Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 39771/12 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,1997) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ALASIPPOLA v. FINLAND
Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
ALASIPPOLA v. FINLAND
Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 60619/00
ROSENQUIST v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 39771/12
The notion of "penal procedure" in the text of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 must be interpreted in the light of the general principles concerning the corresponding words "criminal charge" and "penalty" in Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention respectively (see Haarvig v. Norway (dec.), no. 11187/05, 11 December 2007; Rosenquist v. Sweden (dec.), no. 60619/00, 14 September 2004; Manasson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 41265/98, 8 April 2003; Göktan v. France, no. 33402/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-V; Malige v. France, 23 September 1998, § 35, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; and Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-XIII). - EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 11187/05
HAARVIG v. NORWAY
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 39771/12
The notion of "penal procedure" in the text of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 must be interpreted in the light of the general principles concerning the corresponding words "criminal charge" and "penalty" in Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention respectively (see Haarvig v. Norway (dec.), no. 11187/05, 11 December 2007; Rosenquist v. Sweden (dec.), no. 60619/00, 14 September 2004; Manasson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 41265/98, 8 April 2003; Göktan v. France, no. 33402/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-V; Malige v. France, 23 September 1998, § 35, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; and Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-XIII). - EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04
STORBR?TEN v. NORWAY
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 39771/12
As to the criminal nature of tax surcharges, the Court reiterates that the legal characterisation of the procedure under national law cannot be the sole criterion of relevance for the applicability of the principle of ne bis in idem under Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7. Otherwise, the application of this provision would be left to the discretion of the Contracting States to a degree that might lead to results incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (see for example Storbråten v. Norway (dec.), no. 12277/04, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), with further references). - EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03
Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 39771/12
Turning now to the question of whether the offences for which the applicant was prosecuted were the same (idem), the Court has acknowledged in the case of Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia (see Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, §§ 81-84, ECHR 2009) the existence of several approaches to this question. - EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01
NILSSON c. SUEDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 39771/12
The notion of "penal procedure" in the text of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 must be interpreted in the light of the general principles concerning the corresponding words "criminal charge" and "penalty" in Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention respectively (see Haarvig v. Norway (dec.), no. 11187/05, 11 December 2007; Rosenquist v. Sweden (dec.), no. 60619/00, 14 September 2004; Manasson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 41265/98, 8 April 2003; Göktan v. France, no. 33402/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-V; Malige v. France, 23 September 1998, § 35, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; and Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-XIII).