Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HEINANEN v. FINLAND

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  HEINANEN v. FINLAND

  Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 02.10.2003 - 13596/02

  ISAKSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 947/13

  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, 14.09.2004 - 60619/00

  ROSENQUIST v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 947/13

  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 - 947/13

  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 - 947/13

  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, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04

  STORBR?TEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 947/13

  As to the criminal nature of tax surcharge proceedings, 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 - 947/13

  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 - 947/13

  Turning now to the question of whether the offences for which the applicant was 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 the question of whether this was the case.
• EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 35232/11

  PIRTTIMÄKI v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 947/13

  Even assuming that in both cases it had in fact been the applicant who had made incomplete tax declarations or no declaration at all, the circumstances could still not be regarded as the same: making a tax declaration in personal taxation differs from making a tax declaration for a company as these declarations are made in different forms, they may have been made at a different point in time and, in the case of the companies, may also have involved other persons (see Pirttimäki v. Finland, no. 35232/11, § 51, 20 May 2014).

• 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, 02.10.2018 - 3714/16

  AIGAION OIL A.E. c. GRÈCE

  Il s'ensuit qu'une des conditions primordiales pour l'applicabilité de l'article précité est l'identité des personnes ou des entités juridiques qui sont poursuivies ou punis deux fois (voir, à titre d'exemple, Pirttimäki c. Finlande, no 35232/11, §§ 50-51, 20 mai 2014, et Heinänen c. Finlande (déc.), no 947/13, §§ 37-38, 6 janvier 2015).