eu-charter

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Article 49 - Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties

Article 49 - Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties

1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national law or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed. If, subsequent to the commission of a criminal offence, the law provides for a lighter penalty, that shall be applicable.
2. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles recognised by the community of nations.
3. The severity of penalties must not be disproportionate to the criminal offence.

  • Text:

    This Article follows the traditional rule of the non-retroactivity of laws and criminal sanctions. There has been added the rule of the retroactivity of a more lenient penal law, which exists in a number of Member States and which features in Article 15 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

    Article 7 of the ECHR is worded as follows:

    ‘1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.
    2. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.’

    In paragraph 2, the reference to ‘civilised’ nations has been deleted; this does not change the meaning of this paragraph, which refers to crimes against humanity in particular. In accordance with Article 52(3), the right guaranteed here therefore has the same meaning and scope as the right guaranteed by the ECHR.

    Paragraph 3 states the general principle of proportionality between penalties and criminal offences which is enshrined in the common constitutional traditions of the Member States and in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the Communities.

    Source:
    Official Journal of the European Union C 303/17 - 14.12.2007
    Preamble - Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights:
    These explanations were originally prepared under the authority of the Praesidium of the Convention which drafted the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Although they do not as such have the status of law, they are a valuable tool of interpretation intended to clarify the provisions of the Charter.
  • The Italian Court of Cassation and the Appeals Court of Milan
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    National Court/Tribunal
    Deciding body:
    Constitutional Court
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Justice, freedom and security
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
  • Criminal proceedings against M.A.S. and M.B.
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    Court of Justice of the European Union
    Deciding body:
    Court (Grand Chamber
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Justice, freedom and security
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:EU:C:2017:936
  • Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky v BB construct s.r.o.
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    Court of Justice of the European Union
    Deciding body:
    Court (Ninth Chamber)
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Taxation
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:EU:C:2017:820
  • Criminal proceedings against Nikolay Kolev and Others
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    Court of Justice of the European Union
    Deciding body:
    Advocate General
    Type:
    Opinion
    Policy area:
    Justice, freedom and security
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:EU:C:2017:257
  • Two private citizens v the Public Revenue Agencies (Agenzia delle Entrate)
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    National Court/Tribunal
    Deciding body:
    Court of Cassation
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Taxation
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
  • Gianpaolo Paoletti and Others v. Procura della Repubblica
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    Court of Justice of the European Union
    Deciding body:
    Court (Fifth Chamber)
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Justice, freedom and security
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:EU:C:2016:748
  • Merck v. Commission
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    Court of Justice of the European Union
    Deciding body:
    GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber)
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Competition
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:EU:T:2016:452
  • H. Lundbeck and Others v. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    Court of Justice of the European Union
    Deciding body:
    GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber)
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Competition
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:EU:T:2016:449
  • JZ v. Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź Śródmieście
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    Court of Justice of the European Union
    Deciding body:
    Court (Fourth Chamber)
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Justice, freedom and security
    ECLI (European case law identifier):
    ECLI:EU:C:2016:610
  • Telecom Italia v. the Antitrust Authority
    Decision date:
    Deciding body type:
    National Court/Tribunal
    Deciding body:
    Lazio Regional Administrative Tribunal
    Type:
    Decision
    Policy area:
    Competition
    ECLI (European case law identifier):

0 results found

0 results found

0 results found

0 results found