Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SYNNELIUS AND EDSBERGS TAXI AB v. SWEDEN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  Partly admissible partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 44298/02
• EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 44298/02

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 14.09.1999 - 36855/97

  PONSETTI ET CHESNEL contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 44298/02

  36855/97 and 41731/98, ECHR 1999-VI, and Rosenquist v. Sweden, cited above).
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 33402/96

  GOKTAN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 44298/02

  Moreover, in its judgment in the case of 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, 26.06.2001 - 26390/95

  BECK v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 44298/02

  However, this general rule is subject to an exception when the national authorities have acknowledged in a sufficiently clear way the failure to observe the reasonable time requirement and have afforded redress by reducing the sentence in an express and measurable manner (see, among other authorities, Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, § 66, Beck v. Norway, no. 26390/95, § 27, 26 June 2001, and Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X).

 
• EGMR, 04.01.2008 - 40766/06

  BARSOM AND VARLI v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 44298/02

  40766/06 and 40831/06, 4 January 2008).
• EGMR, 23.07.2002 - 34619/97

  JANOSEVIC c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 44298/02

  The Court reiterates that it has found in several judgments concerning Sweden that the imposition of tax surcharges involves the determination of a "criminal charge" within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention, although they cannot be said to belong to criminal law under the Swedish legal system (see, for instance, Janosevic v. Sweden, no. 34619/97, §§ 64-71, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 44298/02

  The Court first observes that, although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer assigned officially if need be, is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial (see Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A, § 34).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 44298/02

  In view of all of the above, the Court finds that there is no indication that the refusal of legal aid adversely affected the possibility for him to present his case properly and satisfactorily (see Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, §§ 24 and 26, Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, §§ 39-41, ECHR 2000-IX, and Barsom and Varli v. Sweden (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90

  GRADINGER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 44298/02

  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, 24.05.1991 - 12744/87

  QUARANTA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 44298/02

  This is to be judged by reference to the facts of the case as a whole having regard, inter alia, to the seriousness of the offence, the severity of the possible sentence, the complexity of the case and the personal situation of the accused (see Quaranta v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 205, §§ 32-36).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 44298/02

  However, this general rule is subject to an exception when the national authorities have acknowledged in a sufficiently clear way the failure to observe the reasonable time requirement and have afforded redress by reducing the sentence in an express and measurable manner (see, among other authorities, Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, § 66, Beck v. Norway, no. 26390/95, § 27, 26 June 2001, and Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 40031/98

  GNAHORE c. FRANCE