Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BERARDI AND MULARONI v. SAN MARINO

  No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Retroactivity;Time when act or ommission was committed) (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 24705/16
• EGMR, 10.01.2019 - 24705/16, 24818/16

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 17.02.2005 - 45558/99

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2019 - 24705/16

  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, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06

  Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2019 - 24705/16

  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, 08.06.1995 - 15917/89

  JAMIL v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2019 - 24705/16

  The Court reiterates that Article 7 of the Convention is not confined to prohibiting the retrospective application of the criminal law to an accused's disadvantage (concerning the retrospective application of a penalty, see Welch v. the United Kingdom, 9 February 1995, § 36, Series A no. 307-A; Jamil v. France, 8 June 1995, § 35, Series A no. 317-B; Ecer and Zeyrek v. Turkey, nos. 29295/95 and 29363/95, § 36, ECHR 2001-II; and Mihai Toma v. Romania, no. 1051/06, §§ 26-31, 24 January 2012).

 
• EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

  COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2019 - 24705/16

  Relying on the Court's case-law (in particular, Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, ECHR 2013; Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96 and 4 others, § 145, ECHR 2000-VII; and Baskaya and Okçuoglu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 23536/94 and 24408/94, §§ 42-43, ECHR 1999-IV), the applicants observed that their conviction had violated Article 7 of the Convention since at the time of the facts, the offence of bribery inducing omission had not been clearly covered by the domestic provision on corruption.
• EGMR, 09.02.1995 - 17440/90

  WELCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2019 - 24705/16

  The Court reiterates that Article 7 of the Convention is not confined to prohibiting the retrospective application of the criminal law to an accused's disadvantage (concerning the retrospective application of a penalty, see Welch v. the United Kingdom, 9 February 1995, § 36, Series A no. 307-A; Jamil v. France, 8 June 1995, § 35, Series A no. 317-B; Ecer and Zeyrek v. Turkey, nos. 29295/95 and 29363/95, § 36, ECHR 2001-II; and Mihai Toma v. Romania, no. 1051/06, §§ 26-31, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 74613/01

  Rechtssache J. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2019 - 24705/16

  Where the domestic courts are called on to interpret a provision of criminal law for the first time - as in the present case - 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, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2019 - 24705/16

  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) (see Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 52, Series A no. 260-A).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23536/94

  Strafrechtliche Verfolgung auf Grund der Veröffentlichung eines Buches mit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2019 - 24705/16

  Relying on the Court's case-law (in particular, Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, ECHR 2013; Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96 and 4 others, § 145, ECHR 2000-VII; and Baskaya and Okçuoglu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 23536/94 and 24408/94, §§ 42-43, ECHR 1999-IV), the applicants observed that their conviction had violated Article 7 of the Convention since at the time of the facts, the offence of bribery inducing omission had not been clearly covered by the domestic provision on corruption.