Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 60619/00 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,48766) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ROSENQUIST v. SWEDEN
Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (25) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 14.09.1999 - 36855/97
PONSETTI ET CHESNEL contre la FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 60619/00
36855/97 and 41731/98, decision of 14 September 1999, ECHR 1999-VI, that is was reasonable to assume that the fundamental conditions for tax surcharges and intentional tax offences differed in such a way that no conflict with Article 4 of Protocol no. 7 to the Convention would arise (opinion of 23 January 2003 of the Council of Legislation).36855/97 and 41731/98, ECHR 1999-VI).
- EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 33402/96
GOKTAN v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 60619/00
Moreover, in its judgment in the case Göktan v. France ( no. 33402/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-V) concerning Article 7 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol no. 7, the Court held that the notion of penalty should not have different meanings under different provisions of the Convention. - EGMR, 23.07.2002 - 34619/97
JANOSEVIC c. SUEDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 60619/00
The first issue that arises is whether the proceedings relating to the 40 per cent tax surcharge could be viewed as "criminal" for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol no. 7. In this connection, the Court reiterates its findings in Janosevic v. Sweden ( no. 34619/97, 23 July 2002, §§ 68-71, ECHR 2002- VII ) and Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic v. Sweden ( no. 36985/97, 23 July 2002, §§ 79-82 ) that the proceedings in question were "criminal" although the surcharges cannot be said to belong to criminal law under the Swedish legal system, and in Manasson v. Sweden ((dec.) no. 41265/98, 8 April 2003) that proceedings involving tax surcharges were "criminal" not only for the purpose of Article 6 of the Convention, but also for the purpose of Article 4 of Protocol no. 7 to the Convention.
- EGMR, 23.07.2002 - 36985/97
VASTBERGA TAXI AKTIEBOLAG AND VULIC v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 60619/00
The first issue that arises is whether the proceedings relating to the 40 per cent tax surcharge could be viewed as "criminal" for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol no. 7. In this connection, the Court reiterates its findings in Janosevic v. Sweden ( no. 34619/97, 23 July 2002, §§ 68-71, ECHR 2002- VII ) and Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic v. Sweden ( no. 36985/97, 23 July 2002, §§ 79-82 ) that the proceedings in question were "criminal" although the surcharges cannot be said to belong to criminal law under the Swedish legal system, and in Manasson v. Sweden ((dec.) no. 41265/98, 8 April 2003) that proceedings involving tax surcharges were "criminal" not only for the purpose of Article 6 of the Convention, but also for the purpose of Article 4 of Protocol no. 7 to the Convention. - EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 41265/98
MANASSON v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 60619/00
The first issue that arises is whether the proceedings relating to the 40 per cent tax surcharge could be viewed as "criminal" for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol no. 7. In this connection, the Court reiterates its findings in Janosevic v. Sweden ( no. 34619/97, 23 July 2002, §§ 68-71, ECHR 2002- VII ) and Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic v. Sweden ( no. 36985/97, 23 July 2002, §§ 79-82 ) that the proceedings in question were "criminal" although the surcharges cannot be said to belong to criminal law under the Swedish legal system, and in Manasson v. Sweden ((dec.) no. 41265/98, 8 April 2003) that proceedings involving tax surcharges were "criminal" not only for the purpose of Article 6 of the Convention, but also for the purpose of Article 4 of Protocol no. 7 to the Convention. - EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90
GRADINGER c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 60619/00
The Court notes that the aim of Article 4 of Protocol no. 7 is to prohibit the repetition of criminal proceedings which have been concluded by a final decision (see Gradinger v. Austria, judgment of 23 October 1995, Series A no. 328-C, p. 65, § 53).
- EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11
A ET B c. NORVÈGE
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. - EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 7356/10
LUCKY DEV v. SWEDEN
Prior to this judgment, the imposition of tax surcharges and a conviction for tax fraud had been found not to violate the principle of ne bis in idem; rather, such a complaint had been declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded in the case of Rosenquist v. Sweden (no. 60619/00, 14 September 2004).In the present case the Swedish courts followed this approach and took the date of adoption of the judgment in Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 14939/03, ECHR 2009), reversing the previous case-law (Rosenquist v. Sweden (dec.), no. 60619/00, 14 September 2004), as the starting-point for the change in the Swedish case-law.
- 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, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04
STORBR?TEN v. NORWAY
Lorsque, comme en l'espèce, la Cour juge établi que la première décision est «définitive», elle doit rechercher si la décision en question relève de la «matière pénale» au sens autonome de l'article 4 § 1 du Protocole no 7. Cette notion doit être interprétée à la lumière des principes généraux applicables aux termes correspondants «accusation en matière pénale» et «peine» respectivement employés aux articles 6 et 7 de la Convention (voir Rosenquist c. Suède (déc.), no 60619/00, 14 septembre 2004 ; Manasson c. Suède (déc.), no 41265/98, 8 avril 2003 ; Göktan c. France, no 33402/96, § 48, CEDH 2002-V ; Malige c. France, 23 septembre 1998, § 35, Recueil des arrêts et décision 1998-VII ; et Nilsson c. Suède (déc.), no 73661/01, CEDH 2005-XIII).De surcroît, la procédure d'interdiction et l'instance pénale se distinguent tant par la nature de leurs objectifs - préventifs et dissuasifs dans le cas de la première, ils sont aussi répressifs dans le cas de la seconde - que par leurs éléments essentiels (voir Rosenquist c. Suède, (déc.), no 60619/00, 14 septembre 2004).
- EGMR, 18.05.2017 - 22007/11
JÓHANNESSON AND OTHERS v. ICELAND
- EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01
NILSSON c. SUEDE
The first issue to be determined is whether the proceedings relating to the withdrawal of the applicant's driving licence could be considered as "criminal" for the purposes of Article 4 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 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). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 10.09.2009 - C-45/08
Spector Photo Group und Van Raemdonck - Insiderhandel - Nutzung privilegierter …
- 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, 01.02.2007 - 11143/04
MJELDE v. NORWAY
Where, as is the case here, the Court is satisfied that the first decision is "final", it must examine whether it 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 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-).It may in addition be noted that the two measures not only pursed different purposes - prevention and deterrence in the case of the first and also retribution in the case of the second, but also differed in their essential elements (see Rosenquist v. Sweden (dec.), no. 60619/00, 14 September 2004).
- EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 55759/07
MARESTI v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 53785/09
TOMASOVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 13079/03
RUOTSALAINEN v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 35232/11
PIRTTIMÄKI v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 37394/11
GLANTZ v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 17039/13
RINAS v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 32042/11
MUSLIJA v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 11187/05
HAARVIG v. NORWAY
- 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