The Test Applied by the European Courts of Human Rights in the Context of the Principle of Legality of the Crime and Punishment
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54481/Keywords:
crime, punishment, criminal law, quality of law, predictability of law, proportionalityAbstract
When the European Court of Human Rights finds an interference with a right guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court checks, first of all, whether the interference is provided for by law. If the answer is yes, then the European Court of Human Rights analyzes whether the interference pursues one or more legitimate aims. Again, if the answer is yes, ultimately the European Court of Human Rights checks whether the interference is necessary in a democratic society. This analysis algorithm is also called “triple test”. These steps are followed in most cases. However, this study shows that in the context of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (article which guarantees the principle of the legality of the crime and the legality of the punishment), the Court of Strasbourg applies, in essence, the test of the quality of the law, with some particularities.
References
1 Pentru o analiză aprofundată a articolului 7 din Convenția Europeană a Drepturilor Omului, a se vedea: Sara Paiusco. Nullum Crimen Sine Lege, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Foreseeability of the Law. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2021, p. 66 et seq.
2 Case of Baldassi and Others v. France, Applications no. 15271/16 and 6 others, Judgment of 11 June 2020, § 39. Disponibil: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-203213
3 A se vedea § 35 din Hotărârea nr. 39 din 21 decembrie 2021 privind excepţia de neconstituţionalitate a unor dispoziţii din articolul 335 alin. (1) din Codul penal (imprevizibilitatea expresiei „intereselor publice”) (sesizarea nr. 172g/2021). În: Monitorul oficial al Republicii Moldova nr. 325-333/232 din 31 decembrie 2021.
4 Ibidem, § 36.
5 Ibidem, §§ 37-38.
6 Case of Achour v. France, [GC], Application no. 67335/01, Judgment of 29 March 2006. Disponibil: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-72927; Case of Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2), [GC], Application no. 10249/03, Judgment of 17 September 2009. Disponibil: https://hudoc.echr. coe.int/eng?i=001-94135; Case of Koprivnikar v. Slovenia, Application no. 67503/13, Judgment of 24 January 2017. Disponibil: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-170456; Case of Jidic v. Romania, Application no. 45776/16, Judgment of 18 February 2020. Disponibil: https://hudoc. echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-201348; Case of Mørck Jensen v. Denmark, Application no. 60785/19, Judgment of 18 October 2022. Disponibil: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-219943
7 Case of Başkaya and Okçuoğlu v. Turkey, [GC], Judgment of 8 July 1999, §§ 42-43. Disponibil: https://t.ly/L1LyK. A se vedea și Case of Pantalon v. Croatia, Judgment of 19 November 2020, § 52. Disponibil: https://t.ly/GVb-c
8 Case of Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2), [GC], Application no. 10249/03, Judgment of 17 September 2009, §§ 110-113. Disponibil: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-94135
9 A se vedea § 24 din Decizia Curții Constituționale nr. 85 din 9.07.2018 de inadmisibilitate a sesizării nr. 97g/2018 privind excepţia de neconstituţionalitate a unor prevederi din articolul 64 alin. (3) din Codul penal. În: Monitorul oficial al Republicii Moldova nr. 430-439/170 din 23.11.2018.
10 A se vedea: Guide on Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, § 1 și jurisprudența Curții Europene citată acolo, 2024. Disponibil: https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_7_eng
11 Case of Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye, [GC], Application no. 15669/20, Judgment of 26 September 2023. Disponibil: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-227636
12 Case of Sacharuk v. Lithuania, Application no. 39300/18, Judgment of 23 April 2024, § 150. Disponibil: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-233215
13 Ibidem, § 147.
14 Case of Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania, [GC], Application no. 35343/05, Judgment of 20 October 2015, §§ 161-162. Disponibil: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-158290
15 Case of Parmak and Bakır v. Turkey, Applications nos. 22429/07 and 25195/07, Judgment of 3 December 2019. Disponibil: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-199075
16 Affaire Tristan c. République de Moldova, Requête no 13451/15, Arrêt, 4 juillet 2023. Disponibil: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-225651
17 Ibidem.
18 Case of Jorgic v. Germany, Application no. 74613/01, Judgment of 12 July 2007. Disponibil: https://t.ly/aamKx
19 Case of Norman v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 41387/17, Judgment of 6 July 2021. Disponibil: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-210874
20 Case of Bavčar v. Slovenia, Application no. 17053/20, Judgment of 7 September 2023. Disponibil: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-226432
21 Affaire Total S.A. et Vitol S.A. c. France, Requêtes nos. 34634/18 et 43546/18, Arrêt, 12 octobre 2023. Disponibil: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-228028
22 Case of Sacharuk v. Lithuania, Application no. 39300/18, Judgment of 23 April 2024. Disponibil: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-233215
23 Case of Saakashvili v. Georgia, Judgment of 23 May 2024, § 154. Disponibil: https://t.ly/wQlV1
24 Case of Bavčar v. Slovenia, Application no. 17053/20, Judgment of 7 September 2023, § 155, § 157. Disponibil: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-226432
25 Case of Jasuitis and Šimaitis v. Lithuania, Applications nos. 28186/19 and 29092/19, Judgment of 7 September 2023, §§ 116-124. Disponibil: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-229396
26 Case of Norman v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 41387/17, Judgment of 6 July 2021, § 88. Disponibil: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-210874
27 Teodor Papuc. Există o ierarhie a drepturilor omului în sistemul Convenţiei Europene a Drepturilor Omului? În: Valer Dorneanu și Mihai Poalelungi (coord.). Preeminența dreptului și controlul de constituționalitate între tradiție și modernitate. București: Hamangiu, 2018, p. 40. A se vedea și hotărârea Saakashvili v. Georgia din 23 mai 2024, § 154, caz în care Curtea a ținut cont de dreptul la viață atunci când a estimat previzibilitatea condamnării reclamantului (https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-233761).
28 Apud: Teodor Papuc. Există o ierarhie a drepturilor omului în sistemul Convenţiei Europene a Drepturilor Omului?, p. 41.
29 Case of Jasuitis and Šimaitis v. Lithuania, Applications nos. 28186/19 and 29092/19, Judgment of 7 September 2023, § 114. Disponibil: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-229396
30 Ibidem, § 122.
31 Ibidem.
32 Case of Sacharuk v. Lithuania, Application no. 39300/18, Judgment of 23 April 2024, § 158. Disponibil: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-233215
