Auszug aus EGMR - 14871/20

Could the applicant have reasonably foreseen, at the material time, that the acts attributed to him (as indicated in the domestic courts" judgments) would be construed as evidence of the offence of "membership of an armed terrorist organisation" under Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code? Did the application of that provision in the circumstances of the applicant's case extend the scope of criminal liability for the offence in question in breach of the principle of legality? In any event, was the national courts" interpretation of Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code to the facts of the applicant's case consistent with the essence of that offence and could it be reasonably foreseen (see, S.W. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, § 36, Series A no. 335-B; Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96 and 2 others, § 50, ECHR 2001-II; Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 109, ECHR 2007-III and Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 35343/05, § 155, ECHR 2015)?.

Auszug aus EGMR - 14871/20

Could the applicant have reasonably foreseen, at the material time, that the acts attributed to him (as indicated in the domestic courts" judgments) would be construed as evidence of the offence of "membership of an armed terrorist organisation" under Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code? Did the application of that provision in the circumstances of the applicant's case extend the scope of criminal liability for the offence in question in breach of the principle of legality? In any event, was the national courts" interpretation of Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code to the facts of the applicant's case consistent with the essence of that offence and could it be reasonably foreseen (see, S.W. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, § 36, Series A no. 335-B; Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96 and 2 others, § 50, ECHR 2001-II; Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 109, ECHR 2007-III and Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 35343/05, § 155, ECHR 2015)?.

Auszug aus EGMR - 14871/20

Could the applicant have reasonably foreseen, at the material time, that the acts attributed to him (as indicated in the domestic courts" judgments) would be construed as evidence of the offence of "membership of an armed terrorist organisation" under Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code? Did the application of that provision in the circumstances of the applicant's case extend the scope of criminal liability for the offence in question in breach of the principle of legality? In any event, was the national courts" interpretation of Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code to the facts of the applicant's case consistent with the essence of that offence and could it be reasonably foreseen (see, S.W. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, § 36, Series A no. 335-B; Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96 and 2 others, § 50, ECHR 2001-II; Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 109, ECHR 2007-III and Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 35343/05, § 155, ECHR 2015)?.

Auszug aus EGMR - 14871/20

In this context, did the applicant's alleged inability to review the evidence handed over by the MIT to the prosecution authorities put the defence at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the prosecution? If so, were the alleged difficulties caused to the defence sufficiently counterbalanced by the procedures followed by the judicial authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, § 61, ECHR 2000-II; Sigurður Einarsson and Others v. Iceland, no. 39757/15, §§ 90 and 91, 4 June 2019; Rook, cited above, §§ 67 and 72)?.