Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ISAKSEN v. NORWAY

  Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 14.09.1999 - 36855/97

  PONSETTI ET CHESNEL contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2003 - 13596/02

  36855/97 and 41731/98, 14 September 1999, ECHR 1999-VI).

• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

  Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

  36855/97 and 41731/98, 14 September 1999, ECHR-1999-VI, Oliveira v. Switzerland, judgment of 30 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V, § 27, Isaksen v. Norway (dec.), no. 13596/02, 2 October 2003, and Franz Fischer, cited above, § 22).
• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 45106/04

  MARCELLO VIOLA c. ITALIE

  Dans l'affaire Ponsetti et Chesnel c. France ((déc.), nos 36855/97 et 41731/98, CEDH 1999-VI), la Cour a estimé que la condamnation à une amende fiscale par l'administration fiscale et à une sanction pénale par une juridiction pénale ne violait pas la règle du ne bis in idem édictée par l'article 4 du Protocole no 7. Elle est parvenue à des conclusions analogues dans les affaires Isaksen c. Norvège ((déc.), no 13596/02, 2 octobre 2003) et Göktan c. France (arrêt précité, §§ 48-52).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.01.2017 - C-217/15

  Orsi - Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union - Nationale Regelung, die …

  23 Vgl. auch Entscheidungen vom 2. Oktober 2003, 1saksen/Norwegen (CE:ECHR:2003:1002DEC001359602) und vom 14. September 1999, Ponsetti und Chesnel/Frankreich (CE:ECHR:1999:0914DEC003685597).

 
• EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 35232/11

  PIRTTIMÄKI v. FINLAND

  First of all, the legal entities involved in these proceedings were not the same: in the first set of proceedings it was the applicant and in the second set of proceedings the company (see Isaksen v. Norway (dec.), no. 13596/02, 2 October 2003; and, mutatis mutandis, Pokis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 528/02, ECHR 2006-XV; and Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, §§ 66-68, Series A no. 330-A).
• EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 947/13

  HEINANEN v. FINLAND

  First of all, the legal entities involved in these proceedings were not the same: in the first set of proceedings it was the applicant in his personal capacity and in the second set of proceedings the two companies whose legal representative the applicant was (see Isaksen v. Norway (dec.), no. 13596/02, 2 October 2003; and mutatis mutandis, Pokis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 528/02, ECHR 2006-XV; and Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, §§ 66-68, Series A no. 330-A).
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 9542/11

  ISAKSSON v. SWEDEN

  Thus, the applicant's trial and conviction for this tax offence do not disclose any failure to comply with the requirements of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (see Isaksen v. Norway (dec.), no. 13596/02, 2 December 2003; Pirttimäki v. Finland, no. 35232/11, §§ 49-52, 20 May 2014; Larsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 64102/10, 13 January 2015; and Heinanen v. Finland (dec.), no. 947/13, 6 January 2015).
• EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 15396/12

  VP-KULJETUS OY AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Leaving aside the fact that the applicant company was not, and indeed could not be, charged according to Finnish law other than through its board members, that is, the second and third applicants (see Isaksen v. Norway (dec.), no. 13596/02, 2 October 2003; and, mutatis mutandis, Pokis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 528/02, ECHR 2006-XV; and Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, §§ 66-68, Series A no. 330-A), both the second and third applicants were also charged in their personal capacity in the tax fraud proceedings.
• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 2529/04

  GARRETTA c. FRANCE

  [3] Voir, pour des applications en matière fiscale, Ponsetti et Chesnel c. France (déc.), nos 36855/97 et 41731/98, CEDH 1999-VI et Isaksen c. Norvège (déc.), n° 13596/02, 2 octobre 2003 et en matière douanière, Göktan c. France, no 33402/96, §§ 50-51, CEDH 2002-V et Gauthier c. France (déc.), no 61178/00, 24 juin 2003).
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 11143/04

  MJELDE v. NORWAY

  The Court will only review the decision of the High Court (see Zigarella v. Italy (dec.), no. 48154/99, ECHR 2002-IX (extracts) and Isaksen v. Norway (dec.), no. 13596/02).