Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
NILSSON c. SUEDE
Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 Abs. 1 MRK
Irrecevable (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
NILSSON v. SWEDEN
Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 Abs. 1 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (30) Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 30.05.2000 - 31982/96
R.T. v. SWITZERLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01
La décision sur la recevabilité R.T. c. Suisse (requête no 31982/96) rendue par la Cour européenne le 30 mai 2000 présente elle aussi un intérêt en l'espèce.L'intéressé soutient en outre que sa cause se distingue de l'affaire R.T. c. Suisse ((déc.), no 31982/96, 30 mai 2000), où la Cour a jugé que les autorités helvétiques s'étaient bornées à fixer les trois peines différentes prévues par la loi pour l'infraction commise, à savoir une peine d'emprisonnement, une amende et le retrait du permis de conduire.
- EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 60619/00
ROSENQUIST v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01
La Cour doit d'abord déterminer si la procédure de retrait du permis de conduire du requérant peut être qualifiée de « pénale'aux fins de l'article 4 du Protocole no 7. La notion de procédure pénale doit être interprétée à la lumière des principes généraux applicables aux expressions « accusation en matière pénale'et « peine'employées respectivement dans les articles 6 et 7 de la Convention (Rosenquist c. Suède (déc.), no 60619/00, 14 septembre 2004, Manasson c. Suède (déc.), no 41265/98, 8 avril 2003, Göktan, précité, § 48, et Malige c. France, arrêt du 23 septembre 1998, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-VII, p. 2935, § 35). - EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37211/97
MULOT contre la FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01
Qui plus est, la Cour estime que, indépendamment de la condamnation pénale infligée en l'espèce, un retrait de permis d'une durée de dix-huit mois constitue en soi, par sa sévérité, une mesure pouvant ordinairement passer pour une sanction pénale (Mulot c. France (déc.), no 37211/97, 14 décembre 1999, Hangl c. Autriche (déc.), no 38716/97, 20 mars 2001, et Escoubet c. Belgique [GC], no 26870/95, § 38, CEDH 1999-VII). - EGMR, 20.03.2001 - 38716/97
HANGL v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01
Qui plus est, la Cour estime que, indépendamment de la condamnation pénale infligée en l'espèce, un retrait de permis d'une durée de dix-huit mois constitue en soi, par sa sévérité, une mesure pouvant ordinairement passer pour une sanction pénale (Mulot c. France (déc.), no 37211/97, 14 décembre 1999, Hangl c. Autriche (déc.), no 38716/97, 20 mars 2001, et Escoubet c. Belgique [GC], no 26870/95, § 38, CEDH 1999-VII). - EKMR, 05.12.1995 - 26865/95
RUBBO ET AUTRES contre l'ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01
Qui plus est, la Cour estime que, indépendamment de la condamnation pénale infligée en l'espèce, un retrait de permis d'une durée de dix-huit mois constitue en soi, par sa sévérité, une mesure pouvant ordinairement passer pour une sanction pénale (Mulot c. France (déc.), no 37211/97, 14 décembre 1999, Hangl c. Autriche (déc.), no 38716/97, 20 mars 2001, et Escoubet c. Belgique [GC], no 26870/95, § 38, CEDH 1999-VII).
- EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11
FRISVOLD AND FLOM-JACOBSEN v. NORWAY
Nykänen v. Finland, no. 11828/11, § 38, 20 ΜαÎ&omikron;υ 2014, Haarvig v. Norway (dec.), no. 11187/05, 11 Δεκεµβρί&omikron;υ 2007, Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-XIII, Rosenquist v. Sweden (dec.), no. 60619/00, 14 Σεπτεµβρί&omikron;υ 2004, Manasson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 41265/98, 8 Απριλί&omikron;υ 2003, Göktan v. France, no. 33402/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-V, και Malige v. France, 23 Σεπτεµβρί&omikron;υ 1998, § 35, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII. - EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 11828/11
NYKANEN v. FINLAND
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, 04.10.2016 - 21563/12
RIVARD c. SUISSE
4 du Protocole no 7, 1orsque la mesure administrative découle de manière directe et prévisible de la condamnation, dont elle ne constitue que la conséquence (arrêt Nilsson contre Suède du 13 décembre 2005 no 73661/01 Recueil CourEDH 2005-XIII p. 333 ss ; arrêt R.T. contre Suisse du 30 mai 2000, in: JAAC 64.152).S'appuyant sur l'affaire Nilsson c. Suède ((déc.), no 73661/01, CEDH 2005-XIII), le Gouvernement souligne le lien matériel et temporel étroit entre les procédures pénale et administrative en matière de circulation routière.
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 02.09.2021 - C-117/20
Generalanwalt Bobek schlägt eine einheitliche Prüfung für den Schutz gegen …
{FN:104} EGMR, Urteil vom 13. Dezember 2005, Nilsson / Sweden (CE:ECHR:2005:1213DEC007366101, S. 10 bis 11). - EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04
STORBRÅTEN v. NORWAY
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, 20.05.2014 - 37394/11
GLANTZ v. FINLAND
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, 18.05.2017 - 22007/11
JOHANNESSON 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, 10.02.2015 - 53753/12
KIIVERI v. FINLAND
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, 27.01.2015 - 17039/13
RINAS v. FINLAND
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, 20.05.2014 - 758/11
HAKKA v. FINLAND
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, 27.11.2014 - 7356/10
LUCKY DEV v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 41604/11
BOMAN v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 12096/14
ROLA v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 11187/05
HAARVIG v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 11143/04
MJELDE v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 53197/13
ÖSTERLUND v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 53785/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 11.06.2015 - 19844/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 55759/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 35232/11
PIRTTIMAKI v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 38771/15
MATIJASIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 32042/11
MUSLIJA v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 947/13
HEINANEN v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 1051/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 59892/00
MASZNI c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 38292/15
PALMÉN v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 15396/12
VP-KULJETUS OY AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
- EGMR - 15058/08 (anhängig)
KOZLOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 39771/12
ALASIPPOLA v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 49509/12
ALASIPPOLA v. FINLAND
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".