Jugements
Case Law European Human Rights Law
- Cours
- Établissement
Every prescribed case in the course summarised per week from the ECtHR and ECJ case law .
[Montrer plus]
1 vérifier
Par: louismoran158 • 2 mois de cela
Vendeur
S'abonner
veerlegeboers1
Avis reçus
Aperçu du contenu
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
Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:
Qualité garantie par les avis des clients
Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.
L’achat facile et rapide
Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.
Focus sur l’essentiel
Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.
Foire aux questions
Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?
Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.
Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?
Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.
Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?
Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur veerlegeboers1. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.
Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?
Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour 7,49 €. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.
Peut-on faire confiance à Stuvia ?
4.6 étoiles sur Google & Trustpilot (+1000 avis)
62799 résumés ont été vendus ces 30 derniers jours
Fondée en 2010, la référence pour acheter des résumés depuis déjà 14 ans
Récemment vu par vous
Resume ·
Samenvatting- straf en jeugdrecht
