Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• HRR Strafrecht

  Art. 7 EMRK; Art. 103 Abs. 2 GG; Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG; Art. 6 EMRK; § 24 Abs. 1 Nr. 3 GVG
  Gesetzlichkeitsprinzip (Vorhersehbarkeit der Strafdrohung und Ermessen des Staatsanwalts bei der Wahl des urteilenden Gerichts: unkontrollierter Einfluss auf die zulässigen Rechtsfolgen und die eröffneten Rechtsmittel; Bestimmtheitsgrundsatz: Präzisierungsgebot); Recht ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CAMILLERI v. MALTA

  Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nulla poena sine lege Nullum crimen sine lege) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CAMILLERI v. MALTA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nulla poena sine lege;Nullum crimen sine lege);Non-pecuniary damage - award

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Camilleri v. Malta

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42931/10
• EGMR, 17.09.2014 - 42931/10

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87

  HUBER c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42931/10

  The court further pointed out that unlike in the case of Huber v. Switzerland (23 October 1990, Series A no. 188), the Attorney General (in his role as public prosecutor) in Malta did not investigate the circumstances of the crime and did not have the power to issue detention orders.

  Indeed the Attorney General did not undertake the investigation of the crime, nor did he have the power to issue a detention order (with reference to Huber v. Switzerland, 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188), or have any other judicial function, but exclusively performed the function of prosecutor.

• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42931/10

  In any case, a crime has to be very loosely defined before the European Court of Human Rights will find a violation of this provision (see Kokkinakis vs Greece, 25 May 1993, § 52, Series A no. 260-A).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42931/10

  He further noted that the exercise of fair treatment could not be limited to the trial but should include the pre-trial period as in the case of Salduz v. Turkey ((GC), no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008), and also made particular reference to Imbrioscia v. Switzerland (24 November 1993, § 36, Series A no. 275).

 
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42931/10

  Moreover, it is a firmly established part of the legal tradition of the States party to the Convention that case-law, as one of the sources of the law, necessarily contributes to the gradual development of the criminal law (see Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no. 176-A).
• EGMR, 27.04.2006 - 30961/03

  SANNINO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42931/10

  As to the applicant's request for his sentence to be reduced, the Court reiterates that it has no jurisdiction to alter sentences handed down by the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Findlay v. the United Kingdom, 25 February 1997, § 88, Reports 1997-I, and Sannino v. Italy, no. 30961/03, § 65, ECHR 2006-VI).
• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42931/10

  34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 50, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

  COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42931/10

  When speaking of "law" Article 7 alludes to the very same concept as that to which the Convention refers elsewhere when using that term, a concept which comprises statute law as well as case-law and implies qualitative requirements, including those of accessibility and foreseeability (see Cantoni v. France, 15 November 1996, § 29, Reports 1996-V, Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 145, ECHR 2000-VII, § 145, and E.K. v. Turkey, no. 28496/95, § 51, 7 February 2002).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42931/10

  This requirement is satisfied where the individual can know from the wording of the relevant provision and, if need be, with the assistance of the courts' interpretation of it, what acts and omissions will make him criminally liable (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) (GC), no. 10249/03, §§ 93-94, 17 September 2009).
• EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 61827/09

  K ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42931/10

  Indeed, the present case does not concern the imposition of a heavier sentence than that which was applicable at the time of the commission of the criminal offence or the denial of the benefit of a provision prescribing a more lenient penalty which came into force after the commission of the offence (see, inter alia, Alimuçaj v. Albania, no. 20134/05, 7 February 2012; Scoppola (no. 2), cited above, and K v. Germany, no. 61827/09, 7 June 2012) and therefore the Court does not consider it necessary to indicate any specific measure.
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 75909/01

  Sud Fondi S.r.l. u.a. ./. Italien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42931/10

  A law may still satisfy the requirement of "foreseeability" where the person concerned has to take appropriate legal advice to assess, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Achour v. France (GC), no. 67335/01, § 54, ECHR 2006-IV and Sud Fondi srl and Others v. Italy, no. 75909/01, § 110, 20 January 2009).