Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 45776/16 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2020,2210) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
JIDIC v. ROMANIA
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Heavier penalty) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
JIDIC v. ROMANIA
Wird zitiert von ... (8) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 43580/04
HAKKAR c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 8927/11
RUBAN v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 45776/16
In addition, the Court reiterates that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to resolve problems of interpretation of domestic legislation, so that its role is confined to ascertaining whether the effects of such an interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 54, ECHR 1999-I; Kononov v. Latvia [GC], no. 36376/04, § 197, ECHR 2010; and Ruban v. Ukraine, no. 8927/11, § 43, 12 July 2016). - EGMR - 34179/08 (anhängig)
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 45776/16
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 Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, § 77, ECHR 2013; Maktouf and Damjanovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, § 66, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 35343/05, § 153, 20 October 2015). - EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94
WAITE AND KENNEDY v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 45776/16
In addition, the Court reiterates that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to resolve problems of interpretation of domestic legislation, so that its role is confined to ascertaining whether the effects of such an interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 54, ECHR 1999-I; Kononov v. Latvia [GC], no. 36376/04, § 197, ECHR 2010; and Ruban v. Ukraine, no. 8927/11, § 43, 12 July 2016).
- EGMR, 02.11.2021 - 38958/16
W.A. v. SWITZERLAND
Those qualitative requirements must be satisfied as regards both the definition of an offence and the penalty the offence carries (see Del Río Prada, cited above, § 91, and Jidic v. Romania, no. 45776/16, § 79, 18 February 2020). - EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 62250/19
JIVAN v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 74017/17
MARTINS PEREIRA PENEDOS c. PORTUGAL
Plus généralement, la Cour rappelle que c'est au premier chef aux autorités nationales, notamment aux cours et tribunaux, qu'il appartient d'interpréter la législation interne (Rohlena c. République tchèque [GC], no 59552/08, § 51, CEDH 2015, et Jidic c. Roumanie, no 45776/16, § 83, 18 février 2020).
- EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 13451/15
TRISTAN c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
Ce principe se traduit par la règle voulant que, si la loi pénale en vigueur au moment de la commission de l'infraction et les lois pénales postérieures adoptées avant le prononcé d'un jugement définitif sont différentes, le juge doit appliquer celle dont les dispositions sont les plus favorables au prévenu (Scoppola c. Italie (no 2) [GC], no 10249/03, § 109, 17 septembre 2009, Avis consultatif relatif à l'utilisation de la technique de « législation par référence'pour la définition d'une infraction et aux critères à appliquer pour comparer la loi pénale telle qu'elle était en vigueur au moment de la commission de l'infraction et la loi pénale telle que modifiée [GC], demande no P16-2019-001, Cour Constitutionnelle arménienne, § 82, 29 mai 2020 (« Avis consultatif P16-2019-001 "), et Jidic c. Roumanie, no 45776/16, § 80, 18 février 2020). - EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 60785/19
MØRCK JENSEN v. DENMARK
Those qualitative requirements must be satisfied as regards both the definition of an offence and the penalty the offence carries (see Del Río Prada, cited above, § 91; Jidic v. Romania, no. 45776/16, § 79, 18 February 2020; and Advisory opinion on the applicability of statutes of limitation to prosecution, conviction and punishment in respect of an offence constituting, in substance, an act of torture [GC], request no. P16-2021-001, Armenian Court of Cassation, § 67, 26 April 2022 ("Advisory opinion P16-2021-001")). - EGMR, 24.05.2022 - 74536/10
SINAN ÇETINKAYA AND AGYAR ÇETINKAYA v. TURKEY
That principle is embodied in the rule that where there are differences between the criminal law in force at the time of the commission of the offence and subsequent criminal laws enacted before a final judgment is rendered, the courts must apply the law whose provisions are most favourable to the defendant (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 109, 17 September 2009; Advisory opinion concerning the use of the "blanket reference" or "legislation by reference" technique in the definition of an offence and the standards of comparison between the criminal law in force at the time of the commission of the offence and the amended criminal law, [GC], request no. P16-2019-001, Armenian Constitutional Court, § 81, 29 May 2020 ("Advisory opinion P16-2019-001"); and Jidic v. Romania, no. 45776/16, § 80, 18 February 2020). - EGMR - 15597/22 (anhängig)
MARO? EVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 75882/13
PFENNING DISTRIBUTIE S.R.L. c. ROUMANIE
En l'espèce, la Cour doit rechercher si les juridictions internes ont appliqué la loi dont les dispositions étaient les plus favorables à la société requérante compte tenu des circonstances spécifiques de l'affaire (Maktouf et Damjanovic c. Bosnie-Herzégovine [GC], nos 2312/08 et 34179/08, § 65, CEDH 2013 (extraits) ; voir également; Gabarri Moreno c. Espagne, no 68066/01, §§ 32-33, 22 juillet 2003 ; Jidic c. Roumanie, no 45776/16, §§ 80-82, 18 février 2020 ).