Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BADALYAN v. ARMENIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BADALYAN v. ARMENIA

  Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 35343/05

  VASILIAUSKAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 22329/13

  Article 7 of the Convention cannot be read as outlawing 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, among others, Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 35343/05, § 155, 20 October 2015; S.W., cited above, § 36; Streletz, Kessler and Krenz, cited above, § 50; and K.-H.W. v. Germany [GC], no. 37201/97, § 45, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 74613/01

  Rechtssache J. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 22329/13

  Even if this issue were ruled upon for the first time in the applicant's case, a violation of Article 7 of the Convention will not arise if the meaning given is both foreseeable and consistent with the essence of the offence (see Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 114, ECHR 2007-III; and Custers and Others v. Denmark, nos. 11843/03, 11847/03 and 11849/03, 3 May 2007).
• EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00

  LAVENTS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 22329/13

  Moreover, according to the Court's general approach, it does not question the interpretation and application of national law by national courts unless there has been a flagrant non-observance or arbitrariness in the application of that law (see, inter alia, Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 43, ECHR 2002-III and, mutatis mutandis, Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114, 28 November 2002).

 
• EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 67335/01

  ACHOUR c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 22329/13

  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 criminal law must not be extensively construed to the detriment of an accused, for instance by analogy (see Achour v. France [GC], no. 67335/01, § 41, ECHR 2006-IV; Kononov v. Latvia [GC], no. 36376/04, § 185, ECHR 2010; Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 52, Series A no. 260-A; and Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos.
• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 22329/13

  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 criminal law must not be extensively construed to the detriment of an accused, for instance by analogy (see Achour v. France [GC], no. 67335/01, § 41, ECHR 2006-IV; Kononov v. Latvia [GC], no. 36376/04, § 185, ECHR 2010; Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 52, Series A no. 260-A; and Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos.
• EGMR, 22.11.1995 - 20166/92

  S.W. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 22329/13

  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, in particular those of accessibility and foreseeability (see, among other authorities, Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 50, ECHR 2001-II; S.W. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, §§ 34-35, Series A no. 335-B; and C.R. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, §§ 32-33, Series A no. 335-C).
• EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

  COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 22329/13

  32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 145, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 22329/13

  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, in particular those of accessibility and foreseeability (see, among other authorities, Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 50, ECHR 2001-II; S.W. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, §§ 34-35, Series A no. 335-B; and C.R. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, §§ 32-33, Series A no. 335-C).
• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 37971/97

  STES COLAS EST AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 22329/13

  Moreover, according to the Court's general approach, it does not question the interpretation and application of national law by national courts unless there has been a flagrant non-observance or arbitrariness in the application of that law (see, inter alia, Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 43, ECHR 2002-III and, mutatis mutandis, Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114, 28 November 2002).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 22329/13

  It should be construed and applied, as follows from its object and purpose, in such a way as to provide effective safeguards against arbitrary prosecution, conviction and punishment (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 92, 17 September 2009; and Huhtamäki v. Finland, no. 54468/09, § 41, 6 March 2012).
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54468/09

  HUHTAMAKI v. FINLAND