Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 53785/09 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55517) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
TOMASOVIC v. CROATIA
Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
Violation of P7-4 (englisch)
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Tomasovic v. Croatia
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (7) Neu Zitiert selbst (10)
- EGMR, 03.10.2002 - 48154/99
ZIGARELLA contre l'ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 53785/09
Its object and purpose imply that, in the absence of any damage proved by the applicant, only new proceedings brought in the knowledge that the defendant has already been tried in the previous proceedings would violate this provision (see Zigarella v. Italy (dec.), no. 48154/99, ECHR 2002-IX (extracts)).It is true that this passage is not new but has featured in previous judgments and decisions (see, in particular, Zigarella v. Italy (dec.), no. 48154/99, 3 October 2002, and Maresti v. Croatia, no. 55759/0725, 25 June 2009, § 66).
- EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 6072/02
FALKNER v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 53785/09
The Court reiterates that Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 does not necessarily extend to all proceedings instituted in respect of the same offence (see Falkner v. Austria (dec.), no. 6072/02, 30 September 2004).Paragraph 29 states as follows: "The Court reiterates that Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 does not necessarily extend to all proceedings instituted in respect of the same offence (see Falkner v. Austria (dec.), no. 6072/02, 30 September 2004).
- EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 28957/95
Christine Goodwin ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 53785/09
It is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions (see, among other authorities, Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, § 31, Series A no. 26, and Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 75, ECHR 2002-VI).
- EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 53785/09
It is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions (see, among other authorities, Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, § 31, Series A no. 26, and Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 75, ECHR 2002-VI). - EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00
VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 53785/09
It is against this background that the Court is now called upon to provide a harmonised interpretation of the notion of the "same offence" - the idem element of the non bis in idem principle - for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. While it is in the interests of legal certainty, foreseeability and equality before the law that the Court should not depart, without good reason, from precedents laid down in previous cases, a failure by the Court to maintain a dynamic and evolutive approach would risk rendering it a bar to reform or improvement (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 56, ECHR 2007-...). - EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01
NILSSON c. SUEDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 53785/09
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-...). - EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00
MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 53785/09
Nevertheless, the Court reiterates that it has previously found that certain offences still have a criminal connotation although they are regarded under relevant domestic law as too trivial to be governed by criminal law and procedure (see Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-...; Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, § 57, 15 November 2007; and Ziliberberg v. Moldova, no. 61821/00, §§ 32-35, 1 February 2005). - EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04
STORBR?TEN v. NORWAY
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 53785/09
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 non 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, most recently, 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, 18.10.2011 - 53785/09
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-...). - EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 11187/05
HAARVIG v. NORWAY
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 53785/09
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-...).
- EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11
A ET B c. NORVÈGE
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).
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.06.2012 - C-617/10
Nach Ansicht des Generalanwalts Cruz Villalón steht die Charta der Grundrechte …
31 - Urteil Tomasovic/Kroatien vom 18. Oktober 2011 (Nr. 53785/09) im Gegensatz zum früheren Urteil Oliveira/Schweiz, dessen Lösung, die Gegenstand schwerer Kritiken war, nunmehr aufgegeben scheint. - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 02.09.2021 - C-117/20
Generalanwalt Bobek schlägt eine einheitliche Prüfung für den Schutz gegen …
Vgl. auch EGMR, Urteil vom 18. Oktober 2011, Tomasovic / Kroatien (CE:ECHR:2011:1018JUD005378509, §§ 28 bis 32).82 Vgl. z. B. EGMR, Urteil vom 18. Oktober 2011, Tomasovic / Kroatien (CE:ECHR:2011:1018JUD005378509, § 19 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung).
- OLG Karlsruhe, 04.10.2021 - Ausl 301 AR 86/21
Bewilligung der Auslieferung unter Berücksichtigung mitgliedsstaatlicher …
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.09.2017 - C-524/15
Menci - Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union - Nationale …
51 EGMR, Urteil vom 18. Oktober 2011, Tomasovic/Kroatien (CE:ECHR:2011:1018JUD005378509, § 23). - EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 7356/10
LUCKY DEV v. SWEDEN
However, when no such discontinuation occurs, the Court has found a violation (see Tomasovic v. Croatia, no. 53785/09, §§ 30-32, 18 October 2011; and Muslija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 32042/11, § 37, 14 January 2014). - EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 8516/07
BUTNARU ET BEJAN-PISER c. ROUMANIE
Toutefois, elle a constaté une violation lorsque les tribunaux internes n'ont pas ainsi mis fin à la seconde procédure (Tomasovic c. Croatie, no 53785/09, § 31, 18 octobre 2011, Muslija, précité, § 37, et Lucky Dev c. Suède, no 7356/10, §§ 59 et 63, 27 novembre 2014).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 11.12.2019 - 55759/07, 53785/09 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,44049) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MARESTI AGAINST CROATIA AND 1 OTHER CASE
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MARESTI CONTRE LA CROATIE ET 1 AUTRE AFFAIRE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 55759/07
- EGMR, 11.12.2019 - 55759/07, 53785/09
Wird zitiert von ... (2)
- EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 18640/10
GRANDE STEVENS ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
Quant à la jurisprudence de la Cour citée par les requérants (Gradinger c. Autriche (23 octobre 1995, série A no 328-C), Sergueï Zolotoukhine c. Russie ([GC], no 14939/03, CEDH 2009-..), Maresti c. Croatie (no 55759/07, 25 juin 2009), et Ruotsalainen c. Finlande (no 13079/03, 16 juin 2009)), elle n'était pas pertinente en l'espèce, car elle se rapportait à des cas où un même fait était puni par des sanctions pénales et administratives et où ces dernières avaient un caractère punitif et pouvaient comprendre des privations de liberté ou bien (affaire Ruotsalainen) étaient d'un montant supérieur à l'amende pénale. - EGMR, 05.07.2022 - 31029/15
LOIZIDES v. CYPRUS
In Maresti v. Croatia (no. 55759/07, § 33, 25 June 2009), the Court reiterated that Article 6 of the Convention did not compel the Contracting States to set up courts of appeal or of cassation, but where such courts did exist, the guarantees of Article 6 had to be complied with, for instance in that it secured to litigants an effective right of access to the courts.