Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SIMKUS v. LITHUANIA

  Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-general (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SIMKUS v. LITHUANIA

  Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 41788/11
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 41788/11

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

• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11

  A ET B c. NORVÈGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 41788/11

  24130/11 and 29758/11, §§ 105-07, 15 November 2016, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 36732/97

  PISANO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 41788/11

  Discretionary or extraordinary remedies, such as applying to have proceedings reopened, are not considered effective remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and thus need not be used (see Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, § 36, 24 October 2002).
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

  Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 41788/11

  Nonetheless, the Court is of the view that its nature can be regarded as criminal within the meaning of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7. As submitted by the Government, punishment for minor hooliganism served to protect public order and peace (see paragraph 38 above) - values and interests which often fall within the sphere of protection of criminal law (see Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, § 55, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90

  GRADINGER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 41788/11

  The Court reiterates that the aim of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 is to prohibit the repetition of criminal proceedings that have been concluded by a "final" decision, that is to say a decision which has acquired the force of res judicata and against which no further ordinary remedies are available (see Gradinger v. Austria, 23 October 1995, § 53, Series A no. 328-C; Franz Fischer v. Austria, no. 37950/97, § 22, 29 May 2001; and Sergey Zolotukhin, cited above, §§ 107-08).

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

  Generalanwalt Bobek schlägt eine einheitliche Prüfung für den Schutz gegen …

  In seinem Urteil vom 13. Juni 2017, ? imkus / Litauen (CE:ECHR:2017:0613JUD004178811, Rn. 46 und 47) erscheint die Relevanz der Entscheidung A und B implizit, der EGMR hält jedoch das Erfordernis des in beiden Hinsichten bestehenden Zusammenhangs offenbar nicht für gegeben.