Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 7362/10 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,36678) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SHIBENDRA DEV v. SWEDEN
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
SHIBENDRA DEV v. SWEDEN
Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (6) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 23.07.2002 - 34619/97
JANOSEVIC c. SUEDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 7362/10
The Court has examined similar complaints in previous Swedish cases on tax-related matters (see, for instance, Janosevic v. Sweden, no. 34619/97, §§ 99-104, ECHR 2002-VII, and Carlberg, cited above, §§ 56-57). - EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 13079/03
RUOTSALAINEN v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 7362/10
While acknowledging that the European Court's recent judgments in Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 14939/03, judgment of 10 February 2009, ECHR 2009) and Ruotsalainen v. Finland (no. 13079/03, judgment of 16 June 2009) suggested a change in the Strasbourg case-law, the Supreme Administrative Court noted that they did not relate to the Swedish legal system and concluded that this system, allowing for both a conviction for a tax offence and an imposition of tax surcharges, was in conformity with the Convention. - EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 61507/00
ANDREI GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 7362/10
However, this rule is subject to exceptions, which may be justified by the particular circumstances of each case (see for example, Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX, and Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, §§ 78-79, 26 July 2007).
- EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03
Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 7362/10
While acknowledging that the European Court's recent judgments in Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 14939/03, judgment of 10 February 2009, ECHR 2009) and Ruotsalainen v. Finland (no. 13079/03, judgment of 16 June 2009) suggested a change in the Strasbourg case-law, the Supreme Administrative Court noted that they did not relate to the Swedish legal system and concluded that this system, allowing for both a conviction for a tax offence and an imposition of tax surcharges, was in conformity with the Convention. - EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 7362/10
In this way, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V, with further references). - EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01
BRUSCO v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 7362/10
However, this rule is subject to exceptions, which may be justified by the particular circumstances of each case (see for example, Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX, and Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, §§ 78-79, 26 July 2007).
- EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 3698/23
ZANOTTI v. SAN MARINO
The Court refers, further, to the extensive case-law to the effect that an application for retrial or similar extraordinary remedies such as requesting a court to review its decision, or requesting the reopening of proceedings, cannot, as a general rule, be taken into account for the purpose of applying Article 35 of the Convention (see, for example, R. v. Denmark, no. 10326/83, Commission decision of 6 October 1983, Decisions and Reports 35, p. 218; Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47033/99, 22 June 1999; Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002; Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, 29 January 2004; and Çinar v. Turkey (dec.), no. 28602/95, 13 November 2013) except in special circumstances where, for example, it is established under domestic law that such a request does in fact constitute an effective remedy (see, for example, Shibendra Dev v. Sweden (dec.), no. 7362/10, 21 October 2014). - EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 8167/11
ASK v. SWEDEN
As noted by the Court in recent decisions (see, for instance, Shibendra Dev v. Sweden (dec.), no. 7362/10, § 42, 27 November 2014), a new domestic legal position has been brought about by a decision of the Supreme Court of 11 June 2013 and later decisions and judgments delivered by the two Swedish supreme courts, which have concluded that the imposition of tax surcharges and the conviction for a tax offence based on the same information supplied in a tax return are founded on identical factual circumstances and therefore, having regard to the findings in the judgment of Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 14939/03, judgment of 10 February 2009, ECHR 2009), are incompatible with Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. - EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 33029/10
DE LOS ANGELES ABENZA v. SWEDEN
As noted by the Court in recent decisions (see, for instance, Shibendra Dev v. Sweden (dec.), no. 7362/10, § 42, 27 November 2014), a new domestic legal position has been brought about by a decision of the Supreme Court of 11 June 2013 and later decisions and judgments delivered by the two Swedish supreme courts, which have concluded that the imposition of tax surcharges and the conviction for a tax offence based on the same information supplied in a tax return are founded on identical factual circumstances and therefore, having regard to the findings in the judgment of Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 14939/03, judgment of 10 February 2009, ECHR 2009), are incompatible with Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.
- EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 24705/11
ABDULRAZAGH v. SWEDEN
As noted by the Court in recent decisions (see, for instance, Shibendra Dev v. Sweden (dec.), no. 7362/10, § 42, 27 November 2014), a new domestic legal position has been brought about by a decision of the Supreme Court of 11 June 2013 and later decisions and judgments delivered by the two Swedish supreme courts, which have concluded that the imposition of tax surcharges and the conviction for a tax offence based on the same information supplied in a tax return are founded on identical factual circumstances and therefore, having regard to the findings in the judgment of Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 14939/03, judgment of 10 February 2009, ECHR 2009), are incompatible with Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. - EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 51469/11
SVENSSON v. SWEDEN
As noted by the Court in recent decisions (see, for instance, Shibendra Dev v. Sweden (dec.), no. 7362/10, § 42, 27 November 2014), a new domestic legal position has been brought about by a decision of the Supreme Court of 11 June 2013 and later decisions and judgments delivered by the two Swedish supreme courts, which have concluded that the imposition of tax surcharges and the conviction for a tax offence based on the same information supplied in a tax return are founded on identical factual circumstances and therefore, having regard to the findings in the judgment of Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 14939/03, judgment of 10 February 2009, ECHR 2009), are incompatible with Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. - EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 59347/10
HELLBORG v. SWEDEN
As noted by the Court in recent decisions (see, for instance, Shibendra Dev v. Sweden (dec.), no. 7362/10, § 42, 27 November 2014), a new domestic legal position has been brought about by a decision of the Supreme Court of 11 June 2013 and later decisions and judgments delivered by the two Swedish supreme courts, which have concluded that the imposition of tax surcharges and the conviction for a tax offence based on the same information supplied in a tax return are founded on identical factual circumstances and therefore, having regard to the findings in the judgment of Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 14939/03, judgment of 10 February 2009, ECHR 2009), are incompatible with Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.