Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 75201/16 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,31363) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
STAIANO v. SAN MARINO
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
STAIANO v. SAN MARINO
Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06
Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 75201/16
In this regard, the Court reiterates that Article 7 of the Convention is not incompatible with judicial law-making and does not outlaw 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 Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, § 821, 25 July 2013). - EGMR, 17.02.2005 - 45558/99
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 75201/16
The Court reiterates that in assessing the foreseeability of a judicial interpretation, no decisive importance should be attached to a lack of comparable precedents (compare K.A. and A.D. v. Belgium, nos. 42758/98 and 45558/99, §§ 55-58, 17 February 2005). - EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 74613/01
Rechtssache J. gegen DEUTSCHLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 75201/16
Where the domestic courts are called on to interpret a provision of criminal law for the first time, as opposed to cases concerning a reversal of pre-existing case-law, an interpretation of the scope of the offence which is consistent with the essence of that offence must, as a rule, be considered as foreseeable (see Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 109, ECHR 2007-III). - EGMR, 22.11.1995 - 20166/92
S.W. c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 75201/16
As to the foreseeability of the interpretation of the "aiding and abetting clause", referring to the Court's case law (in particular, S.W. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, § 36, Series A no. 335-B and C.R. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, § 34, Series A no. 335-C) the Government noted that the Convention does not outlaw the gradual clarification of the rules of criminal liability through judicial interpretation from case to case, provided that the resulting development is consistent with the essence of the offence. - EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74
SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 75201/16
As to the reasonableness of this interpretation, referring to the Court's case law (in particular, The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 49, Series A no. 30,) the Government considered that by assessing what role the applicant had had in the commission of the predicate offence the domestic courts had carried out an ordinary activity of interpretation of the relevant clause, in a way which had been literal, and consistent with the general purpose (ratio) of the domestic provision on money laundering.