Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MATIJASIC v. CROATIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MATIJASIC v. CROATIA

  Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 26780/95

  ESCOUBET v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 38771/15

  As regards the ensuing driving ban, the Court has assessed the nature of driving bans in several cases, either in the context of Article 6 or in the context of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. In Escoubet v. Belgium ([GC], no. 26780/95, § 38, ECHR 1999-VII), the Court found in the context of Article 6 of the Convention that the temporary withdrawal of the applicant's driving licence for six days, before the commencement of any proceedings, on account of a suspected drunk-driving offence did not concern a criminal charge.
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

  Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 38771/15

  The Court's assessment General principles 21. Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 prohibits the prosecution or trial for a second "criminal offence" in so far as it arose from identical facts or facts which were substantially the same (see Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, § 82, ECHR 2009; A and B v. Norway [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04

  STORBR?TEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 38771/15

  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, 04.10.2016 - 21563/12

  RIVARD c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 38771/15

  In Rivard v. Switzerland (no. 21563/12, § 24, 4 October 2016), where the applicant's driving license had been withdrawn for one month, after he had already been fined for speeding, and where the Swiss Federal Tribunal had recognised the "criminal" nature of the measure at issue, the Court accepted that it had been "criminal" for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01

  NILSSON c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 38771/15

  On the other hand, in Nilsson v. Sweden ((dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-XIII), the Court found that withdrawal of a driving licence on the ground of a criminal conviction constituted a "criminal" matter for the purpose of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. What was more, in the Court's view, the severity of the measure - suspension of the applicant's driving licence for eighteen months - was in itself so significant, regardless of the context of his criminal conviction, that it could ordinarily be viewed as a criminal sanction.
• EGMR, 20.03.2001 - 38716/97

  HANGL v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 38771/15

  Also, in Hangl v. Austria ((dec.), no. 38716/97, 20 March 2001) the two-week driving ban imposed by the police authorities was considered to be of a preventive nature and not of criminal character.
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11

  A ET B c. NORVÈGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 38771/15

  24130/11 and 29758/11, § 108, 15 November 2016; and Margus v. Croatia [GC], no. 4455/10, § 114, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11

  BOMAN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 38771/15

  Subsequently, in Boman v. Finland (no. 41604/11, § 32, 17 February 2015) the Court found that the two-month a driving ban imposed on the applicant following his criminal conviction for driving a vehicle without a licence had been "criminal" in nature.
• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37211/97

  MULOT contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 38771/15

  In Mulot v. France ((dec.), no. 37211/97, 14 December 1999) the applicant's driving licence was temporarily withdrawn by a prefect for six months for safety reasons before the commencement of any court proceedings.