Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  R. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2007 - 33506/05

  As regards the criminal head, criminal proceedings are said to have begun with "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", a definition that also corresponds to the test of whether "the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected" (Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, § 73).
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2007 - 33506/05

  As to the termination of criminal proceedings, there is no right under Article 6 of the Convention to a particular outcome or, therefore, to a formal conviction or acquittal following the laying of criminal charges (Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, § 49 referring to the Commission's report of 5 October 1978, Series B no. 33, § 58; Withey v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 59493/00, ECHR 2003-X).
• EGMR, 26.08.2003 - 59493/00

  WITHEY contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2007 - 33506/05

  As to the termination of criminal proceedings, there is no right under Article 6 of the Convention to a particular outcome or, therefore, to a formal conviction or acquittal following the laying of criminal charges (Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, § 49 referring to the Commission's report of 5 October 1978, Series B no. 33, § 58; Withey v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 59493/00, ECHR 2003-X).
• EGMR, 13.05.2003 - 62960/00

  ANTOINE contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2007 - 33506/05

  More recently, the Court has found that criminal proceedings ended when the prosecution informed the accused that it had discontinued the proceedings against him (Slezevicius v. Lithuania, no. 55479/00, § 27, 13 November 2001) and when a domestic court found that an accused was unfit to stand trial by reason of his psychiatric condition (Antoine v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62960/00, ECHR 2003-VII (extracts)), even though in both cases there remained a theoretical possibility that the accused could one day be proceeded against on the relevant charges.
• EKMR, 03.10.1979 - 8233/78

  X. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2007 - 33506/05

  Generally such proceedings end with an official notification to the accused that he or she is no longer to be pursued on those charges such as would allow a conclusion that the situation of that person could no longer be considered to be substantially affected (X v. the United Kingdom, no. 8233/78, Commission decision of 3 October 1979, §§ 64 and 65, unreported).

• EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 19120/15

  SERAZIN v. CROATIA

  In the Court's case-law, in various other contexts, the absence of a predominantly punitive and deterrent purpose of a measure, which are the elements customarily recognised as the two aspects of a penalty (see Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39665/98 and 40086/98, § 102, ECHR 2003-X; Sergey Zolotukhin, cited above, § 55; and Mihai Toma v. Romania, no. 1051/06, § 21, 24 January 2012, with further references), and the emphasis on its preventive nature was one of the main indications that the application of the measure in question did not involve the determination of a "criminal charge" within the autonomous meaning of the Convention (see, for instance, Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 43, Series A no. 281-A, and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 143, ECHR 2017 (extracts), concerning the special supervision of those belonging to "mafia-type" groups; Escoubet, cited above, §§ 36-37, and Becker, cited above, § 27, concerning the withdrawal of a driving licence; R v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 33506/05, 4 January 2007, concerning the application of the warning scheme for sex offenders; and Palmén v. Sweden (dec.), no. 38292/15, § 26, 22 March 2016, concerning the revocation of a weapons licence).