Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GEORGOULEAS AND NESTORAS v. GREECE

  No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nullum crimen sine lege) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GEORGOULEAS v. GREECE and 1 other application

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

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 12157/05

  LIIVIK v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 44612/13

  Moreover, in accordance with its general approach, the Court 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, nos. 37971/97, § 43, ECHR 2002-III; Korbely v. Hungary [GC], no. 9174/02, §§ 73-95, ECHR 2008; and Liivik v. Estonia, no. 12157/05, § 101, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 27.08.2002 - 58188/00

  DIDIER contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 44612/13

  Moreover, the Court notes that, with regard to certain French administrative authorities which have jurisdiction in economic and financial law and enjoy sentencing powers, it has held that the criminal limb of Article 6 applied, in particular, with regard to the Disciplinary Offences (Budget and Finance) Court (Guisset v. France, no. 33933/96, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX), the Financial Markets Board (Didier v. France (dec.), no. 58188/00, 27 August 2002), the Competition Commission (Lilly France S.A. v. France (dec.), no. 53892/00, 3 December 2002), the sanctions committee of the financial market supervisory authorities (Messier v. France (dec.), no. 25041/07, 19 May 2009), and the Banking Commission (Dubus S.A., cited above, § 38).
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54468/09

  HUHTAMAKI v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 44612/13

  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, 22.11.1995 - 20166/92

  S.W. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 44612/13

  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, notably those of accessibility and foreseeability (see, among other authorities, C.R. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, §§ 32-33, Series A no. 335-C; S.W. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, §§ 34-35, Series A no. 335-B; Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97, 44801/98, § 50, ECHR 2001-II; and Kafkaris, cited above, § 140).
• EGMR, 11.01.2001 - 43862/98

  INOCÊNCIO contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 44612/13

  In the light of the above, and taking account of the severity of the fines imposed and of those to which the applicants were liable, the Court considers that the penalties in question were criminal in nature (see, mutatis mutandis, Öztürk, cited above, § 54, and, a contrario, Inocêncio v. Portugal (dec.), no. 43862/98, ECHR 2001-I).
• EGMR, 06.10.2011 - 50425/06

  SOROS c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 44612/13

  Even when a point is ruled on for the first time in an 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, cited above, § 114; Custers and Others v. Denmark, nos. 11843/03, 11847/03 and 11849/03, 3 May 2007; Soros v. France, no. 50425/06, § 126, 6 October 2011; and Huhtamäki, cited above, § 51).
• EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 33933/96

  GUISSET c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 44612/13

  Moreover, the Court notes that, with regard to certain French administrative authorities which have jurisdiction in economic and financial law and enjoy sentencing powers, it has held that the criminal limb of Article 6 applied, in particular, with regard to the Disciplinary Offences (Budget and Finance) Court (Guisset v. France, no. 33933/96, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX), the Financial Markets Board (Didier v. France (dec.), no. 58188/00, 27 August 2002), the Competition Commission (Lilly France S.A. v. France (dec.), no. 53892/00, 3 December 2002), the sanctions committee of the financial market supervisory authorities (Messier v. France (dec.), no. 25041/07, 19 May 2009), and the Banking Commission (Dubus S.A., cited above, § 38).
• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 37971/97

  STES COLAS EST AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 44612/13

  Moreover, in accordance with its general approach, the Court 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, nos. 37971/97, § 43, ECHR 2002-III; Korbely v. Hungary [GC], no. 9174/02, §§ 73-95, ECHR 2008; and Liivik v. Estonia, no. 12157/05, § 101, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 44612/13

  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, notably those of accessibility and foreseeability (see, among other authorities, C.R. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, §§ 32-33, Series A no. 335-C; S.W. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, §§ 34-35, Series A no. 335-B; Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97, 44801/98, § 50, ECHR 2001-II; and Kafkaris, cited above, § 140).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 44612/13

  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, 07.12.2006 - 29514/05

  VAN DER VELDEN c. PAYS-BAS
• EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90

  GRADINGER c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 1828/06

  G.I.E.M. S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ITALY
• EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 7345/12

  GLIEN v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 15917/89

  JAMIL v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 07.01.2016 - 23279/14

  Therapieunterbringung (Sicherungsverwahrung) bei schwerer psychischer Störung …
• EGMR, 09.02.1995 - 17440/90

  WELCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 34634/18

  TOTAL S.A. ET VITOL S.A. c. FRANCE

  Pour apprécier la prévisibilité d'une interprétation judiciaire, il ne faut donc pas attacher une importance décisive à l'absence de précédents comparables (K.A. et A.D. c. Belgique, nos 42758/98 et 45558/99, § 55, 17 février 2005, Georgouleas et Nestoras c. Grèce, nos 44612/13 et 45831/13, § 63, 28 mai 2020, et Berardi et Mularoni c. Saint-Marin, nos 24705/16 et 24818/16, § 44, 10 janvier 2019).
• EGMR, 13.04.2023 - 54956/19

  NOEL c. FRANCE

  La prévisibilité doit être appréciée du point de vue de la personne condamnée (le cas échéant après avoir recouru à des conseils éclairés) et au moment de la commission des faits poursuivis, et l'interprétation judiciaire de la portée d'une infraction doit être cohérente avec la substance de cette infraction (X et Y c. France, no 48158/11, § 57, 1er septembre 2016, Georgouleas et Nestoras c. Grèce, nos 44612/13 et 45831/13, §§ 56-57, 28 mai 2020, et les références citées dans ces deux arrêts).
• EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 83460/17

  RADUCAN c. ROUMANIE

  Même si la Cour peut tenir compte de l'interprétation de la loi que donnait la doctrine à l'époque pertinente, notamment lorsqu'elle va dans le même sens que la jurisprudence (K.A. et A.D. c. Belgique, précité, § 59, et Alimuçaj c. Albanie, no 20134/05, §§ 158-160, 7 février 2012), la libre interprétation dans la doctrine d'un texte de loi ne peut se substituer à l'existence d'une jurisprudence (Georgouleas et Nestoras c. Grèce, nos 44612/13 et 45831/13, § 64, 28 mai 2020).