Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 55759/07   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,68647
EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 55759/07 (https://dejure.org/2009,68647)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25.06.2009 - 55759/07 (https://dejure.org/2009,68647)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25. Juni 2009 - 55759/07 (https://dejure.org/2009,68647)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,68647) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MARESTI v. CROATIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P7-4 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - Award (englisch)

Sonstiges

Verfahrensgang

 
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)Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

  • EGMR, 26.05.2005 - 2448/03

    DEBELIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 55759/07
    In this connection, the Court notes that it has already found that Article 6 is applicable to proceedings concerning such an appeal (see Debelic v. Croatia, no. 2448/03, §§ 21 and 22, 26 May 2005).

    To date, the Court has dealt with a number of Croatian cases where an appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court against a final judgment delivered in civil proceedings has been regarded as a remedy requiring exhaustion (see, for example, Blecic v. Croatia, no. 59532/00, §§ 22-24, 29 July 2004; Debelic v. Croatia, no. 2448/03, §§ 10 and 11, 26 May 2005; and Pitra v. Croatia, no. 41075/02, § 9, 16 June 2005).

  • EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 33402/96

    GOKTAN v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 55759/07
    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 1998-VII; and Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-...).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 28957/95

    Christine Goodwin ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 55759/07
    It is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions (see, among other authorities, Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, § 31, Series A no. 26, and Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 75, ECHR 2002-VI).
  • EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 60619/00

    ROSENQUIST v. SWEDEN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 55759/07
    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 1998-VII; and Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-...).
  • EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 73661/01

    NILSSON c. SUEDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 55759/07
    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 1998-VII; and Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-...).
  • EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

    MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 55759/07
    Nevertheless, the Court reiterates that it has previously found that certain offences still have a criminal connotation although they are regarded under relevant domestic law as too trivial to be governed by criminal law and procedure (see Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-...; Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, § 57, 15 November 2007; and Ziliberberg v. Moldova, no. 61821/00, §§ 32-35, 1 February 2005).
  • EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 12277/04

    STORBR?TEN v. NORWAY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 55759/07
    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, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

    VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 55759/07
    It is against this background that the Court is now called upon to provide a harmonised interpretation of the notion of the "same offence" - the idem element of the non bis in idem principle - for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. While it is in the interests of legal certainty, foreseeability and equality before the law that the Court should not depart, without good reason, from precedents laid down in previous cases, a failure by the Court to maintain a dynamic and evolutive approach would risk rendering it a bar to reform or improvement (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 56, ECHR 2007-...).
  • EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 11187/05

    HAARVIG v. NORWAY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 55759/07
    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 1998-VII; and Nilsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 73661/01, ECHR 2005-...).
  • EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

    Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 55759/07
    It is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions (see, among other authorities, Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, § 31, Series A no. 26, and Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 75, ECHR 2002-VI).
  • EGMR, 09.11.2000 - 43434/98

    COBIANCHI c. ITALIE (N° 1)

  • EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 28249/95

    KREUZ c. POLOGNE

  • EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 33505/96

    H.E. v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03

    BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 41075/02

    PITRA v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 24.05.2006 - 20627/04

    LIAKOPOULOU c. GRECE

  • EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

    ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 10.07.2013 - 77562/01

    SAN LEONARD BAND CLUB CONTRE MALTE

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.09.2017 - C-524/15

    Menci - Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union - Nationale

    44 EGMR, Urteile vom 10. Februar 2009, Zolotukhin/Russland (CE:ECHR:2009:0210JUD001493903, § 55), und vom 25. Juni 2009, Maresti/Kroatien (CE:ECHR:2009:0625JUD005575907, § 59).

    45 EGMR, Urteile vom 10. Februar 2009, Zolotukhin/Russland (CE:ECHR:2009:0210JUD001493903, § 55), und vom 25. Juni 2009, Maresti/Kroatien (CE:ECHR:2009:0625JUD005575907, § 59).

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 27.10.2020 - C-481/19

    Consob - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Rechtsangleichung - Marktmissbrauch -

    18 EGMR, 25. Juni 2009, Maresti/Kroatien (CE:ECHR:2009:0625JUD005575907, § 59).
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 15.12.2011 - C-489/10

    Bonda - Landwirtschaft - Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1973/2004 - Ausschluss und Kürzung

    43 - EGMR, Urteil Maresti/Kroatien vom 25. Juni 2009 (Beschwerde-Nr. 55759/07, noch nicht im Recueil des arrêts et décisions veröffentlicht, § 56 mit weiteren Nachweisen).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht