Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NILSSON c. SUEDE

  Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 Abs. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NILSSON v. SWEDEN

  Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (28)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 60619/00

  ROSENQUIST v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01

  The first issue to be determined is whether the proceedings relating to the withdrawal of the applicant's driving licence could be considered as "criminal" for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. This notion must be interpreted in the light of the general principles concerning the corresponding words "criminal charge" and "penalty" respectively in Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention (see 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, and Malige v. France, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII, p. 2935, § 35).

• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

  Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

  Hence, the Court will have regard to such factors as the legal classification of the offence under national law; the nature of the offence; the national legal characterisation of the measure; its purpose, nature and degree of severity; whether the measure was imposed following conviction for a criminal offence, and the procedures involved in the making and implementation of the measure (see Storbråten v. Norway (dec.), no. 12277/04, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), and Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-..., with further references).
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11

  A ET B c. NORVÈGE

  The Supreme Court further had regard to the Court's more recent case-law (Mjelde v. Norway (dec.), no. 11143/04, 1 February 2007; Storbråten v. Norway (dec.), no. 12277/04, 1 February 2007; Haarvig v. Norway (dec.), no. 11187/05, 11 December 2007, with references to 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) to the effect that a wider range of criteria than merely the Engel criteria applied to the assessment under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. It found confirmation in Sergey Zolotukhin (cited above, §§ 52-57) - later followed in Ruotsalainen v. Finland (no. 13079/03, §§ 41-47, 16 June 2009) - that the three Engel criteria for establishing the existence of a "criminal charge" for the purposes of Article 6 applied equally to the notion of criminal punishment in Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.

  The Government invited the Grand Chamber to confirm the approach taken in a series of cases predating the Zolotukhin judgment, namely that a wider range of factors than the Engel criteria (formulated with reference to Article 6) were relevant for the assessment of whether a sanction was "criminal" for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. They contended that regard ought to be had to such factors as the legal classification of the offence under national law; the nature of the offence; the national legal characterisation of the sanction; its purpose, nature and degree of severity; whether the sanction was imposed following conviction for a criminal offence; and the procedures involved in the adoption and implementation of the sanction (they referred to Malige v. France, 23 September 1998, § 35, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-XIII; Haarvig v. Norway (dec.), no. 11187/05, 11 December 2007; Storbråten v. Norway (dec.), no. 12277/04, 1 February 2007; and Mjelde v. Norway (dec.), 11143/04, 1 February 2007).

  See Nykänen v. Finland, no. 11828/11, § 38, 20 May 2014; Haarvig v. Norway (dec.), no. 11187/05, 11 December 2007; Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-XIII; 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; and Malige v. France, 23 September 1998, § 35, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII.

• EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 11828/11

  NYKÄNEN v. FINLAND

  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, 04.10.2016 - 21563/12

  RIVARD c. SUISSE

  4 du Protocole no 7, 1orsque la mesure administrative découle de manière directe et prévisible de la condamnation, dont elle ne constitue que la conséquence (arrêt Nilsson contre Suède du 13 décembre 2005 no 73661/01 Recueil CourEDH 2005-XIII p. 333 ss ; arrêt R.T. contre Suisse du 30 mai 2000, in: JAAC 64.152).

  S'appuyant sur l'affaire Nilsson c. Suède ((déc.), no 73661/01, CEDH 2005-XIII), le Gouvernement souligne le lien matériel et temporel étroit entre les procédures pénale et administrative en matière de circulation routière.

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 02.09.2021 - C-117/20

  Generalanwalt Bobek schlägt eine einheitliche Prüfung für den Schutz gegen …

  104 EGMR, Urteil vom 13. Dezember 2005, Nilsson / Sweden (CE:ECHR:2005:1213DEC007366101, S. 10 bis 11).
• EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 37394/11

  GLANTZ v. FINLAND

  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, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04

  STORBR?TEN v. NORWAY

  Lorsque, comme en l'espèce, la Cour juge établi que la première décision est «définitive», elle doit rechercher si la décision en question relève de la «matière pénale» au sens autonome de l'article 4 § 1 du Protocole no 7. Cette notion doit être interprétée à la lumière des principes généraux applicables aux termes correspondants «accusation en matière pénale» et «peine» respectivement employés aux articles 6 et 7 de la Convention (voir Rosenquist c. Suède (déc.), no 60619/00, 14 septembre 2004 ; Manasson c. Suède (déc.), no 41265/98, 8 avril 2003 ; Göktan c. France, no 33402/96, § 48, CEDH 2002-V ; Malige c. France, 23 septembre 1998, § 35, Recueil des arrêts et décision 1998-VII ; et Nilsson c. Suède (déc.), no 73661/01, CEDH 2005-XIII).

  On ne peut pas non plus considérer l'interdiction comme étant l'une des mesures prévues par le droit norvégien pour la répression des infractions sur le fondement desquelles le requérant a été pénalement poursuivi (cf. Nilsson c. Suède (déc.), no 73661/01, précitée).

• EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 758/11

  HÄKKÄ v. FINLAND

  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, 27.01.2015 - 17039/13

  RINAS v. FINLAND

  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, 18.05.2017 - 22007/11

  JÓHANNESSON AND OTHERS v. ICELAND

  In any event, the Government asserted that the applicants had not been subjected to new or repeated proceedings within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. Referring to R.T. v Switzerland ((dec.), no. 31982/96, 30 May 2000) and Nilsson v. Sweden ((dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-XIII), they argued that the provision did not prohibit parallel proceedings.
• EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 11187/05

  HAARVIG v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12

  KIIVERI v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53197/13

  ÖSTERLUND v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11

  BOMAN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 11143/04

  MJELDE v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 55759/07

  MARESTI v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 53785/09

  TOMASOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 13079/03

  RUOTSALAINEN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 35232/11

  PIRTTIMÄKI v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 11.06.2015 - 19844/08

  BECKER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 32042/11

  MUSLIJA v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 38771/15

  MATIJASIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 947/13

  HEINANEN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 59892/00

  MASZNI c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 38292/15

  PALMÉN v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 15396/12

  VP-KULJETUS OY AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 39771/12

  ALASIPPOLA v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 49509/12

  ALASIPPOLA v. FINLAND