Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HAARVIG v. NORWAY

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

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01

  NILSSON c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 11187/05

  Therefore, in the Government's view, there was a sufficiently close connection between the two sets of proceedings in substance and time to regard them as parallel proceedings permitted under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. In this regard the Government referred to Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005- and Ouendeno c. France, no 39996/98, (dec.) 9 January 2001.

  The first issue to be decided is whether the proceedings relating to the suspension of the applicant's licence to duty practice concerned a "criminal" matter within the autonomous meaning of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7. This notion must be interpreted in the light of the general principles concerning the corresponding words "criminal charge" and "penalty" respectively in Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention (see Storbråten v. Norway (dec.), no. 12277/04, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); Mjelde v. Norway (dec.) 11143/04, 1 February 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, and Malige v. France, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII, p. 2935, § 35; Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-).

• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04

  STORBR?TEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 11187/05

  The first issue to be decided is whether the proceedings relating to the suspension of the applicant's licence to duty practice concerned a "criminal" matter within the autonomous meaning of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7. This notion must be interpreted in the light of the general principles concerning the corresponding words "criminal charge" and "penalty" respectively in Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention (see Storbråten v. Norway (dec.), no. 12277/04, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); Mjelde v. Norway (dec.) 11143/04, 1 February 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, and Malige v. France, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII, p. 2935, § 35; Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-).
• EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 60619/00

  ROSENQUIST v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 11187/05

  The first issue to be decided is whether the proceedings relating to the suspension of the applicant's licence to duty practice concerned a "criminal" matter within the autonomous meaning of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7. This notion must be interpreted in the light of the general principles concerning the corresponding words "criminal charge" and "penalty" respectively in Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention (see Storbråten v. Norway (dec.), no. 12277/04, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); Mjelde v. Norway (dec.) 11143/04, 1 February 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, and Malige v. France, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII, p. 2935, § 35; Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-).
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 11143/04

  MJELDE v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 11187/05

  The first issue to be decided is whether the proceedings relating to the suspension of the applicant's licence to duty practice concerned a "criminal" matter within the autonomous meaning of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7. This notion must be interpreted in the light of the general principles concerning the corresponding words "criminal charge" and "penalty" respectively in Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention (see Storbråten v. Norway (dec.), no. 12277/04, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); Mjelde v. Norway (dec.) 11143/04, 1 February 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, and Malige v. France, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII, p. 2935, § 35; Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-).

• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11

  A ET B c. NORVÈGE

  The Supreme Court further had regard to the Court's more recent case-law (Mjelde v. Norway (dec.), no. 11143/04, 1 February 2007; Storbråten v. Norway (dec.), no. 12277/04, 1 February 2007; Haarvig v. Norway (dec.), no. 11187/05, 11 December 2007, with references to 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) to the effect that a wider range of criteria than merely the Engel criteria applied to the assessment under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. It found confirmation in Sergey Zolotukhin (cited above, §§ 52-57) - later followed in Ruotsalainen v. Finland (no. 13079/03, §§ 41-47, 16 June 2009) - that the three Engel criteria for establishing the existence of a "criminal charge" for the purposes of Article 6 applied equally to the notion of criminal punishment in Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.

  The Government invited the Grand Chamber to confirm the approach taken in a series of cases predating the Zolotukhin judgment, namely that a wider range of factors than the Engel criteria (formulated with reference to Article 6) were relevant for the assessment of whether a sanction was "criminal" for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. They contended that regard ought to be had to such factors as the legal classification of the offence under national law; the nature of the offence; the national legal characterisation of the sanction; its purpose, nature and degree of severity; whether the sanction was imposed following conviction for a criminal offence; and the procedures involved in the adoption and implementation of the sanction (they referred to Malige v. France, 23 September 1998, § 35, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-XIII; Haarvig v. Norway (dec.), no. 11187/05, 11 December 2007; Storbråten v. Norway (dec.), no. 12277/04, 1 February 2007; and Mjelde v. Norway (dec.), 11143/04, 1 February 2007).

  See Nykänen v. Finland, no. 11828/11, § 38, 20 May 2014; Haarvig v. Norway (dec.), no. 11187/05, 11 December 2007; Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-XIII; 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; and Malige v. France, 23 September 1998, § 35, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII.

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 02.09.2021 - C-117/20

  Generalanwalt Bobek schlägt eine einheitliche Prüfung für den Schutz gegen …

  51 Siehe z. B. EGMR, Urteile vom 30. Mai 2002, W. F. / Österreich (CE:ECHR:2002:0530JUD003827597, § 28); vom 6. Juni 2002, Sailer / Österreich (CE:ECHR:2002:0606JUD003823797, § 28); vom 2. September 2004, Bachmaier / Österreich (CE:ECHR:2004:0902DEC00774130); vom 14. September 2004, Rosenquist / Schweden (CE:ECHR:2004:0914DEC006061900); vom 7. Dezember 2006, Hauser-Sporn / Österreich (CE:ECHR:2006:1207JUD003730103, § 45); vom 1. Februar 2007, Storbråten / Norwegen (CE:ECHR:2007:0201DEC001227704); vom 26. Juli 2007, Schutte / Österreich (CE:ECHR:2007:0726JUD001801503, § 42); vom 11. Dezember 2007, Haarvig / Norwegen (CE:ECHR:2007:1211DEC001118705); und vom 4. März 2008, Garretta / Frankreich (CE:ECHR:2008:0304DEC000252904, § 86).
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11

  BOMAN v. FINLAND

  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, 20.05.2014 - 11828/11

  NYKÄNEN v. FINLAND

  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, 25.06.2009 - 55759/07

  MARESTI v. CROATIA

  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 1998-VII; and Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 53785/09

  TOMASOVIC v. CROATIA

  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-...).
• EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 13079/03

  RUOTSALAINEN v. FINLAND

  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-...).
• EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 35232/11

  PIRTTIMÄKI v. FINLAND

  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, 20.05.2014 - 37394/11

  GLANTZ v. FINLAND

  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, 27.01.2015 - 17039/13

  RINAS v. FINLAND

  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, 14.01.2014 - 32042/11

  MUSLIJA v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12

  KIIVERI v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 758/11

  HÄKKÄ v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 947/13

  HEINANEN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53197/13

  ÖSTERLUND v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 15396/12

  VP-KULJETUS OY AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 39771/12

  ALASIPPOLA v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 49509/12

  ALASIPPOLA v. FINLAND