Part II

No one may be convicted of an act or omission that, at the time it was committed, did not constitute a crime under national or international law. Furthermore, no penalty more severe than that which was applicable at the time the crime was committed may be imposed. Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights generally enshrines the principle of legality of offenses and penalties (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege) and specifically prohibits the retroactive application of criminal law when such application is to the detriment of the accused. While it specifically prohibits extending the application of the elements of a crime to acts that were not previously considered criminal offenses, the article also requires that criminal law not be applied expansively to the detriment of the accused, for example, by analogy. The consequence is that the law must clearly define offenses and the penalties they entail. This condition is met when the individual subject to the law can determine, based on the text of a relevant provision and, if necessary, with the aid of the courts’ interpretation, which acts or omissions give rise to criminal liability. With regard to the concept of a law that defines criminal offenses and prescribes the applicable penalties, it should be noted that Article 7(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights uses the term as an independent concept, as explained in the Court’s case law.

The European Court has held that the legal term (droit, law) used in Article 7(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights corresponds to the concept of “law” and encompasses both statutory legal norms and those derived from case law. For a norm to be considered a law, the following conditions must be met: the norm must be accessible, clear, and predictable.

Keywords: nullum crimen, nulla poena, sine lege, law, accessibility of the norm, and predictability of the norm