Lucky Dev v. Sweden - Swedish legislation for tax-related offences

CtEDO 2014-12-17 0,91

and practice, see Lucky Dev v. Sweden (no. 7356/10, §§ 13-29, 27 November 2014). COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention that, through the imposition of tax surcharges and the conviction for tax

CtEDO 2014-11-27 0,90

refused leave to appeal. 10. Criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on 5 August 2005 in regard to the above conduct. 11. By a judgment of 16 December 2008 the Stockholm District Court (tingsrätt) convicted the applicant o

CtEDO 2012-02-20 0,90

been punished twice for the same offence. She argues that the two proceedings have been based on identical facts. 2. The applicant further complains under Article 6 of the Convention that she did not have a fair hearing in the tax proceedin

CtEDO 2016-06-07 0,89

Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)141 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Lucky Dev against Sweden Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 7356/10 LUCKY DEV 27/11/2014 27/02/2015 (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers o

CtEDO 2015-01-13 0,89

for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (see Lucky Dev v. Sweden, cited above, § 51, with further references). Accordingly, both sets of proceedings in the present case were “criminal” for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7