Onder 9.25. Centrale Raad van Beroep 6 december 2022

Notwithstanding the consideration that a certain gravity attaches to criminal proceedings, which are concerned with the allocation of criminal responsibility and the imposition of a punitive and deterrent sanction, it is self-evident that there are criminal cases which do not carry any significant degree of stigma. There are clearly “criminal charges” of differing weight. What is more, the autonomous interpretation adopted by the Convention institutions of the notion of a “criminal charge” by applying the Engel criteria have underpinned a gradual broadening of the criminal head to cases not strictly belonging to the traditional categories of the criminal law, for example administrative penalties ( Öztürk , cited above), prison disciplinary proceedings ( Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom , 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80), customs law ( Salabiaku v. France , 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A), competition law ( Société Stenuit v. France , 27 February 1992, Series A no. 232-A), and penalties imposed by a court with jurisdiction in financial matters ( Guisset v. France , no. 33933/96, ECHR 2000-IX). Tax surcharges differ from the hard core of criminal law; consequently, the criminal-head guarantees will not necessarily apply with their full stringency (see Bendenoun and Janosevic , § 46 and § 81 respectively, where it was found compatible with Article 6 § 1 for criminal penalties to be imposed, in the first instance, by an administrative or nonjudicial body, and, a contrario , Findlay , cited above).”

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/4a51f09533299a2a09b6e68d0b975a7efc82ef2517762e7de43b348744154f6c | shasum -a 256