Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GOULANDRIS AND VARDINOGIANNI v. GREECE

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-general (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Criminal offence);Violation of Article 4 of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GOULANDRIS ET VARDINOGIANNI c. GRÈCE

  Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 08.07.2019 - 54012/10

  MIHALACHE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 1735/13

  The Court established in Mihalache v. Romania ([GC], no. 54012/10, §§ 93-95, 8 July 2019) that judicial intervention was unnecessary for a decision to be regarded as a "final acquittal" or a "conviction" under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. It clarified when a decision is final for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 in Sergey Zolotukhin, (cited above, §§ 107 and 108, with further references) and in particular, as regards situations where an administrative decision imposes fines, in Tsonyo Tsonev v. Bulgaria (no. 2) (no. 2376/03, §§ 53, 54 and 56, 14 April 2010).

  In Mihalache v. Romania ([GC], no. 54012/10, §§ 93-95, 8 July 2019) the Court clarified that judicial intervention was unnecessary for a decision to be regarded as a "final acquittal" or a "conviction" under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. The Court considered the two authentic versions - English and French - of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 and noted a difference in the wording of the two texts, as the English version did not specify that the acquittal or conviction should take the form of a "jugement" as the French version did.

• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

  Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 1735/13

  Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention is understood as prohibiting the prosecution or trial of a second "offence" in so far as it arises from identical facts or facts which are substantially the same (see Sergey Zolotukhin, [GC], no. 14939/03, § 82, ECHR 2009; Margus v. Croatia [GC], no. 4455/10, § 114, ECHR 2014; and A and B v. Norway [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11

  A ET B c. NORVÈGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 1735/13

  24130/11 and 29758/11, § 108, 15 November 2016).

 
• EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 12547/86

  BENDENOUN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 1735/13

  This does not, however, rule out 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 Bendenoun v. France, 24 February 1994, § 47, Series A no. 284, and Garyfallou AEBE v. Greece, 24 September 1997, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V).
• EGMR, 18.05.2017 - 22007/11

  JÓHANNESSON AND OTHERS v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 1735/13

  The two impugned sets of proceedings, inasmuch as they concerned the preservation fine, did not constitute a single set of concrete factual circumstances arising from identical facts or facts which were substantially the same (compare and contrast Jóhannesson and Others v. Iceland, no. 22007/11, § 47, 18 May 2017).
• EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 13079/03

  RUOTSALAINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 1735/13

  The facts in the two sets of proceedings differed in only one element - that of fault on the applicants' part - which had not been mentioned in the first set of proceedings but is not relevant for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (see Ruotsalainen v. Finland, no. 13079/03, § 56, 16 June 2009).
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 12951/18

  BRAGI GUÐMUNDUR KRISTJÁNSSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 1735/13

  The weaker the connection in time, the greater the burden on the State to explain and justify any such delays as may be attributable to its conduct of the proceedings (see Bragi Guðmundur Kristjánsson v. Iceland, no. 12951/18, § 57, 31 August 2021).
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 45512/11

  GALOVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 1735/13

  The facts in the subsequent criminal proceedings were not even partly identical to the facts in the preservation-fine proceedings (compare and contrast Galovic v. Croatia, no. 45512/11, § 112, 31 August 2021).
• EGMR, 06.06.2019 - 47342/14

  NODET c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 1735/13

  Criminal proceedings passed through all stages following the applicants' appeal and appeal on points of law and they were finally concluded by the Court of Cassation on 11 September 2012, approximately seven years and nine months after the first set had become final (see Nodet v. France, no. 47342/14, § 52, 6 June 2019, for illustrative purposes Ragnar Thorisson v. Iceland [Committee], no. 52623/14, § 49, 12 February 2019).
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 23470/05

  NICOLETA GHEORGHE c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 1735/13

  In respect of their argument that the administrative offence was not punishable by imprisonment, this is not in itself decisive and cannot deprive the offence of its inherently criminal character (see Nicoleta Gheorghe v. Romania, no. 23470/05, § 26, 3 April 2012).
• EGMR, 11.01.2001 - 43862/98

  INOCÊNCIO contre le PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 52623/14

  RAGNAR THORISSON v. ICELAND

• EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 17412/16

  VASILE SORIN MARIN v. ROMANIA

  While the objectives of both penalties were deterrence and punishment, the Court notes that the fine imposed in administrative proceedings was specific for the conduct in question and thus differed from "the hard core of criminal law", as it did not have stigmatising features (see, mutatis mutandis, Goulandris and Vardinogianni v. Greece, no. 1735/13, § 74, 16 June 2022).
• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 19961/17

  C.Y. c. BELGIQUE

  Principes généraux 52. S'agissant du point de savoir si le requérant a été poursuivi deux fois pour une même infraction (« idem "), la Cour a considéré dans l'affaire Sergueï Zolotoukhine (précité, § 82) que l'article 4 du Protocole no 7 à la Convention devait être compris comme interdisant de poursuivre ou de juger une personne pour une seconde « infraction'pour autant que celle-ci avait pour origine des faits identiques ou des faits qui étaient en substance les mêmes (voir également A et B c. Norvège, précité, § 108, et Goulandris et Vardinogianni c. Grèce, no 1735/13, § 68, 16 juin 2022).
• EGMR, 24.01.2023 - 56833/18

  SHEIKH ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Tenant compte de sa jurisprudence (voir notamment Goulandris et Vardinogianni c. Grèce, no 1735/13, §§ 59-63, 16 juin 2022), la Cour ne voit pas de raison d'en convenir autrement.
• EGMR - 36460/14 (anhängig)

  GARGANO v. ITALY

  Has the applicant been punished twice for the same offence, as prohibited by Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention? In particular, were the proceedings sufficiently closely connected in substance and time (see A and B v. Norway [GC], nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11, §§ 130-34, 15 November 2016, and Goulandris and Vardinogianni v. Greece, no. 1735/13, §§ 55 and 79, 16 June 2022)?.