Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,27957
EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01 (https://dejure.org/2006,27957)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23.11.2006 - 73053/01 (https://dejure.org/2006,27957)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23. November 2006 - 73053/01 (https://dejure.org/2006,27957)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,27957) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (46)Neu Zitiert selbst (21)

  • EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 44759/98

    Verletzung des Rechts auf ein faires Verfahren durch überlange Verfahrensdauer; …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01
    The assessment of tax and the imposition of surcharges fall outside the scope of Article 6 under its civil head (see Ferrazzini v. Italy [GC], no. 44759/98, § 29, ECHR 2001-VII).

    The assessment of taxes and the possible imposition of surcharges fall outside the scope of Article 6 § 1 under its civil head, as the Grand Chamber clearly indicated in Ferrazzini v. Italy ([GC], no. 44759/98, ECHR 2001-VII).

  • EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 12547/86

    BENDENOUN c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01
    They emphasised that the penalty imposed did not reach the substantial level identified in Bendenoun v. France (24 February 1994, Series A no. 284).

    By contrast, in Bendenoun v. France (24 February 1994, § 47, Series A no. 284), which is cited in paragraph 31 of the judgment, the Court carried out a finer and, in our opinion, fairer analysis, taking into consideration, in the tax field (the specific nature of which is emphasised in Ferrazzini, cited above), a fourth criterion, in addition to the three Engel criteria, namely the fact that the surcharges were "very substantial".

  • EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

    Öztürk ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01
    The relative lack of seriousness of the penalty cannot divest an offence of its inherently criminal character (see Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, § 54, Series A no. 73; see also Lutz v. Germany, 25 August 1987, § 55, Series A no. 123).

    The Court has indeed reached findings to this effect in the past (see, among other authorities, Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, § 53, Series A no. 73, and Janosevic v. Sweden, no. 34619/97, § 68, ECHR 2002-VII).

     
  • EGMR, 23.11.1976 - 5100/71

    ENGEL AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS (ARTICLE 50)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01
    It observes that in Bendenoun, which concerned the imposition of tax penalties or a surcharge for evasion of tax (VAT and corporation tax in respect of the applicant's company and his personal income tax liability), the Court did not refer expressly to Engel and Others v. the Netherlands (8 June 1976, Series A no. 22) and listed four elements as being relevant to the applicability of Article 6 in that case: that the law setting out the penalties covered all citizens in their capacity as taxpayers; that the surcharge was not intended as pecuniary compensation for damage but essentially as a punishment to deter re-offending; that it was imposed under a general rule whose purpose is both deterrent and punitive; and that the surcharge was substantial (422,534 French francs (FRF) in respect of the applicant and FRF 570, 398 in respect of his company, corresponding to EUR 64, 415 and EUR 86, 957 respectively).

    The Court, in line with the judgment in Engel and Others v. the Netherlands (8 June 1976, Series A no. 22), takes three criteria into account, as the Grand Chamber recently confirmed (see Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39665/98 and 40086/98, § 82, ECHR 2003-X):.

  • EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 8273/78

    Axen ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01
    It appears from the Court's case-law that whenever the Court has found that a hearing could be dispensed with in respect of criminal proceedings at the appeal stage, it has always made it clear that a hearing should have taken place at first instance (see Axen v. Germany, 8 December 1983, § 28, Series A no. 72; Helmers v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 36, Series A no. 212-A; and Jan-Åke Andersson v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 27, Series A no. 212-B).
  • EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

    BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01
    The Court has found as follows: "In addition, the object and purpose of Article 6, and the wording of some of the sub-paragraphs in paragraph 3, show that a person charged with a criminal offence "is entitled to take part in the hearing and to have his case heard" in his presence by a "tribunal"... The Court infers, as the Commission did, that all the evidence must in principle be produced in the presence of the accused at a public hearing with a view to adversarial argument" (see Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, § 78, Series A no. 146).
  • EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

    CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01
    What is more, the autonomous interpretation adopted by the Convention institutions of the notion of a "criminal charge" by applying the Engel criteria have underpinned a gradual broadening of the criminal head to cases not strictly belonging to the traditional categories of the criminal law, for example administrative penalties (Öztürk, cited above), prison disciplinary proceedings (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80), customs law (Salabiaku v. France, 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A), competition law (Société Stenuit v. France, 27 February 1992, Series A no. 232-A), and penalties imposed by a court with jurisdiction in financial matters (Guisset v. France, no. 33933/96, ECHR 2000-IX).
  • EGMR, 07.10.1988 - 10519/83

    SALABIAKU c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01
    What is more, the autonomous interpretation adopted by the Convention institutions of the notion of a "criminal charge" by applying the Engel criteria have underpinned a gradual broadening of the criminal head to cases not strictly belonging to the traditional categories of the criminal law, for example administrative penalties (Öztürk, cited above), prison disciplinary proceedings (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80), customs law (Salabiaku v. France, 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A), competition law (Société Stenuit v. France, 27 February 1992, Series A no. 232-A), and penalties imposed by a court with jurisdiction in financial matters (Guisset v. France, no. 33933/96, ECHR 2000-IX).
  • EGMR, 22.02.1984 - 8209/78

    Sutter ./. Schweiz

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01
    By rendering the administration of justice visible, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention" (see, inter alia, Axen, cited above, § 25, and Sutter v. Switzerland, 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74).
  • EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

    HELMERS c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01
    It appears from the Court's case-law that whenever the Court has found that a hearing could be dispensed with in respect of criminal proceedings at the appeal stage, it has always made it clear that a hearing should have taken place at first instance (see Axen v. Germany, 8 December 1983, § 28, Series A no. 72; Helmers v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 36, Series A no. 212-A; and Jan-Åke Andersson v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 27, Series A no. 212-B).
  • EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 33933/96

    GUISSET c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

    SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  • EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 18928/91

    FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

  • EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 57795/00

    PURSIHEIMO v. FINLAND

  • EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

    H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 38629/97

    LUNDEVALL v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 38978/97

    SALOMONSSON v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 28394/95

    DÖRY v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 55853/00

    MILLER v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 23.07.2002 - 36985/97

    VASTBERGA TAXI AKTIEBOLAG AND VULIC v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

    PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  • EuG, 02.02.2022 - T-799/17

    Das Gericht weist die Klage von Scania ab und bestätigt die von der Kommission …

    Zwar können diese Unterschiede die Vertragsstaaten nicht von ihrer Pflicht befreien, alle durch den strafrechtlichen Teil von Art. 6 EMRK gebotenen Garantien zu beachten, sie können jedoch die Modalitäten ihrer Anwendung beeinflussen (EGMR, 27. September 2011, A. Menarini Diagnostics S.R.L./Italien, CE:ECHR:2011:0927JUD004350908, § 62; vgl. in diesem Sinne auch EGMR, 23. November 2006, Jussila/Finnland, CE:ECHR:2006:1123JUD007305301, § 43).
  • EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11

    A ET B c. NORVÈGE

    The Government also pointed to a number of further differences in regard to the manner in which the two provisions had been interpreted and applied in the Court's case-law, including the absolute character of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (non-derogable under Article 15) as opposed to the differentiated approach which the Court applied under Article 6. They referred to Jussila v. Finland ([GC], no. 73053/01, § 43, ECHR 2006-XIV), where the Grand Chamber had stated that there were "clearly "criminal charges" of differing weight" and that "[t]ax surcharges differ[ed] from the hard core of criminal law" such that "the criminal-head guarantees w[ould] not necessarily apply with their full stringency".

    Ibid., § 54. "The relative lack of seriousness of the penalty at stake... cannot divest an offence of its inherently criminal character." See also Lutz v. Germany, 25 August 1987, § 55, Series A no. 123, and Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, § 31, ECHR 2006-XIII.

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.09.2017 - C-524/15

    Menci - Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union - Nationale …

    40 Siehe u. a. EGMR, Urteile vom 9. Juni 2016, Sismanidis und Sitaridis/Griechenland (CE:ECHR:2016:0609JUR006660209, § 31), und vom 23. November 2006, Jussil/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2006:1123JUD007305301, §§ 30 und 31).

    43 EGMR, Urteil vom 23. November 2006, Jussila/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2006:1123JUD007305301, § 38).

    49 EGMR, Urteile vom 23. November 2006, Jussila/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2006:1123JUD007305301, §§ 37 und 38), vom 20. Mai 2014, Nykänen/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2014:0520JUD001182811, § 40), und vom 10. Februar 2015, Kiiveri/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2015:0210JUD005375312, § 31).

    104 EGMR, Urteile vom 23. November 2006, Jussila/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2006:1123JUD007305301, §§ 37 bis 38), vom 20. Mai 2014, Nykänen/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2014:0520JUD001182811, § 40), und vom 10. Februar 2015, Kiiveri/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2015:0210JUD005375312, § 31).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht