Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 9631/04 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,60887) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CARLBERG v. SWEDEN
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 7, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90
GRADINGER c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 9631/04
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, 23.07.2002 - 34619/97
JANOSEVIC c. SUEDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 9631/04
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, 02.07.2002 - 33402/96
GOKTAN v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 9631/04
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, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11
A ET B c. NORVÈGE
In comparable cases concerning Sweden (involving tax penalties at rates of 40% and 20%), the Court has held that the proceedings in question were "criminal", not only for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention (see Janosevic v. Sweden, no. 34619/97, §§ 68-71, ECHR 2002-VII; and Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic v. Sweden, no. 36985/97, §§ 79-82, 23 July 2002), but also for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (see Manasson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 41265/98, 8 April 2003; Rosenquist, cited above; Synnelius and Edsbergs Taxi AB v. Sweden (dec.), no. 44298/02, 17 June 2008; Carlberg v. Sweden (dec.), no. 9631/04, 27 January 2009; and Lucky Dev, cited above, §§ 6 and 51). - EGMR, 18.05.2017 - 22007/11
JÓHANNESSON AND OTHERS v. ICELAND
- EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 7396/10
HENRIKSSON v. SWEDEN
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 v. Sweden, no. 9631/04, §§ 56-57, 27 January 2009).