Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 29295/95, 29363/95 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2001,29527) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ECER ET ZEYREK c. TURQUIE
Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation de l'art. 7-1 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ECER AND ZEYREK v. TURKEY
Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 7-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 29295/95
- EGMR, 15.02.2000 - 29295/95
- EKMR, 15.02.2000 - 29295/95
- EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 29295/95, 29363/95
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88
KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 29295/95
According to the Court's case-law, Article 7 of the Convention generally embodies the principle that only the law can define a crime and prescribe a penalty (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege) and prohibits in particular the retrospective application of the criminal law where it is to an accused's detriment (see Kokkinakis v. Greece, judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A, p. 22, § 52). - EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94
PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 29295/95
In its view, when an accused is charged with a continuing offence, the principle of legal certainty requires that the acts which go to make up that offence, and which entail his criminal liability, be clearly set out in the bill of indictment (see, mutatis mutandis, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 51, ECHR 1999-II).
- EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 2312/08
MAKTOUF ET DAMJANOVIC c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE
Since it is not certain that the applicants would indeed have received lower sentences had the 1976 Code been applied (contrast Ecer and Zeyrek v. Turkey, nos. 29295/95 and 29363/95, ECHR 2001-II, and Scoppola, cited above), the Court holds in the particular circumstances of this case that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants. - EGMR, 18.05.2006 - 9852/03
HUMMATOV v. AZERBAIJAN
According to the Court's case-law, Article 7 of the Convention embodies generally the principle that only the law can define a crime and prescribe a penalty (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege) and prohibits in particular the retrospective application of the criminal law where it is to an accused person's detriment (see e.g. Ecer and Zeyrek v. Turkey, nos. 29295/95 and 29363/95, § 30, ECHR 2001-II).