Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SERAZIN v. CROATIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 19120/15
• EGMR, 08.11.2018 - 19120/15

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

  Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 19120/15

  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 Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, § 52, ECHR 2009, with further references).
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11

  A ET B c. NORVÈGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 19120/15

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, embodying the principle of ne bis in idem or double jeopardy, only applies to the trial and/or conviction of a person in "criminal proceedings" (see A and B v. Norway [GC], nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11, § 103, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 09.02.1995 - 17440/90

  WELCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 19120/15

  Under s.14B there is no requirement of a criminal conviction, so that the Welch [v. the United Kingdom, 9 February 1995, Series A no. 307-A] starting-point is not met.

 
• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  DE TOMMASO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 19120/15

  In the Court's case-law, in various other contexts, the absence of a predominantly punitive and deterrent purpose of a measure, which are the elements customarily recognised as the two aspects of a penalty (see Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39665/98 and 40086/98, § 102, ECHR 2003-X; Sergey Zolotukhin, cited above, § 55; and Mihai Toma v. Romania, no. 1051/06, § 21, 24 January 2012, with further references), and the emphasis on its preventive nature was one of the main indications that the application of the measure in question did not involve the determination of a "criminal charge" within the autonomous meaning of the Convention (see, for instance, Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 43, Series A no. 281-A, and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 143, ECHR 2017 (extracts), concerning the special supervision of those belonging to "mafia-type" groups; Escoubet, cited above, §§ 36-37, and Becker, cited above, § 27, concerning the withdrawal of a driving licence; R v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 33506/05, 4 January 2007, concerning the application of the warning scheme for sex offenders; and Palmén v. Sweden (dec.), no. 38292/15, § 26, 22 March 2016, concerning the revocation of a weapons licence).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 19120/15

  In the Court's case-law, in various other contexts, the absence of a predominantly punitive and deterrent purpose of a measure, which are the elements customarily recognised as the two aspects of a penalty (see Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39665/98 and 40086/98, § 102, ECHR 2003-X; Sergey Zolotukhin, cited above, § 55; and Mihai Toma v. Romania, no. 1051/06, § 21, 24 January 2012, with further references), and the emphasis on its preventive nature was one of the main indications that the application of the measure in question did not involve the determination of a "criminal charge" within the autonomous meaning of the Convention (see, for instance, Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 43, Series A no. 281-A, and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 143, ECHR 2017 (extracts), concerning the special supervision of those belonging to "mafia-type" groups; Escoubet, cited above, §§ 36-37, and Becker, cited above, § 27, concerning the withdrawal of a driving licence; R v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 33506/05, 4 January 2007, concerning the application of the warning scheme for sex offenders; and Palmén v. Sweden (dec.), no. 38292/15, § 26, 22 March 2016, concerning the revocation of a weapons licence).
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 26780/95

  ESCOUBET v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 19120/15

  This, however, does not exclude a cumulative approach where separate analysis of each criterion does not make it possible to reach a clear conclusion as to the existence of a criminal charge (see Sergey Zolotukhin, cited above, § 53, and A and B, cited above, § 105; see also Escoubet v. Belgium [GC], no. 26780/95, § 32, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 38292/15

  PALMÉN v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 19120/15

  In the Court's case-law, in various other contexts, the absence of a predominantly punitive and deterrent purpose of a measure, which are the elements customarily recognised as the two aspects of a penalty (see Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39665/98 and 40086/98, § 102, ECHR 2003-X; Sergey Zolotukhin, cited above, § 55; and Mihai Toma v. Romania, no. 1051/06, § 21, 24 January 2012, with further references), and the emphasis on its preventive nature was one of the main indications that the application of the measure in question did not involve the determination of a "criminal charge" within the autonomous meaning of the Convention (see, for instance, Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 43, Series A no. 281-A, and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 143, ECHR 2017 (extracts), concerning the special supervision of those belonging to "mafia-type" groups; Escoubet, cited above, §§ 36-37, and Becker, cited above, § 27, concerning the withdrawal of a driving licence; R v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 33506/05, 4 January 2007, concerning the application of the warning scheme for sex offenders; and Palmén v. Sweden (dec.), no. 38292/15, § 26, 22 March 2016, concerning the revocation of a weapons licence).
• EGMR, 04.01.2007 - 33506/05

  R. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 19120/15

  In the Court's case-law, in various other contexts, the absence of a predominantly punitive and deterrent purpose of a measure, which are the elements customarily recognised as the two aspects of a penalty (see Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39665/98 and 40086/98, § 102, ECHR 2003-X; Sergey Zolotukhin, cited above, § 55; and Mihai Toma v. Romania, no. 1051/06, § 21, 24 January 2012, with further references), and the emphasis on its preventive nature was one of the main indications that the application of the measure in question did not involve the determination of a "criminal charge" within the autonomous meaning of the Convention (see, for instance, Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 43, Series A no. 281-A, and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 143, ECHR 2017 (extracts), concerning the special supervision of those belonging to "mafia-type" groups; Escoubet, cited above, §§ 36-37, and Becker, cited above, § 27, concerning the withdrawal of a driving licence; R v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 33506/05, 4 January 2007, concerning the application of the warning scheme for sex offenders; and Palmén v. Sweden (dec.), no. 38292/15, § 26, 22 March 2016, concerning the revocation of a weapons licence).