Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VP-KULJETUS OY AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VP-KULJETUS OY AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 02.10.2003 - 13596/02

  ISAKSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 15396/12

  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, 14.09.2004 - 60619/00

  ROSENQUIST v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 15396/12

  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).
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01

  NILSSON c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 15396/12

  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).

 
• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 528/02

  POKIS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 15396/12

  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, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04

  STORBR?TEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 15396/12

  As far as the fuel fees are concerned, 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 ne 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 for example Storbråten v. Norway (dec.), no. 12277/04, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), with further references).
• EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 11187/05

  HAARVIG v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 15396/12

  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).
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

  Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 15396/12

  Turning now to the question of whether the offences for which the applicants were prosecuted were the same (idem), the Court has acknowledged in the case of Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia (see Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, §§ 81-84, ECHR 2009) the existence of several approaches to this question.