Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LAUKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Art. 7, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 35 Abs. 4 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 48910/99
• EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 48910/99

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 08.11.2000 - 44801/98

  KRENZ c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 48910/99

  It must rather consider, from the standpoint of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention, whether the applicant's acts, at the time when they were committed, constituted offences defined with sufficient accessibility and foreseeability by domestic law (see Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 51, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 48910/99

  The Court thus indicated that 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 written as well as unwritten law and implies qualitative requirements, notably those of accessibility and foreseeability (see the Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, pp. 71-72, § 37).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 48910/99

  The Court notes that while its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, § 45).

 
• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 48910/99

  Accordingly, as the Court held in its Kokkinakis v. Greece judgment of 25 May 1993 (Series A no. 260-A, p. 22, § 52), Article 7 is not confined to prohibiting the retrospective application of the criminal law to an accused's disadvantage: it also embodies, more generally, the principle that only the law can define a crime and prescribe a penalty (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege) and the principle that the criminal law must not be extensively construed to an accused's detriment, for instance by analogy.
• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 48910/99

  It must rather consider, from the standpoint of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention, whether the applicant's acts, at the time when they were committed, constituted offences defined with sufficient accessibility and foreseeability by domestic law (see Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 51, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 22.11.1995 - 20166/92

  S.W. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 48910/99

  The Court reiterates fundamental principles laid down in the Court's case-law on Article 7 of the Convention, particularly in S.W. v. the United Kingdom and C.R. v. the United Kingdom (judgments of 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335-B, pp. 41-42, §§ 34-36, and Series A no. 335-C, pp. 68-69, §§ 32-34, respectively):.
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 10890/84

  GROPPERA RADIO AG ET AUTRES c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 48910/99

  The Court recalls that the scope of the notion of foreseeability depends to a considerable degree on the content of the text in issue, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed (see Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 173, p. 26, § 68).