The Convention (European) for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms enshrines in art. 7 the person's right not to be convicted other than in accordance with the laws that were in force on the date on which the offense was committed, regulating thus the non-retroactivity of criminal law. At the same time, the Strasbourg court stated that art. 7 must be interpreted and applied so as to ensure effective protection against arbitrary prosecutions, convictions and sanctions. Therefore, the European Court of Human Rights steps up to provide the individual with protection not only from the retroactive application of the more severe criminal law, but also from the retroactive application of the interpretation by the jurisprudence of the rules of law, if in this the individual faces harder consequences and at the time of the offense, he was unable to foresee such a modification. Thus, the inequitable consequences of the retroactive application of jurisprudential interpretation in malam partem are removed, since the individual could not foresee, at the time of his action or inaction, that they are facts that attract criminal liability. Analyzing this problem like any other succession of "laws" in time, the author believes that in those cases in which the unpredictable jurisprudential interpretation of the law produces effects in malam partem, the solutions that can be disposed, so as to comply with art. 7 of the above mentioned convention, are either retaining the incidence of provisions regarding the enforcement of the more favorable criminal law, or acquittal on the ground that the act is not stipulated by the criminal law (understood in the European sense).
展开▼
