Judgments
Case Law European Human Rights Law
- Course
- Institution
Every prescribed case in the course summarised per week from the ECtHR and ECJ case law .
[Show more]
1 review
By: louismoran158 • 3 months ago
Seller
Follow
veerlegeboers1
Reviews received
Content preview
European Human Rights Law............................................................................................................................................... 3
............................................................................................................................................... 3
Week 1................................................................................................................................... 3
Week 1................................................................................................................................... 3
Åkerberg Fransson............................................................................................................ 3
Åkerberg Fransson............................................................................................................ 3
ECJ Opinion 2/13...............................................................................................................4
ECJ Opinion 2/13...............................................................................................................4
AVOTIŅŠ v. LATVIA.......................................................................................................... 5
AVOTIŅŠ v. LATVIA.......................................................................................................... 5
KURSKI v. POLAND.......................................................................................................... 6
KURSKI v. POLAND.......................................................................................................... 6
GRZĘDA v. POLAND........................................................................................................ 7
GRZĘDA v. POLAND........................................................................................................ 7
ŻUREK v. POLAND........................................................................................................... 8
ŻUREK v. POLAND........................................................................................................... 8
ECJ, C-791/19 Disciplinary regime for judges (2021).........................................................9
ECJ, C-791/19 Disciplinary regime for judges (2021).........................................................9
ECJ, C-78/18 (Lex NGO) (2020)......................................................................................10
ECJ, C-78/18 (Lex NGO) (2020)......................................................................................10
ECJ, C-66/18 (Lex CEU) (2020)......................................................................................11
ECJ, C-66/18 (Lex CEU) (2020)......................................................................................11
Week 2................................................................................................................................. 12
Week 2................................................................................................................................. 12
CASE OF M.S.S. v. BELGIUM AND GREECE................................................................12
CASE OF M.S.S. v. BELGIUM AND GREECE................................................................12
ECJ, C-411/10 NS (2011)................................................................................................12
ECJ, C-411/10 NS (2011)................................................................................................12
ECtHR (Grand Chamber), Appl.no. 17502/07, Avotins v. Latvia (2016]...........................14
ECtHR (Grand Chamber), Appl.no. 17502/07, Avotins v. Latvia (2016]...........................14
CASE OF PAPOSHVILI v. BELGIUM..............................................................................15
CASE OF PAPOSHVILI v. BELGIUM..............................................................................15
ECJ, C-578/16 PPU, C.K. e.a. v. Slovenia (2017)............................................................16
ECJ, C-578/16 PPU, C.K. e.a. v. Slovenia (2017)............................................................16
ECJ, C-638/16, X and X / Belgium (2017)........................................................................18
ECJ, C-638/16, X and X / Belgium (2017)........................................................................18
ECJ, C-216/18 PPU, Ministry of Justice and Equality v L.M. («Celmer») (2018)..............18
ECJ, C-216/18 PPU, Ministry of Justice and Equality v L.M. («Celmer») (2018)..............18
ECJ, C-297/17, Ibrahim (2019)........................................................................................20
ECJ, C-297/17, Ibrahim (2019)........................................................................................20
CASE OF ILIAS AND AHMED v. HUNGARY...................................................................22
CASE OF ILIAS AND AHMED v. HUNGARY...................................................................22
ECtHR (pending), Darwesh c.s. v. Netherlands and Greece, Appl. No. 52334/19 (2020).
......................................................................................................................................... 23
, ECtHR (pending), Darwesh c.s. v. Netherlands and Greece, Appl. No. 52334/19 (2020).
......................................................................................................................................... 23
CASE OF N.D. AND N.T. v. SPAIN.................................................................................24
CASE OF N.D. AND N.T. v. SPAIN.................................................................................24
ECJ, Case C-354/20 PPU, L&P (2020)............................................................................26
ECJ, Case C-354/20 PPU, L&P (2020)............................................................................26
Week 3................................................................................................................................. 28
Week 3................................................................................................................................. 28
CASE OF WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS........................................................28
CASE OF WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS........................................................28
CASE OF VARBANOV v. BULGARIA..............................................................................30
CASE OF VARBANOV v. BULGARIA..............................................................................30
CASE OF ILNSEHER v. GERMANY................................................................................32
CASE OF ILNSEHER v. GERMANY................................................................................32
CASE OF ROOMAN v. BELGIUM...................................................................................33
CASE OF ROOMAN v. BELGIUM...................................................................................33
CASE OF MIKLIĆ v. CROATIA........................................................................................36
CASE OF MIKLIĆ v. CROATIA........................................................................................36
Week 4................................................................................................................................. 38
Week 4................................................................................................................................. 38
(CASE OF ENGEL AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS)..........................................38
(CASE OF ENGEL AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS)..........................................38
CASE OF CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM.......................................39
CASE OF CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM.......................................39
CASE OF KYPRIANOU v. CYPRUS................................................................................39
CASE OF KYPRIANOU v. CYPRUS................................................................................39
Week 5................................................................................................................................. 40
Week 5................................................................................................................................. 40
(CASE OF CARVALHO PINTO DE SOUSA MORAIS v. PORTUGAL)............................40
(CASE OF CARVALHO PINTO DE SOUSA MORAIS v. PORTUGAL)............................40
(ECtHR, D.H . and Others v the Czech Republic)............................................................41
(ECtHR, D.H . and Others v the Czech Republic)............................................................41
ECtHR, Hämäläinen v Finland (2014)..............................................................................43
ECtHR, Hämäläinen v Finland (2014)..............................................................................43
ECtHR, Thlimmenos v Greece (2000)..............................................................................44
ECtHR, Thlimmenos v Greece (2000)..............................................................................44
ECtHR, Angelova and Iliev v Bulgaria (2007)...................................................................44
ECtHR, Angelova and Iliev v Bulgaria (2007)...................................................................44
ECtHR, Çam v. Turkey (2016).........................................................................................44
ECtHR, Çam v. Turkey (2016).........................................................................................44
ECtHR, G.L. v. Italy (2020)..............................................................................................45
ECtHR, G.L. v. Italy (2020)..............................................................................................45
CASE OF SZOLCSÁN v. HUNGARY..............................................................................46
CASE OF SZOLCSÁN v. HUNGARY..............................................................................46
ECtHR, S.A.S. v. France (2014)......................................................................................47
ECtHR, S.A.S. v. France (2014)......................................................................................47
ECtHR, A.M. and Others v Russia (2021)........................................................................48
ECtHR, A.M. and Others v Russia (2021)........................................................................48
1
, ECtHR, J.L. v Italy (2021)................................................................................................49
ECtHR, J.L. v Italy (2021)................................................................................................49
ECtHR, Virabyan v Armenia (2013).................................................................................50
ECtHR, Virabyan v Armenia (2013).................................................................................50
ECtHR, Vejdeland and Others v Sweden (2012).............................................................50
ECtHR, Vejdeland and Others v Sweden (2012).............................................................50
ECtHR, Lingurar v Romania (2019).................................................................................51
ECtHR, Lingurar v Romania (2019).................................................................................51
Week 6................................................................................................................................. 52
Week 6................................................................................................................................. 52
ECJ, C-293/12 ECLI:EU:C:2014:238, Digital Rights Ireland (2014).................................52
ECJ, C-293/12 ECLI:EU:C:2014:238, Digital Rights Ireland (2014).................................52
Joined Cases C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18 La Quadrature du Net and Others v
Premier ministre and Others............................................................................................54
Joined Cases C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18 La Quadrature du Net and Others v
Premier ministre and Others............................................................................................54
Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner....................................................57
Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner....................................................57
Week 7................................................................................................................................. 58
Week 7................................................................................................................................. 58
European Committee of Social Rights, Collective Complaint 47/2008, DCI v. Netherlands
(2010).............................................................................................................................. 58
European Committee of Social Rights, Collective Complaint 47/2008, DCI v. Netherlands
(2010).............................................................................................................................. 58
European Committee of Social Rights, Collective Complaint 65/2011, GENOP-DEI v.
Greece (2012).................................................................................................................. 59
European Committee of Social Rights, Collective Complaint 65/2011, GENOP-DEI v.
Greece (2012).................................................................................................................. 59
European Committee of Social Rights, Collective Complaint 76/2012, IKA-ETIAM v.
Greece (2012).................................................................................................................. 60
European Committee of Social Rights, Collective Complaint 76/2012, IKA-ETIAM v.
Greece (2012).................................................................................................................. 60
European Committee of Social Rights, Collective Complaint 85/2012, LO and TCO v.
Sweden (2013)................................................................................................................. 62
European Committee of Social Rights, Collective Complaint 85/2012, LO and TCO v.
Sweden (2013)................................................................................................................. 62
European Committee of Social Rights, Collective Complaint 86/2012, FEANTSA v. the
Netherlands (2014).......................................................................................................... 64
European Committee of Social Rights, Collective Complaint 86/2012, FEANTSA v. the
Netherlands (2014).......................................................................................................... 64
ECtHR, Application nos. 57665/12 and 57657/12, Koufaki and Adedy v. Greece (2013).66
ECtHR, Application nos. 57665/12 and 57657/12, Koufaki and Adedy v. Greece (2013).66
ECtHR, Application no. 66529/11, N.K.M. v. Hungary (2013)..........................................67
ECtHR, Application no. 66529/11, N.K.M. v. Hungary (2013)..........................................67
ECtHR, Application no. 46184/16, Plaisier B.V. v. the Netherlands (2017)......................69
ECtHR, Application no. 46184/16, Plaisier B.V. v. the Netherlands (2017)......................69
ECtHR, Application no. 43494/09, Garib v. the Netherlands (2017).................................70
ECtHR, Application no. 43494/09, Garib v. the Netherlands (2017).................................70
2
, Week 1
Åkerberg Fransson
1. This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the ne bis in idem
principle in European Union law.
35. Next, three criteria are relevant for the purpose of assessing whether tax penalties are
criminal in nature. The first criterion is the legal classification of the offence under national
law, the second is the very nature of the offence, and the third is the nature and degree of
severity of the penalty that the person concerned is liable to incur.
37. It follows from the foregoing considerations that the answer to the second, third and
fourth questions is that the ne bis in idem principle laid down in Article 50 of the Charter does
not preclude a Member State from imposing successively, for the same acts of non-
compliance with declaration obligations in the field of VAT, a tax penalty and a criminal
penalty in so far as the first penalty is not criminal in nature, a matter which is for the national
court to determine.
49.
- European Union law does not govern the relations between the ECHR and the legal
systems of the Member States, nor does it determine the conclusions to be drawn by
a national court in the event of conflict between the rights guaranteed by that
convention and a rule of national law;
- European Union law precludes a judicial practice which makes the obligation for a
national court to disapply any provision contrary to a fundamental right guaranteed by
the Charter conditional upon that infringement being clear from the text of the Charter
or the case-law relating to it, since it withholds from the national court the power to
3
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller veerlegeboers1. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $8.62. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
73091 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now