Citaat | Parket bij de Hoge Raad 13 september 2005

Alinea 69 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 13 september 2005

Een alinea uit Parket bij de Hoge Raad 13 september 2005, ECLI:NL:PHR:2005:AS8484.

The first issue that arises is whether the proceedings relating to the 40 per cent tax surcharge could be viewed as "criminal" for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol no. 7. In this connection, the Court reiterates its findings in Janosevic v. Sweden ( no. 34619/97, 23 July 2002, §§ 68-71, ECHR 2002- VII ) and Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic v. Sweden ( no. 36985/97, 23 July 2002, §§ 79-82 ) that the proceedings in question were "criminal" although the surcharges cannot be said to belong to criminal law under the Swedish legal system, and in Manasson v. Sweden ((dec.) no. 41265/98, 8 April 2003) that proceedings involving tax surcharges were "criminal" not only for the purpose of Article 6 of the Convention, but also for the purpose of Article 4 of Protocol no. 7 to the Convention. Moreover, in its judgment in the case Göktan v. France ( no. 33402/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-V) concerning Article 7 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol no. 7, the Court held that the notion of penalty should not have different meanings under different provisions of the Convention.

Zelf controleren

Voor dit citaat hoeft niemand Bron op zijn woord te geloven. Het document dat rechtspraak.nl publiceerde, staat op https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/696ad02606c495d5661067ab237031879f2273458958e12fcb6c84f3aecda4a4. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt 696ad02606c495d5661067ab237031879f2273458958e12fcb6c84f3aecda4a4, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 33089 tot 34193.