 - 37394/11
GLANTZ v. FINLAND
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.09.2017 - C-524/15
Menci - Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union - Nationale …
48 Siehe u. a. die Urteile des EGMR vom 20. Mai 2014, Nykänen/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2014:0520JUD001182811), vom 20. Mai 2014, Häkkä/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2014:0520JUD000075811), vom 10. Februar 2015, Kiiveri/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2015:0210JUD005375312), und vom 30. April 2015, Kapetanios u. a./Griechenland (CE:ECHR:2015:0430JUD000345312).49 EGMR, Urteile vom 23. November 2006, Jussila/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2006:1123JUD007305301, §§ 37 und 38), vom 20. Mai 2014, Nykänen/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2014:0520JUD001182811, § 40), und vom 10. Februar 2015, Kiiveri/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2015:0210JUD005375312, § 31).
98 Siehe u. a. Urteile des EGMR vom 20. Mai 2014, Nykänen/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2014:0520JUD001182811, §§ 39 und 40), vom 20. Mai 2014, Häkkä/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2014:0520JUD000075811, §§ 38 und 39), vom 10. Februar 2015, Kiiveri/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2015:0210JUD005375312), und vom 30. April 2015, Kapetanios u. a./Griechenland (CE:ECHR:2015:0430JUD000345312).
104 EGMR, Urteile vom 23. November 2006, Jussila/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2006:1123JUD007305301, §§ 37 bis 38), vom 20. Mai 2014, Nykänen/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2014:0520JUD001182811, § 40), und vom 10. Februar 2015, Kiiveri/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2015:0210JUD005375312, § 31).
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.01.2017 - C-217/15
Orsi - Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union - Nationale Regelung, die …
19 EGMR, Urteil vom 10. Februar 2015, Kiiveri/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2015:0210JUD005375312, § 30 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung).