Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VEEBER v. ESTONIA (No. 2)

  Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 7-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VEEBER c. ESTONIE (N° 2)

  Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 7-1 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.05.2001 - 45771/99
• EGMR, 21.01.2003 - 45771/99

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2003 - 45771/99

  In this connection the Court reiterates that it is not its task to rule on the applicant's criminal responsibility, that being primarily a matter for the assessment of the domestic courts, but to consider, from the standpoint of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention, whether the applicant's acts, at the time when they were committed, constituted offences defined with sufficient accessibility and foreseeability by the national law (see Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 51, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  Kokkinakis ./. Griechenland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2003 - 45771/99

  This requirement is satisfied where the individual can know from the wording of the relevant provision and, if need be, with the assistance of the courts' interpretation of it, what acts and omissions will make him criminally liable (see S.W. and C.R., cited above, pp. 41-42, § 35, and pp. 68-69, § 33, respectively; see also Kokkinakis v. Greece, judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A, p. 22, § 52).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 59552/08

  ROHLENA c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  Le Gouvernement relève à cet égard que la nouvelle disposition n'a pu être appliquée que parce que les agissements de l'intéressé constituaient des infractions également avant juin 2004 (voir, a contrario, Veeber c. Estonie (no 2), no 45771/99, §§ 37-38, CEDH 2003-I), et ce - comme l'ont constaté le procureur et les tribunaux - en vertu des articles 197a et 221 du code pénal.

  Cette condition se trouve remplie lorsque le justiciable peut savoir, à partir du libellé de la disposition pertinente et, au besoin, à l'aide de son interprétation par les tribunaux, quels actes et omissions engagent sa responsabilité pénale (Veeber c. Estonie (no 2), no 45771/99, § 31, CEDH 2003-I).

  A mon avis, il ne suffisait pas que les faits commis avant le 1er juin 2004 fussent punissables selon une loi quelconque en vigueur à cette époque (condition nécessaire selon l'arrêt Veeber c. Estonie (no 2), no 45771/99, § 38, CEDH 2003-I).

• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 59552/08

  [FRE]

  (b) a "continuous" criminal offence (pokracující trestný cin, fortgesetzte Handlung, infraction continuée, reato continuato), defined as an offence consisting of several acts all of which contain the elements of the same (or similar) offence committed over a certain period of time - such as the intentional, continuous and large-scale concealment of taxable amounts that was in issue in the case of Veeber v. Estonia (no. 2) (no. 45771/99, ECHR 2003-I).
• EGMR, 10.02.2004 - 55103/00

  Anwendung des Rückwirkungsverbotes auf Dauerdelikte (Gesetzlichkeitsprinzip; …

  Rn. 26 26. The Court observes at the outset that the present case is similar to that of Veeber v. Estonia (no. 2) (no. 45771/99, ECHR 2003-I) in which it found a violation of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention.

• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 15065/07

  [ENG]

  This requirement is satisfied where the individual can know from the wording of the relevant provision and, if need be, with the assistance of the courts" interpretation of it, what acts and omissions will make him criminally liable (see Veeber v. Estonia (no. 2), no. 45771/99, § 31, ECHR 2003-I).
• EGMR, 13.09.2007 - 16382/03

  BOTA c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour rappelle que l'article 7 de la Convention consacre, de manière générale, le principe de la légalité des délits et des peines (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege) et prohibe, en particulier, l'application rétroactive du droit pénal lorsqu'elle s'opère au détriment de l'accusé (Kokkinakis c. Grèce, arrêt du 25 mai 1993, série A no 260-A, p. 22, § 52 et Veeber c. Estonie (no 2), no 45771/99, § 31, CEDH 2003-I).
• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 12157/05

  LIIVIK v. ESTONIA

  Reference was also made to the interpretation of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention by the European Court of Human Rights, according to which the necessary elements of a criminal offence had to be clearly defined in law (see Veeber v. Estonia (no. 2), no. 45771/99, § 31, ECHR 2003-I).
• EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 13249/02

  TAAL v. ESTONIA

  The Government was of the opinion that in the event that the Court were to find a violation of the applicant's rights under Article 6 of the Convention, it could be reasonable to award him some non-pecuniary compensation, which, however, should not exceed EUR 2, 000, the award made in the case of Veeber v. Estonia (no. 2) (no. 45771/99, § 46, ECHR 2003-I).
• EGMR - 29902/20 (anhängig)

  PERRONE v. ITALY and 1 other application

  29295/95 and 29363/95, §§ 31-37, ECHR 2001-II; and Veeber v. Estonia (no. 2), no. 45771/99, § 30-39, ECHR 2003-I)? In particular, were the elements of the offences, including the "tempus commissi delicti", clearly set out in the indictment?.