Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STORBRÅTEN v. NORWAY

  Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STORBRÅTEN c. NORVEGE

  Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (25)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01

  NILSSON c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04

  Where, as is the case here, the Court is satisfied that the first decision is "final", it must examine whether it concerned a "criminal" matter within the autonomous meaning of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7. This notion must be interpreted in the light of the general principles concerning the corresponding words "criminal charge" and "penalty" respectively in Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention (see 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-).

  Nor would the latter be considered to be part of the sanctions under Norwegian law for the offences in respect of which the applicant was tried in the criminal case (compare Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, cited above).

• EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 60619/00

  ROSENQUIST v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04

  Where, as is the case here, the Court is satisfied that the first decision is "final", it must examine whether it concerned a "criminal" matter within the autonomous meaning of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7. This notion must be interpreted in the light of the general principles concerning the corresponding words "criminal charge" and "penalty" respectively in Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention (see 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-).

  It may in addition be noted that the two measures not only pursued different purposes - prevention and deterrence in the case of the first and also retribution in the case of the second - but also differed in their essential elements (see Rosenquist v. Sweden (dec.), no. 60619/00, 14 September 2004).

• EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 42007/98

  DAVIES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04

  In Davies v. the United Kingdom (no. 42007/98, judgment of 16 July 2002) the parties agreed, and the Court was of the same opinion, that proceedings concerning a decision on disqualification determined 'civil rights' pursuant to Article 6 of the Convention.

  In the view of the Court, this was not a matter of criminal but of civil/administrative regulatory nature, as was undisputed before it (see, mutatis mutandis, Davies v. the United Kingdom, no. 42007/98, § 25, 16 July 2002, and D.C., H.S. and A.D., cited above).

• EGMR, 14.09.1999 - 39031/97

  D.C., H.S. AND A.D. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04

  (35) In the case D.C., H.S. and A.D. v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 39031/97, decided on 14 September 1999, the applicants claimed that the decision to disqualify them determined a criminal charge.

  They relied on the Court's decision in D.C., H.S. and A.D. v. the United Kingdom ((dec.) no. 39031/97, decided on 14 September 1999) that a disqualification order pursuant to UK legislation, which was very similar to item 2 of section 142(1) of the Norwegian Bankruptcy Act, did not constitute a criminal charge within the meaning of Article 6. Accordingly, regardless of any differences in scope as suggested above, no issue would in any event arise under Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 for orders imposed under item 2 of section 142.

• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04

  Moreover, 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, mutatis mutandis, Å�ztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, § 49, Series A no. 73).
• EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04

  'The criteria for ascertaining whether a 'criminal charge' has been determined are the domestic classification of the 'offence', the nature of the 'offence', and the nature and degree of severity of the potential and actual penalty (see, for example, the Schmautzer v. Austria judgment of 23 October 1995, Series A no. 328, p. 13, § 27 with further references).
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 26780/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04

  The Court also referred to a Grand Chamber judgment two months earlier, on 28 October 1999, relating to Article 6 (Escoubet v. Belgium [GC], no. 26780/95, ECHR 1999-VII), which concerned the immediate withdrawal of a driving licence for fourteen days, without any finding of guilt.
• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37211/97

  MULOT contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04

  (48) In the decision of inadmissibility in the case of Mulot v. France on 14 December 1999 (application no.37211/97), the question was whether the temporary withdrawal of a driving licence for six months for driving under the influence of alcohol and causing injury precluded subsequent criminal prosecution for the same offence.
• EKMR, 21.05.1998 - 36791/97

  WILSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04

  Thus, none of these criteria indicates that the applicant was charged with a 'criminal offence', and the Court considers that the proceedings in the present case did not determine a criminal charge within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see also No. 36791/97, Comm. Dec. 21.5.98).'.
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 11143/04

  MJELDE v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04

  On the same date the Supreme Court pronounced judgment in a similar case, which also became the subject of an application (no. 11143/04) lodged under the Convention by Mr Per Harald Mjelde against Norway and which is being dealt with simultaneously with the present case.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11

  FRISVOLD AND FLOM-JACOBSEN v. NORWAY

  Storbråten v. Norway (dec.), no. 12277/04, 11 Φεβρ&omikron;υαρί&omikron;υ 2007.
• EGMR, 08.07.2019 - 54012/10

  MIHALACHE v. ROMANIA

  The Court further notes that its case-law indicates (see, for example, Nikitin, cited above, § 37; Storbråten, (dec.), no. 12277/04, 1 February 2007; Horciag and Sundqvist, all cited above; and Sergey Zolotukhin, cited above, § 107) that in determining what was the "final" decision in cases before it, it has invariably referred to the criterion set forth in the explanatory report on Protocol No. 7, finding that a decision was "final", whatever its characterisation under domestic law, after the exhaustion of "ordinary" remedies or the expiry of the time-limit laid down in domestic law for their use.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 02.09.2021 - C-117/20

  Generalanwalt Bobek schlägt eine einheitliche Prüfung für den Schutz gegen …

  {FN:51} Siehe z. B. EGMR, Urteile vom 30. Mai 2002, W. F. / Österreich (CE:ECHR:2002:0530JUD003827597, § 28); vom 6. Juni 2002, Sailer / Österreich (CE:ECHR:2002:0606JUD003823797, § 28); vom 2. September 2004, Bachmaier / Österreich (CE:ECHR:2004:0902DEC00774130); vom 14. September 2004, Rosenquist / Schweden (CE:ECHR:2004:0914DEC006061900); vom 7. Dezember 2006, Hauser-Sporn / Österreich (CE:ECHR:2006:1207JUD003730103, § 45); vom 1. Februar 2007, Storbråten / Norwegen (CE:ECHR:2007:0201DEC001227704); vom 26. Juli 2007, Schutte / Österreich (CE:ECHR:2007:0726JUD001801503, § 42); vom 11. Dezember 2007, Haarvig / Norwegen (CE:ECHR:2007:1211DEC001118705); und vom 4. März 2008, Garretta / Frankreich (CE:ECHR:2008:0304DEC000252904, § 86).

• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 43977/13

  KADUSIC c. SUISSE

  La qualification juridique de la procédure en droit interne ne saurait être le seul critère pertinent pour l'applicabilité du principe non bis in idem au regard de l'article 4 § 1 du Protocole no 7. S'il en était autrement, l'application de cette disposition se trouverait subordonnée à l'appréciation des États contractants, ce qui risquerait de conduire à des résultats incompatibles avec l'objet et le but de la Convention (voir Storbråten c. Norvège (déc.), no 12277/04, 1er février 2007, avec d'autres références).
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11

  BOMAN v. FINLAND

  As to the criminal nature of a driving ban, 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, 20.05.2014 - 11828/11

  NYKANEN v. FINLAND

  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, 01.02.2007 - 11143/04

  MJELDE v. NORWAY

  The parallel judgment became the subject of an application (no. 12277/04) lodged under the Convention by Mr Yngvar Storbråten against Norway, which is being dealt with simultaneously with the present case.

  Moreover, as observed in paragraph 44 of the Supreme Court's judgment in the parallel case of Mr Storbråten (quoted in the Court's decision in Storbråten v. Norway (no. 12277/04) delivered on the same date as the present case), the application of item 1 depended on a broad assessment based on the Administrator's report rather than on a specific assessment of the strength of the evidence in relation to each possible offence mentioned in the report.

• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 53785/09

  [ENG]

  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 non 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, most recently, Storbråten v. Norway (dec.), no. 12277/04, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), with further references).
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 55759/07

  [ENG]

  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 non 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, most recently, Storbråten v. Norway (dec.), no. 12277/04, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), with further references).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 20.10.2022 - C-412/21

  Dual Prod - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Verbrauchsteuer - Richtlinie …

  Vgl. auch EGMR, Urteil vom 1. Februar 2007, Storbraten/Norwegen (CE:ECHR:2007:0201DEC001227704).
• EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 35232/11

  PIRTTIMAKI v. FINLAND
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 10.11.2022 - C-40/21

  Agenția Națională de Integritate - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - …
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 17039/13

  RINAS v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 37394/11

  GLANTZ v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 12022/16

  MILOSEVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 38771/15

  MATIJASIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 32042/11

  MUSLIJA v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12

  KIIVERI v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 758/11

  HAKKA v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 11187/05

  HAARVIG v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53197/13

  ÖSTERLUND v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 947/13

  HEINANEN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 15396/12

  VP-KULJETUS OY AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 39771/12

  ALASIPPOLA v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 49509/12

  ALASIPPOLA v. FINLAND