Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LUCKY DEV v. SWEDEN

  Art. 35, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-general (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Acquittal Right not to be tried or punished twice) Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  LUCKY DEV v. SWEDEN

  Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 7356/10
• EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 7356/10

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 60619/00

  ROSENQUIST v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 7356/10

  Prior to this judgment, the imposition of tax surcharges and a conviction for tax fraud had been found not to violate the principle of ne bis in idem; rather, such a complaint had been declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded in the case of Rosenquist v. Sweden (no. 60619/00, 14 September 2004).

  In the present case the Swedish courts followed this approach and took the date of adoption of the judgment in Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 14939/03, ECHR 2009), reversing the previous case-law (Rosenquist v. Sweden (dec.), no. 60619/00, 14 September 2004), as the starting-point for the change in the Swedish case-law.

• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

  Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 7356/10

  While acknowledging that the European Court's recent judgments in Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 14939/03, judgment of 10 February 2009, ECHR 2009) and Ruotsalainen v. Finland (no. 13079/03, judgment of 16 June 2009) suggested a change in the Strasbourg case-law, the Supreme Administrative Court noted that they did not relate to the Swedish legal system and concluded that this system, allowing for both a conviction for a tax offence and an imposition of tax surcharges, was in conformity with the Convention.

  In the present case the Swedish courts followed this approach and took the date of adoption of the judgment in Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 14939/03, ECHR 2009), reversing the previous case-law (Rosenquist v. Sweden (dec.), no. 60619/00, 14 September 2004), as the starting-point for the change in the Swedish case-law.

• EGMR, 01.02.2000 - 34406/97

  MAZUREK c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 7356/10

  [3] In this respect Sweden's approach went further than the one taken, for instance, by France when implementing the Mazurek judgment (no. 34406/97, ECHR 2000-II) and by Germany when implementing the Brauer judgment (no. 3545/04, 28 May 2009).

 
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 7356/10

  In the Marckx v. Belgium judgment (13 June 1979, Series A no. 31) the Court gave a subtle answer to the problem and decided to apply the new interpretation of the Convention only to the case that was brought before it, but at the same time to limit further retroactive application.
• EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 13079/03

  RUOTSALAINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 7356/10

  While acknowledging that the European Court's recent judgments in Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 14939/03, judgment of 10 February 2009, ECHR 2009) and Ruotsalainen v. Finland (no. 13079/03, judgment of 16 June 2009) suggested a change in the Strasbourg case-law, the Supreme Administrative Court noted that they did not relate to the Swedish legal system and concluded that this system, allowing for both a conviction for a tax offence and an imposition of tax surcharges, was in conformity with the Convention.
• EGMR, 23.07.2002 - 34619/97

  JANOSEVIC c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 7356/10

  The Court has found in several judgments concerning Sweden that the imposition of tax surcharges involves the determination of a "criminal charge" within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention and that that provision is therefore applicable to tax proceedings in so far as they concern tax surcharges (see, for instance, Janosevic v. Sweden, no. 34619/97, §§ 64-71, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 53785/09

  TOMASOVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 7356/10

  However, when no such discontinuation occurs, the Court has found a violation (see Tomasovic v. Croatia, no. 53785/09, §§ 30-32, 18 October 2011; and Muslija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 32042/11, § 37, 14 January 2014).
• EGMR, 03.10.2002 - 48154/99

  ZIGARELLA contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 7356/10

  There is no issue under the Convention when, in a situation of two parallel sets of proceedings, the second set of proceedings is discontinued when the first set of proceedings has become final (see Zigarella v. Italy (dec.), no. 48154/99, ECHR 2002-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 65831/01

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 7356/10

  In such a situation it cannot be said that the individual 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, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 7356/10

  In this way, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V, with further references).

• OLG Karlsruhe, 04.10.2021 - Ausl 301 AR 86/21

  Bewilligung der Auslieferung unter Berücksichtigung mitgliedsstaatlicher …

  Schweden (EGMR, Urteil vom 27.11.2014 - 7356/10 [Lucky Dev ./. Schweden] = NJOZ 2016, 196) mit dem Grundsatz der Einmaligkeit der Strafverfolgung befasst.

  Eine solche Garantie gegen mehrfache Verfahren lasse sich nicht aus Art. 4 Protokoll Nr. 7 zur EMRK ableiten (EGMR Urteil vom 27.11.2014 - 7356/10 = NJOZ 2016, 196 Rn. 59).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 02.09.2021 - C-117/20

  Generalanwalt Bobek schlägt eine einheitliche Prüfung für den Schutz gegen …

  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).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.09.2017 - C-537/16

  Garlsson Real Estate u.a. - Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union - …

  Die Corte suprema di cassazione (Kassationshof) ist daher der Auffassung, dass die Durchführung und Entscheidung des Verwaltungsverfahrens nach Ergehen des Strafurteils gegen Herrn Ricucci gemäß dem Urteil des Gerichtshofs vom 26. Februar 2013, Åkerberg Fransson(11), und der Rechtsprechung des EGMR (Urteile vom 4. März 2014, Grande Stevens u. a./Italien [CE:ECHR:2014:0304JUD001864010], vom 20. Mai 2014, Nykänen/Finnland [CE:ECHR:2014:0520JUD001182811], vom 27. November 2014, Lucky Dev/Schweden [CE:ECHR:2014:1127JUD000735610], und vom 10. Februar 2009, Zolotukhin/Russland [CE:ECHR:2009:0210JUD001493903]), eine Verletzung des in Art. 50 der Charta verankerten Grundsatzes ne bis in idem darstellen könnte.
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 8516/07

  BUTNARU ET BEJAN-PISER c. ROUMANIE

  Toutefois, elle a constaté une violation lorsque les tribunaux internes n'ont pas ainsi mis fin à la seconde procédure (Tomasovic c. Croatie, no 53785/09, § 31, 18 octobre 2011, Muslija, précité, § 37, et Lucky Dev c. Suède, no 7356/10, §§ 59 et 63, 27 novembre 2014).