Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VASILE SORIN MARIN v. ROMANIA

  Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-general (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice;Conviction;Criminal offence);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MARIN v. ROMANIA

  Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

  Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 17412/16

  Also, while referring to Engel and Others v. the Netherlands (8 June 1976, Series A no. 22), Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 14939/03, ECHR 2009), and Tsonyo Tsonev v. Bulgaria (no. 2) (no. 2376/03, 14 January 2010), he argued that the act described in the penalty notice and the one described in the indictment were identical in substance, that is, he was charged twice with having caused mayhem in public which provoked outrage and indignation.

  The relevant principles concerning the protection against duplication of criminal proceedings are summarised in Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 14939/03, §§ 79-84, ECHR 2009), A and B v. Norway ([GC], nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11, §§ 105-34, 15 November 2016) and Mihalache v. Romania ([GC], no. 54012/10, §§ 47-49, 53-54, 67 and 88-116, 8 July 2019).

• EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 13079/03

  RUOTSALAINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 17412/16

  This recapitulation of the events demonstrates that what is at issue is the same conduct on the part of the same defendant and within the same time frame; what remains to be established is whether the facts of the offence for which the applicant was fined and those of the criminal offence by reason of which he was indicted were identical or substantially the same (see, mutatis mutandis, Ruotsalainen v. Finland, no. 13079/03, § 53, 16 June 2009).
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 45512/11

  GALOVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 17412/16

  The Court concludes therefore the criminal proceedings cannot be regarded as a complementary response to the applicant's unlawful behaviour, aimed at addressing an ongoing situation of violence in a comprehensive manner, once it was found that the behaviour had reached a certain level of severity (contrast Galovic v. Croatia, no. 45512/11, §§ 117-18, 31 August 2021).

 
• EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 1735/13

  GOULANDRIS AND VARDINOGIANNI v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 17412/16

  While the objectives of both penalties were deterrence and punishment, the Court notes that the fine imposed in administrative proceedings was specific for the conduct in question and thus differed from "the hard core of criminal law", as it did not have stigmatising features (see, mutatis mutandis, Goulandris and Vardinogianni v. Greece, no. 1735/13, § 74, 16 June 2022).
• EGMR, 21.07.2020 - 34503/10

  VELKOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 17412/16

  Noting that according to its established case-law, the two sets of proceedings do not necessarily have to be conducted simultaneously from beginning to end, the Court considers that the dual sets of proceedings were sufficiently connected in time within the meaning of its case-law (see A and B v. Norway, cited above, § 134, and Velkov v. Bulgaria, no. 34503/10, § 77, 21 July 2020).
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 1385/07

  SANCAKLI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 17412/16

  Regarding the third criterion, namely the degree of severity of the measure, the Court observes that even though the fine imposed in the present case was not of a substantial amount (being approximately EUR 50), the maximum fine prescribed by the law for such conduct being itself rather low (approximately EUR 250), nevertheless it was punitive in nature, as already mentioned in paragraph 43 above, the purpose of the fine being not to compensate for the damage caused by the applicant, but rather to deter him from committing the offence again (see, mutatis mutandis, Sancakli v. Turkey, no. 1385/07, § 30, 15 May 2018).
• EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 67334/13

  BAJCIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 17412/16

  Lastly, combined proceedings will more likely meet the criteria of complementarity and coherence if the sanctions to be imposed in the proceedings not formally classified as "criminal" are specific for the conduct in question and thus differ from "the hard core of criminal law" (Bajcic v. Croatia, no. 67334/13, § 40, 8 October 2020).
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11

  A ET B c. NORVÈGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 17412/16

  The relevant principles concerning the protection against duplication of criminal proceedings are summarised in Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 14939/03, §§ 79-84, ECHR 2009), A and B v. Norway ([GC], nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11, §§ 105-34, 15 November 2016) and Mihalache v. Romania ([GC], no. 54012/10, §§ 47-49, 53-54, 67 and 88-116, 8 July 2019).
• EuGH, 11.02.2003 - C-187/01

  Gözütok / Brügge - Transnationaler Strafklageverbrauch bei Verfahrenseinstellung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 17412/16

  He relied on the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 11 February 2003 in Gözütok and Brügge (Joined Cases C-187/01 and C-385/01, EU:C:2003:87, paragraph 31), stating that a "final judgment" was a court decision which remained final, but also any final decision taken by an authority in a "criminal" case, within the meaning of the Convention.
• EGMR, 08.07.2019 - 54012/10

  MIHALACHE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 17412/16

  The relevant principles concerning the protection against duplication of criminal proceedings are summarised in Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 14939/03, §§ 79-84, ECHR 2009), A and B v. Norway ([GC], nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11, §§ 105-34, 15 November 2016) and Mihalache v. Romania ([GC], no. 54012/10, §§ 47-49, 53-54, 67 and 88-116, 8 July 2019).
• EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 37697/13

  PRINA c. ROUMANIE