| spelling |
oapen-20.500.12657-556902022-06-01T03:49:20Z Legalità e mutamenti giurisprudenziali nel diritto penale Galante, Andrea criminal law legality principle adjudicative retroactivity prospective overruling mistake of law foreseeability bic Book Industry Communication::L Law::LN Laws of Specific jurisdictions::LNF Criminal law & procedure Over the past several years, constitutional, supreme and human rights courts had to deal with the problem of adjudicative retroactivity in criminal law with ever-greater intensity. Following the case Contrada c. Italie, in which the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of the legality principle under Art. 7 due to an unforeseeable retrospective application of a judicially created criminal offence, the issue of citizens’ safeguard upon an overruling occurrence is even more in the foreground. What temporal effect is best given to an unfavorable overruling decision? Should its application be limited to acts and conduct occurring after it or should it operate retrospectively and subject to criminal responsibility those who, acting in reliance on an earlier decision, did only what courts declared to be lawful? A limited prohibition of adjudicative retroactivity in criminal law seems to help foster an up-to-date relationship between the individual and the state. 2022-05-31T10:37:34Z 2022-05-31T10:37:34Z 2021 book ONIX_20220531_9788855183680_974 2612-8020 9788855183680 9788855183673 9788855183697 https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/55690 ita Premio Tesi di Dottorato application/pdf Attribution 4.0 International 9788855183680.pdf https://books.fupress.com/isbn/9788855183680 Firenze University Press 10.36253/978-88-5518-368-0 Over the past several years, constitutional, supreme and human rights courts had to deal with the problem of adjudicative retroactivity in criminal law with ever-greater intensity. Following the case Contrada c. Italie, in which the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of the legality principle under Art. 7 due to an unforeseeable retrospective application of a judicially created criminal offence, the issue of citizens’ safeguard upon an overruling occurrence is even more in the foreground. What temporal effect is best given to an unfavorable overruling decision? Should its application be limited to acts and conduct occurring after it or should it operate retrospectively and subject to criminal responsibility those who, acting in reliance on an earlier decision, did only what courts declared to be lawful? A limited prohibition of adjudicative retroactivity in criminal law seems to help foster an up-to-date relationship between the individual and the state. 10.36253/978-88-5518-368-0 bf65d21a-78e5-4ba2-983a-dbfa90962870 9788855183680 9788855183673 9788855183697 90 288 Florence open access
|
| description |
Over the past several years, constitutional, supreme and human rights courts had to deal with the problem of adjudicative retroactivity in criminal law with ever-greater intensity. Following the case Contrada c. Italie, in which the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of the legality principle under Art. 7 due to an unforeseeable retrospective application of a judicially created criminal offence, the issue of citizens’ safeguard upon an overruling occurrence is even more in the foreground. What temporal effect is best given to an unfavorable overruling decision? Should its application be limited to acts and conduct occurring after it or should it operate retrospectively and subject to criminal responsibility those who, acting in reliance on an earlier decision, did only what courts declared to be lawful? A limited prohibition of adjudicative retroactivity in criminal law seems to help foster an up-to-date relationship between the individual and the state.
|
