Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2015,1286
EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12 (https://dejure.org/2015,1286)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.02.2015 - 53753/12 (https://dejure.org/2015,1286)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. Februar 2015 - 53753/12 (https://dejure.org/2015,1286)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,1286) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KIIVERI v. FINLAND

    Art. 35, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
    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 Criminal offence) Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage Just satisfaction) ...

Sonstiges (2)

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (17)

  • EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01

    NILSSON c. SUEDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12
    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).

    However, the Court has also found in its previous case-law (see R.T. v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 31982/96, 30 May 2000; and Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, 13 December 2005) that although different sanctions (suspended prison sentences and withdrawal of driving licences) concerning the same matter (drunken driving) have been imposed by different authorities in different proceedings, there has been a sufficiently close connection between them, in substance and in time.

  • EGMR, 30.05.2000 - 31982/96

    R.T. v. SWITZERLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12
    However, the Court has also found in its previous case-law (see R.T. v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 31982/96, 30 May 2000; and Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, 13 December 2005) that although different sanctions (suspended prison sentences and withdrawal of driving licences) concerning the same matter (drunken driving) have been imposed by different authorities in different proceedings, there has been a sufficiently close connection between them, in substance and in time.
  • EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 758/11

    HAKKA v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12
    After 27 February 2012 the only way of preventing double jeopardy would therefore have been for the applicant to lodge first an application for rectification and then an appeal against the taxation decision concerning the tax year 2006 (see Häkkä v. Finland, no. 758/11, § 52, 20 May 2014).
  • EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

    Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12
    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, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12
    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, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12
    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, 20.05.2014 - 11828/11

    NYKANEN v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12
    However, when no such discontinuation occurs, the Court has found a violation (see Tomasovic v. Croatia, cited above, § 31; Muslija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 32042/11, § 37, 14 January 2014; Nykänen v. Finland, no. 11828/11, § 52, 20 May 2014; and Glantz v. Finland, no. 37394/11, § 62, 20 May 2014).
  • EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 35232/11

    PIRTTIMAKI v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12
    Similarly, as far as the charges against the applicant concerned his actions as a representative of the company, the impugned proceedings did not arise from identical facts or facts which were substantially the same because the legal entities involved were different (see Isaksen v. Norway (dec.), no. 13596/02, 2 October 2003; and Pirttimäki v. Finland, no. 35232/11, § 51, 20 May 2014).
  • EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04

    STORBRÅTEN v. NORWAY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12
    As to the criminal nature of tax surcharge proceedings, 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, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12
    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

  • EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 37394/11

    GLANTZ v. FINLAND

  • EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 11187/05

    HAARVIG v. NORWAY

  • EGMR, 02.10.2003 - 13596/02

    ISAKSEN v. NORWAY

  • EGMR, 15.03.2005 - 70982/01

    HORCIAG c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 7362/10

    SHIBENDRA DEV v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 9631/04

    CARLBERG v. SWEDEN

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht