Abstract

The European Court of Human Rights has applied the principle of foreseeability (lex certa and lex stricta) on many occasions to determine whether a person could have foreseen at the time of the act that the act matches the description of an offence in a criminal-law provision and is therefore punishable. This raises a question that has been decisive for the outcome of many cases: how can one ascertain whether the wording for an offence is sufficiently clear? The article examines the guidelines set forth by the European Court of Human Rights for the use of the principle of foreseeability and whether it is possible to speak of a standard on the basis of the case law for the wording for an offence and the associated interpretation, in aims of ensuring compliance with the principle. Also discussed are the problems that have arisen in connection with the issue and what questions have yet to be answered. Proceeding from the case law, the author offers conclusions as to what could form a basis for determining whether a person should have foreseen liability and punishment incurred via commission of the act in question.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.