Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 30.05.2000 - 31982/96 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2000,38000) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
R.T. v. SWITZERLAND
Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (5) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75
LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2000 - 31982/96
According to the Court's case-law, "the 'right to a court'... and the right to a judicial determination of the dispute... cover questions of fact just as much as questions of law" (see the Le Compte, van Leuven and de Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 23, § 51). - EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90
GRADINGER c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2000 - 31982/96
According to the Court's case-law, 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 the Gradinger v. Austria judgment of 23 October 1995, Series A no. 328-C, p. 65, § 53; the Oliveira v. Switzerland judgment of 30 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V, p. 1998, § 26 et seq.).
- EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 18640/10
GRANDE STEVENS AND OTHERS v. ITALY
The Government referred to the case of R.T. v. Switzerland ((dec.), no. 31982/96, 30 May 2000), in which the Court stated that the imposition of penalties by two different bodies (one administrative, the other criminal) had not been incompatible with Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. In this regard, the fact that one and the same conduct could breach both Article 187 ter and Article 185 of Legislative Decree no. 58 of 1998 was not relevant, since the case concerned a typical example of a single act constituting various offences, the characteristic feature of this notion being that a single criminal act was split up into two separate offences (they referred to Oliveira v. Switzerland, no. 25711/94, § 26, 30 July 1998; Goktan v. France, no. 33402/96, § 50, 2 July 2002; Gauthier v. France (dec.), no. 61178/00, 24 June 2003; and Ongun v. Turkey (dec.), no. 15737/02, 10 October 2006). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 02.09.2021 - C-117/20
Generalanwalt Bobek schlägt eine einheitliche Prüfung für den Schutz gegen …
Vgl. auch EGMR, Urteil vom 30. Mai 2000, R. T. / Schweiz (CE:ECHR:2000:0530DEC003198296). - EGMR, 18.05.2017 - 22007/11
JÓHANNESSON AND OTHERS v. ICELAND
In any event, the Government asserted that the applicants had not been subjected to new or repeated proceedings within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. Referring to R.T. v Switzerland ((dec.), no. 31982/96, 30 May 2000) and Nilsson v. Sweden ((dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-XIII), they argued that the provision did not prohibit parallel proceedings. - EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 21563/12
RIVARD c. SUISSE
Elle l'avait par ailleurs également fait avant le prononcé de l'arrêt Sergueï Zolotoukhine, précité (R.T. c. Suisse (déc.), no 31982/96, 30 mai 2000, et Nilsson, décision précitée). - EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 21124/04
TSONYO TSONEV v. BULGARIA (No. 3)
The situation at hand is therefore far from being the paradigmatic case of double jeopardy envisaged by Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (compare with Sagir v. Austria, no. 32054/96, Commission decision of 2 July 1998, unreported, and with R.T. v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 31982/96, 30 May 2000).