Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LIIVIK v. ESTONIA

  Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 7 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 12157/05
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 12157/05

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 12157/05

  Article 7 of the Convention cannot be read as outlawing the gradual clarification of the rules of criminal liability through judicial interpretation from case to case, "provided that the resultant development is consistent with the essence of the offence and could reasonably be foreseen" (see S.W. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 36, and Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 50, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 12157/05

  Accordingly, many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague and whose interpretation and application are questions of practice (see, mutatis mutandis, Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 49, Series A no. 30, and Kokkinakis, cited above, § 40).
• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 12157/05

  Accordingly, it embodies, in general terms, the principle that only the law can define a crime and prescribe a penalty (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege) (see Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 52, Series A no. 260-A).

 
• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 12157/05

  32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 145, ECHR 2000-VII; Achour v. France [GC], no. 67335/01, § 41, ECHR 2006-...; and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, §§ 137-138, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

  COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 12157/05

  32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 145, ECHR 2000-VII; Achour v. France [GC], no. 67335/01, § 41, ECHR 2006-...; and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, §§ 137-138, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 22.11.1995 - 20166/92

  S.W. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 12157/05

  It should be construed and applied, as follows from its object and purpose, in such a way as to provide effective safeguards against arbitrary prosecution, conviction and punishment (see S.W. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, § 35, Series A no. 335-B, and C.R. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, § 33, Series A no. 335-C).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 12157/05

  Such a requirement would lead to a situation incompatible with the aim and object of the Convention (see OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 98, ECHR 1999-III; and De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (Article 50), 10 March 1972, § 16, Series A no. 14).
• EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 67335/01

  ACHOUR c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 12157/05

  32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 145, ECHR 2000-VII; Achour v. France [GC], no. 67335/01, § 41, ECHR 2006-...; and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, §§ 137-138, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 21.01.2003 - 45771/99

  VEEBER v. ESTONIA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 12157/05

  Reference was also made to the interpretation of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention by the European Court of Human Rights, according to which the necessary elements of a criminal offence had to be clearly defined in law (see Veeber v. Estonia (no. 2), no. 45771/99, § 31, ECHR 2003-I).

• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 101/15

  Urteile gegen Brüder Nawalny "willkürlich"

  Moreover, according to its general approach, the Court does not question the interpretation and application of national law by national courts unless there has been a flagrant non-observance or arbitrariness in the application of that law (see, inter alia, Société Colas Est and Others v. France, nos. 37971/97, § 43, ECHR 2002-III; Korbely v. Hungary [GC], no. 9174/02, §§ 73-95, ECHR 2008; and Liivik v. Estonia, no. 12157/05, § 101, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51111/07

  Prozess gegen Kreml-Kritiker Chodorkowski war "unfair"

  Moreover, according to its general approach, the Court does not question the interpretation and application of national law by national courts unless there has been a flagrant non-observance or arbitrariness in the application of that law (see, inter alia, Société Colas Est and Others v. France, nos. 37971/97, § 43, ECHR 2002-III; Korbely v. Hungary [GC], no. 9174/02, §§ 73-95, ECHR 2008; and Liivik v. Estonia, no. 12157/05, § 101, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 41452/07

  LENEV v. BULGARIA

  8803-8811/02, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02, § 50, 13 July 2006; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 129, ECHR 2006-IX; and Liivik v. Estonia, no. 12157/05, § 109, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 44612/13

  GEORGOULEAS AND NESTORAS v. GREECE

  Moreover, in accordance with its general approach, the Court does not question the interpretation and application of national law by national courts unless there has been a flagrant non-observance or arbitrariness in the application of that law (see, inter alia, Société Colas Est and Others v. France, nos. 37971/97, § 43, ECHR 2002-III; Korbely v. Hungary [GC], no. 9174/02, §§ 73-95, ECHR 2008; and Liivik v. Estonia, no. 12157/05, § 101, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 39912/09

  FERENCÍKOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA

  Such a requirement would lead to a situation incompatible with the aim and object of the Convention (see, for example, Liivik v. Estonia, no. 12157/05, § 109, 25 June 2009; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 129, ECHR 2006-IX; OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 98, ECHR 1999 III; Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (Article 50), 13 June 1994, § 17, Series A no. 285-C; Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), 31 October 1995, § 40, Series A no. 330-B; and De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (Article 50), 10 March 1972, § 16, Series A no. 14).