Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 9631/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,60887
EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 9631/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,60887)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27.01.2009 - 9631/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,60887)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27. Januar 2009 - 9631/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,60887)
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

 
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 ... (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

    36855/97 and 41731/98, ECHR 1999-VI; Janosevic v. Sweden, no. 34619/97, ECHR 2002-VII; Rosenquist v. Sweden (dec.), no. 60619/00, 24 September 2004; and Carlberg v. Sweden (dec.), no. 9631/04, 27 January 2009).
  • 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).
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