Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CECCHETTI v. SAN MARINO

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 30.09.1985 - 9300/81

  CAN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 40174/08

  The Court has thus been frequently called upon, under Articles 37 and 38, to verify that the general problem raised by the case had been or was being remedied and that similar legal issues had been resolved in other cases before it (see, among many other authorities, Can v. Austria, 30 September 1985, §§ 15-18, Series A no. 96, and Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 51, 30 March 2009).
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 25551/05

  KOROLEV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 40174/08

  The High Contracting Parties clearly wished the Court to devote more time to cases which warrant consideration on the merits, whether seen from the perspective of the legal interest of the individual applicant or considered from the broader perspective of the law of the Convention and the European public order to which it contributes (see Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 44759/98

  Verletzung des Rechts auf ein faires Verfahren durch überlange Verfahrensdauer; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 40174/08

  Thus, tax disputes fall outside the scope of civil rights and obligations, despite the pecuniary effects which they necessarily produce for the taxpayer (Ferrazzini v. Italy [GC], no. 44759/98, ECHR 2001-VII).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 40174/08

  The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative and depends on all the circumstances of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 100, Series A no. 161).
• EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 12547/86

  BENDENOUN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 40174/08

  Referring to the case of Bendenoun v. France (24 February 1994, Series A no. 284) the Government submitted that in the present case, the sanction could not be converted into imprisonment, and was in fact very small, amounting only to EUR 3.48. Indeed they noted that the highest sanction which could have been ordered in the present case would have amounted to EUR 27.82.

• EGMR, 04.05.2017 - 15485/09

  CHAP LTD v. ARMENIA

  In the case of Paykar Yev Haghtanak (see Paykar Yev Haghtanak Ltd v. Armenia, no. 21638/03, 20 December 2007), the Court, referring to the relevant principles established in its case-law on the matter (see Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, §§ 29-38, ECHR 2006-XIV for the analysis of the "Engel criteria" for the assessment of the applicability of the criminal aspect; also Cecchetti v. San Marino (dec.), no. 40174/08, 9 April 2013), found that Article 6 applied under its criminal head to proceedings concerning the imposition of fines and surcharges for unpaid or underpaid profit tax and VAT (ibid., §§ 32-37).