Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=12.07.2007&Aktenzeichen=74613%2F01
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 11:27:12
Document Index: 512797319

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 29', 'Art. 29', 'art. 6', 'art. 7', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 7', '§ 109', '§ 34', '§ 42', '§ 68', '§ 36', '§ 34', '§ 50', '§ 45', '§ 101', '§ 185', '§ 100', '§ 138', '§ 68', '§ 50', '§ 85', '§ 101', '§ 69', '§ 114', '§ 65', '§ 61', '§ 39', '§ 63', '§ 75', '§ 50', '§ 109', 'Art. 6']

EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 74613/01 - dejure.org
JORGIC c. ALLEMAGNE
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3 MRK
Partiellement irrecevable Non-violation des art. 6-1 ou 5-1 Non-violation de l'art. 7 (französisch)
Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 6-1 or 5-1 No violation of Art. 7 (englisch)
This approach did not amount to a sudden and unforeseeable change in case-law (see mutatis mutandis, Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, §§ 109-13, ECHR 2007-III, and contrast Pessino v. France, no. 40403/02, §§ 34-36, 10 October 2006), and could not be regarded as an extension of the scope of a criminal statute by analogy (contrast Karademirci and Others v. Turkey, nos. 37096/97 and 37101/97, § 42, ECHR 2005-I).
[45] Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 68, ECHR 2007-III.
Article 7 of the Convention cannot be read as outlawing the gradual clarification of the rules of criminal liability through judicial interpretation from case to case, provided that the resultant development is consistent with the essence of the offence and could reasonably be foreseen (see S.W. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, § 36, Series A no. 335-B; C.R. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, § 34, Series A no. 335-C; Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 50, ECHR 2001-II; K.-H.W. v. Germany, cited above, § 45; Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 101, ECHR 2007-III; and Kononov, cited above, § 185).
In the Jorgic case (Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, 12 July 2007), the Court was confronted with two possible interpretations of the term "to destroy" in the definition of the crime of genocide and the Court examined the compatibility of the applicant's conviction, on the basis of the wider interpretation of that term, with Article 7 of the Convention.
Indeed, the Court's own case-law, notably in the Jorgic v. Germany decision (no. 74613/01, ECHR 2007-III), reflects this reality.
The Court reiterates that Article 7 embodies the principle nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, and the requirement that criminal law must not be extensively construed to the detriment of an accused, for instance by analogy (see Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 100, ECHR 2007-III (extracts), or Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 138, ECHR 2008).
La Cour a reconnu que l'interdiction du génocide constituait une règle de jus cogens dans l'arrêt Jorgic c. Allemagne (no 74613/01, § 68, CEDH 2007-III).
Dies gilt auch, wenn das innerstaatliche Recht auf Bestimmungen des allgemeinen Völkerrechts oder internationaler Übereinkünfte verweist (Markovic und andere ./. Italien [GK], Nr. 1398/03, Rdnr. 108, CEDH 2006-XIV, und entsprechend J. ./. Deutschland, Nr. 74613/01, Rdnr. 70, CEDH 2007-IX (Auszüge)).
Article 7 of the Convention cannot be read as outlawing the gradual clarification of the rules of criminal liability through judicial interpretation from case to case, provided that the resultant development is consistent with the essence of the offence and could reasonably be foreseen (Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 50, ECHR 2001-II; K.-H.W. v. Germany [GC], no. 37201/97, § 85, ECHR 2001-II (extracts); Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, §§ 101-109, 12 July 2007; and Korbely v. Hungary [GC], no. 9174/02, §§ 69-71, 19 September 2008).".
In a number of cases the Court held that it could not question the interpretation of domestic law by a domestic court unless there had been a "flagrant violation" or a "flagrant breach" of domestic law (see, specifically with respect to the requirement that a tribunal must be established "by law", Lavents, cited above, § 114; Accardi and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 30598/02, ECHR 2005-II; Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 65, ECHR 2007-III; DMD GROUP, a.s., v. Slovakia, no. 19334/03, § 61, 5 October 2010; Kontalexis v. Greece, no. 59000/08, § 39, 31 May 2011; ? orgic v. Serbia, no. 34973/06, § 63, 3 November 2011; Biagioli v. San Marino (dec.), no. 8162/13, § 75, 8 July 2014; and Miracle Europe Kft v. Hungary, no. 57774/13, § 50, 12 January 2016; see also paragraph 100 of the present judgment).
Furthermore, the Court reiterates that an interpretation of the scope of the offence which was - as in the present case - consistent with the essence of that offence, must, as a rule, be considered as foreseeable (see Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 109, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).
25 - So zu Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK EGMR, Urteil vom 12. Juli 2007, Jorgic/Deutschland (Beschwerde 74613/01, Rn. 64 und 65).
EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 28859/16
DRÄ-LINGAS v. LITHUANIA
EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 19334/03
EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 68273/14
GESTUR JÓNSSON AND RAGNAR HALLDÓR HALL v. ICELAND
EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 31264/04
EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 39279/05