Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 58342/15 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DE LEGÉ v. THE NETHERLANDS
Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-b) No significant disadvantage;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
DE LEGÉ v. THE NETHERLANDS
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (18)
- EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 784/14
VAN WEERELT v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 58342/15
In a judgment of 12 July 2013 (ECLI:HR:2013:BZ3640; see also Van Weerelt v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 784/14, § 37, 16 June 2015, as well as paragraph 26 at point 4.9 above), which concerned proceedings against an order issued to a taxpayer by a provisional measures judge to submit, on pain of penalty payments, certain information and materials, the Supreme Court (Civil Chamber; civiele kamer) held that in as far as evidentiary material was concerned the existence of which is dependent on the will of the taxpayer, that material should not be used for the purpose of imposing a tax fine or of a criminal prosecution.In this respect it is observed that the determination of the "criminal charge" against the applicant had become final through the judicial rulings on his appeals against the (re-setting of the) tax fine that was allegedly grounded on information coerced from him (see, by contrast, Van Weerelt v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 784/14, §§ 62 and 66, 16 June 2015).
[2] See Van Weerelt v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 784/14, § 37, 16 June 2015.
[3] See, for this judgment, Van Weerelt v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 784/14, § 37, 16 June 2015.
- EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 15809/02
Recht auf ein faires Verfahren und Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Kriterien für eine …
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 58342/15
After having taken note of the Court's considerations in the cases of Funke (cited above, § 44); Saunders (cited above, §§ 68-69), Choudhary v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 40084/98, 4 May 1999), J.B. v. Switzerland (cited above, §§ 65-66, 68 and 71), O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos.15809/02 and 25624/02, §§ 35, 53 and 58, ECHR 2007-III), Jalloh (cited above, §§ 110-11, 113, 117 and 123), Marttinen (cited above, §§ 68-69, 71-73 and 75-76), Chambaz (cited above, §§ 52-58) and several domestic rulings, the Advocate-General made the following considerations:.However, what constitutes a fair trial cannot be the subject of a single unvarying rule but must depend on the circumstances of the particular case (see O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02, § 53, ECHR 2007-III).
- EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 25624/02
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 58342/15
After having taken note of the Court's considerations in the cases of Funke (cited above, § 44); Saunders (cited above, §§ 68-69), Choudhary v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 40084/98, 4 May 1999), J.B. v. Switzerland (cited above, §§ 65-66, 68 and 71), O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos.15809/02 and 25624/02, §§ 35, 53 and 58, ECHR 2007-III), Jalloh (cited above, §§ 110-11, 113, 117 and 123), Marttinen (cited above, §§ 68-69, 71-73 and 75-76), Chambaz (cited above, §§ 52-58) and several domestic rulings, the Advocate-General made the following considerations:.However, what constitutes a fair trial cannot be the subject of a single unvarying rule but must depend on the circumstances of the particular case (see O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02, § 53, ECHR 2007-III).
- EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84
FUNKE v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 58342/15
He cited Funke v. France (25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A); J.B. v. Switzerland (cited above); Marttinen v. Finland (cited above); and Chambaz v. Switzerland (no. 11663/04, 5 April 2012).This meant that, in contrast to the situation in the cases of Funke v. France (25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A) and J.B. v. Switzerland (cited above), there was no question of a "fishing expedition" in the case at hand.
- EGMR, 04.05.1999 - 40084/98
CHOUDHARY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 58342/15
After having taken note of the Court's considerations in the cases of Funke (cited above, § 44); Saunders (cited above, §§ 68-69), Choudhary v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 40084/98, 4 May 1999), J.B. v. Switzerland (cited above, §§ 65-66, 68 and 71), O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos.15809/02 and 25624/02, §§ 35, 53 and 58, ECHR 2007-III), Jalloh (cited above, §§ 110-11, 113, 117 and 123), Marttinen (cited above, §§ 68-69, 71-73 and 75-76), Chambaz (cited above, §§ 52-58) and several domestic rulings, the Advocate-General made the following considerations:.With reference to Choudhary v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 40084/98, 4 May 1999), the applicant further argued that a pre-existing document is not evidence that exists independently of the will of the suspect if the prosecution authorities would not have been able to take cognisance of it without coercing the suspect, and it was, moreover, clear from the Court's considerations in the cases of J.B. v. Switzerland and Chambaz (cited above) that the materials requested from him were covered by the privilege against self-incrimination and that the exception for evidence whose existence was not dependent on the will of the applicant did not apply.
- EGMR, 10.09.2002 - 76574/01
ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 58342/15
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does not preclude this (see [Allen v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 76574/01, 10 September 2002] and [Marttinen v. Finland, no. 19235/03, § 68, 21 April 2009]).In Allen v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 76574/01, ECHR 2002-VIII, the Court held that the requirement on the applicant to make a declaration of his assets to the revenue service did not disclose any issue under Article 6 even though a separate penalty was attached to a failure to do so.
- EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00
Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 58342/15
This is not altered by the fact that some active participation of the taxpayer - consisting in the case at hand in the submission of the documents by post - is required (see also Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, [§ 114,] ECHR 2006-IX).".Referring to the Court's considerations in Saunders v. the United Kingdom (17 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI), which considerations had been built on by the Netherlands domestic courts and which, according to the Government, had not been abandoned by the Court in subsequent case-law, as well as the Court's findings in Jalloh v. Germany ([GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 100-02, ECHR 2006-IX), the Government were of the opinion that the coercion exercised in this case had not been in violation of Article 6 of the Convention.
- EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 48539/99
Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Umgehungsschutz; Schweigerecht; materieller / …
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 58342/15
Not all direct compulsion will destroy the very essence of the privilege against self-incrimination and thus lead to a violation of Article 6. In examining whether, in a given procedure, compulsion has extinguished the very essence of this privilege, the Court will consider, in particular, the nature and degree of the compulsion, the existence of any relevant safeguards in the procedure and, crucially, the use to which any material so obtained is put (see, for instance, Allan v. the United Kingdom, no. 48539/99, § 44, ECHR 2002-IX; Jalloh, cited above, § 101; and Ibrahim and Others, cited above, § 269). - EuG, 28.04.2010 - T-446/05
Das Gericht bestätigt die Geldbußen in einer Gesamthöhe von 23,44 Millionen Euro, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 58342/15
In such a situation, undertakings could not claim that their right not to incriminate themselves had been infringed when they had nevertheless, voluntarily, replied to such a request (see Amann & Söhne and Cousin Filterie v Commission, T 446/05, EU:T:2010:165, §§ 326 and 328-29). - EuGH, 15.10.2002 - C-238/99
Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij (LVM) / Kommission
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 58342/15
Thus, the CJEC referred for example to Funke, Saunders and J.B. v. Switzerland (all cited above) in its ruling of 15 October 2002 in Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV and others v Commission (joined cases C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, C-250/99 P to C-252/99 P and C-254/99 P, EU:C:2002:582, § 274) and held that, for the privilege against self-incrimination to apply, "both the Orkem judgment and the recent case-law of the European Court of Human Rights require, first, the exercise of coercion against the suspect in order to obtain information from him and, second, establishment of the existence of an actual interference with the right which they define" (ibid., § 275). - EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 13881/02
KING v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 43095/05
ALEKSANDR DEMENTYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 4837/06
SEGAME SA v. FRANCE
- EuGH, 28.01.2021 - C-466/19
Qualcomm und Qualcomm Europe/ Kommission
- EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11
A ET B c. NORVÈGE
- EuGH, 02.02.2021 - C-481/19
Eine natürliche Person, gegen die die Behörden wegen Insidergeschäften ermitteln, …
- EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 34720/97
HEANEY ET McGUINNESS c. IRLANDE
- EuGH, 18.10.1989 - 374/87
Orkem / Kommission
- EGMR, 04.04.2024 - 78630/17
PARESSEUX c. FRANCE
S'agissant des principes généraux en matière du droit à un procès équitable et du droit de garder le silence, il est renvoyé aux arrêts Ibrahim et autres c. Royaume-Uni ([GC], nos 50541/08 et 3 autres, §§ 266-273, 13 septembre 2016), Beuze c. Belgique ([GC], no 71409/10, §§ 125-130, 9 novembre 2018), et De Legé c. Pays-Bas (no 58342/15, §§ 60-61, 63-68, 4 octobre 2022). - EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 41298/21
LÉOTARD c. FRANCE
Par ailleurs, il n'est pas allégué que le requérant ait fait l'objet d'une quelconque forme de coercition, de sorte qu'aucune question ne se pose en l'espèce sous l'angle du droit de ne pas s'incriminer soi-même (De Legé c. Pays-Bas, no 58342/15, §§ 65 et 74, 4 octobre 2022).