Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BOMAN v. FINLAND

  Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  No 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) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Boman v. Finland

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BOMAN v. FINLAND

  Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (15)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

  Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11

  The Court 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 the question of whether the offences for which an applicant was prosecuted were the same.
• EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 65831/01

  Schutz der Infragestellung der von den Nazis am jüdischen Volk begangenen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11

  In such a situation it cannot be said that an applicant is prosecuted several times "for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted" (see Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11

  The Court reiterates that the aim of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 is to prohibit the repetition of criminal proceedings that have been concluded by a "final" decision (see Franz Fischer v. Austria, no. 37950/97, § 22, 29 May 2001; Gradinger v. Austria, 23 October 1995, § 53, Series A no. 328-C; and Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], cited above, § 107).

• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01

  NILSSON c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11

  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, 20.05.2014 - 11828/11

  NYKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11

  After the delivery of the Court's judgments in cases Nykänen and Glantz (see Nykänen v. Finland, no. 11828/11, § 52, 20 May 2014; and Glantz v. Finland, no. 37394/11, § 62, 20 May 2014), the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court found in its judgment of 11 December 2014 (no. 1833-14) that the Swedish practice had been accepted by the Court.
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 26780/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11

  The Court has taken a stand on the criminal nature of a driving ban in several cases, either in the context of Article 6 or in the context of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. In the case Escoubet v. Belgium, the Court found in the context of Article 6 of the Convention that the temporary withdrawal of the applicant's driving licence for six days, before the commencement of any proceedings, on account of a suspected drink-driving offence did not concern a criminal charge (see Escoubet v. Belgium [GC], no. 26780/95, § 38, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04

  STORBRÅTEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11

  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, 03.10.2002 - 48154/99

  ZIGARELLA contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11

  There is no problem from the Convention point of view either when, in a situation of two parallel sets of proceedings, the second set of proceedings is discontinued after the first set of proceedings has become final (see Zigarella v. Italy (dec.), no. 48154/99, ECHR 2002-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 60619/00

  ROSENQUIST v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11

  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, 20.05.2014 - 37394/11

  GLANTZ v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11

  After the delivery of the Court's judgments in cases Nykänen and Glantz (see Nykänen v. Finland, no. 11828/11, § 52, 20 May 2014; and Glantz v. Finland, no. 37394/11, § 62, 20 May 2014), the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court found in its judgment of 11 December 2014 (no. 1833-14) that the Swedish practice had been accepted by the Court.
• EGMR, 30.05.2000 - 31982/96

  R.T. v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 11187/05

  HAARVIG v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 15.03.2005 - 70982/01

  HORCIAG c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37211/97

  MULOT contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 20.03.2001 - 38716/97

  HANGL v. AUSTRIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11

  FRISVOLD AND FLOM-JACOBSEN v. NORWAY

  Boman v. Finland, no. 41604/11, 17 Φεβρ&omikron;υαρί&omikron;υ 2015.
• EuG, 26.10.2017 - T-704/14

  Marine Harvest/ Kommission - Wettbewerb - Zusammenschlüsse - Beschluss zur …

  Rn. 335 Im Übrigen hat sich der EGMR im Urteil vom 17. Februar 2015, Boman/Finnland (CE:ECHR:2015:0217JUD004160411), wie folgt geäußert:.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 02.09.2021 - C-117/20

  Generalanwalt Bobek schlägt eine einheitliche Prüfung für den Schutz gegen …

  {FN:57} Vgl. EGMR, Urteile vom 13. Dezember 2005, Nilsson / Sweden (CE:ECHR: 2005:1213DEC007366101); vom 20. Mai 2014, Glantz / Finnland (CE:ECHR:2014:0520JUD003739411, § 61); vom 20. Mai 2014, Nykänen / Finnland (CE:ECHR:2014:0520JUD001182811, §§ 50 und 51); vom 27. November 2014, Lucky Dev / Schweden (CE:ECHR:2014:1127JUD000735610, § 62); vom 17. Februar 2015, Boman / Finnland (CE:ECHR:2015:0217JUD004160411, §§ 42 und 43).

• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 72051/17

  KORNEYEVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court has also held that an approach which emphasises the legal characterisation of the two offences is too restrictive on the rights of the individual and risks undermining the guarantee enshrined in Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 (see Sergey Zolotukhin, cited above, § 81, and Boman v. Finland, no. 41604/11, § 33, 17 February 2015).
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 21563/12

  RIVARD c. SUISSE

  Dans des circonstances similaires à celles de l'espèce, la Cour a déjà eu l'occasion de préciser que, si les diverses sanctions infligées à l'intéressé ont été prononcées par deux autorités différentes à l'issue de procédures distinctes, il existait entre elles un lien matériel et temporel suffisamment étroit pour que l'on puisse considérer le retrait de permis comme l'une des mesures prévues par le droit interne pour la répression des délits de conduite (Boman c. Finlande, no 41604/11, § 43, 17 février 2015).
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 41788/11

  SIMKUS v. LITHUANIA

  The Court has also held that the approach which emphasises the legal characterisation of the two offences is too restrictive on the rights of the individual and risks undermining the guarantee enshrined in Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 (see Sergey Zolotukhin, cited above, § 81, and Boman v. Finland, no. 41604/11, § 33, 17 February 2015).
• EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 38771/15

  MATIJASIC v. CROATIA

  Subsequently, in Boman v. Finland (no. 41604/11, § 32, 17 February 2015) the Court found that the two-month a driving ban imposed on the applicant following his criminal conviction for driving a vehicle without a licence had been "criminal" in nature.
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 44015/07

  BASHIN AND CHEKUNOV v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications

  For the prohibition to apply, the facts concerned should be inextricably linked together in time and space, and be among those whose existence had to be demonstrated in order to institute proceedings or secure a conviction (see Boman v. Finland, no. 41604/11, § 33, 17 February 2015, and Sergey Zolotukhin, cited above, § 84).
• EGMR, 12.04.2016 - 32106/08

  [ENG]

  Previously in its case-law the Court has found a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 when all the following elements were present: (a) the applicant has been convicted or acquitted by a final decision; (b) there has been a duplication of proceedings in respect of the applicant; (c) all those proceedings were criminal in nature; and (d) they all concerned the same offence allegedly committed by the applicant (see Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, §§ 48-122, ECHR 2009; Muslija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 32042/11, §§ 22-40, 14 January 2014; and Boman v. Finland, no. 41604/11, §§ 22-44, 17 February 2015).
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 50266/13

  MIHAI v. ROMANIA

  Decisions against which an ordinary appeal lies are excluded from the scope of the guarantee contained in Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, as long as the time-limit for lodging such an appeal has not expired (see A and B, cited above, § 109, and Boman v. Finland, no. 41604/11, § 37, 17 February 2015).