Criminal specificity principle (Liechtenstein)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The principle of certainty in Liechtenstein criminal law means that there may be no punishment without a law ( nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege ). The criminal liability of an act must be clearly defined by law. Gaps must not an accused person to the detriment designed to be otherwise is possibly z. B. a violation according to Art 7  ECHR (no punishment without law). Likewise, criminal laws can only have a very limited retroactive effect ( prohibition of retroactive effects ).

Statutory regulations must therefore meet the following criteria:

  • they have to show which specific actions are punishable (clarity requirement).
  • the law must also be accessible (accessibility requirement, publication requirement), and
  • give those subject to the norm a clear idea of ​​what consequences are associated with a certain act (foreseeability requirement).

The use of legal presumptions (see presumption of innocence versus presumption of guilt ) and indefinite legal terms is not fundamentally excluded, but it must be possible to clearly assign them to a specific provision.

Principle of certainty in administrative criminal law

The principle of specificity in Liechtenstein administrative criminal law is based on the principle of specificity under constitutional law and the ECHR , which has constitutional status, and is therefore also fully applicable to administrative criminal law. According to the Criminal Law Adjustment Act (StRAG), the provisions of the General Part of the Criminal Code also apply to the subsidiary criminal laws, thus also to administrative criminal law.

See also

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ See: Article 33, Paragraph 2 of the State Constitution: “ Penalties may only be threatened or imposed in accordance with the law ” in conjunction with Section 1, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code and Article 7 of the  ECHR .
  2. ↑ See also: Diethelm Kienapfel : Criminal Law General Part , 4th Edition, Vienna 1991 Manz Verlag, p. 10.
  3. ↑ EGMR Yearbook 17 (1974), 228, 290; ECHR of April 26, 1979, A-30 - Sunday Times v United Kingdom , A-130 - Olsson v Sweden , A-316 - Miloslavsky v United Kingdom; ECJ Coll. 1990 - Vandemoortele NV v Commission .
  4. ↑ ECHR of November 15, 1996 - Cantoni v France
  5. ↑ LGBl 38/1988.