Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ECER ET ZEYREK c. TURQUIE

  Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 7-1 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ECER AND ZEYREK v. TURKEY

  Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 7-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 29295/95

  According to the Court's case-law, Article 7 of the Convention generally embodies the principle that only the law can define a crime and prescribe a penalty (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege) and prohibits in particular the retrospective application of the criminal law where it is to an accused's detriment (see Kokkinakis v. Greece, judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A, p. 22, § 52).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 29295/95

  In its view, when an accused is charged with a continuing offence, the principle of legal certainty requires that the acts which go to make up that offence, and which entail his criminal liability, be clearly set out in the bill of indictment (see, mutatis mutandis, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 51, ECHR 1999-II).

• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 2312/08

  MAKTOUF ET DAMJANOVIC c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Since it is not certain that the applicants would indeed have received lower sentences had the 1976 Code been applied (contrast Ecer and Zeyrek v. Turkey, nos. 29295/95 and 29363/95, ECHR 2001-II, and Scoppola, cited above), the Court holds in the particular circumstances of this case that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants.
• EGMR, 18.05.2006 - 9852/03

  HUMMATOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  According to the Court's case-law, Article 7 of the Convention embodies generally the principle that only the law can define a crime and prescribe a penalty (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege) and prohibits in particular the retrospective application of the criminal law where it is to an accused person's detriment (see e.g. Ecer and Zeyrek v. Turkey, nos. 29295/95 and 29363/95, § 30, ECHR 2001-II).