Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The principle of non-retroactivity is widely recognized for international laws such as treaties, [1] although treaties can have retroactive effect if the parties so intend. [2] It is also widely recognized in criminal law, at least to the extent of prohibiting criminal sanctions that were not in place at the time of the crime.
Article 11 of preliminary provisions to the Italian Civil Code and Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Statute of taxpayer's rights, prohibit retroactive laws on principle: such provisions can be derogated, however, by acts having force of the ordinary law; on the contrary, non-retroactivity in criminal law is thought absolute. [32]
Russia (2013), the court found no violation of the convention regarding Russian investigations into the 1940 Katyn massacre, but this ruling was on the principle of non-retroactivity because the massacre happened before the ECHR was drafted. [25] [26] Legal scholar James A. Sweeney criticized the ECtHR's approach to right-to-truth cases:
Enrolled bill rule; Enterprise liability; Equal authenticity rule; Equity (law) Erga omnes; Erie doctrine; Essential facilities doctrine; Estoppel; Evasion (law) Everything which is not forbidden is allowed; Ex turpi causa non oritur actio; Exceptional circumstances; Exclusionary rule; Executive privilege; Exhausted combination doctrine ...
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that its previous ruling in Miller v. Alabama (2012), [1] that a mandatory life sentence without parole should not apply to persons convicted of murder committed as juveniles, should be applied retroactively.
Several merchant groups challenged the rule in 2011 in NACS v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System , saying that the fee cap had been set too high. The district judge ruled that the Board had not reasonably complied with the Durbin amendment , but the D.C. Circuit reversed on appeal, upholding the regulation as within the agency's ...
For example, in Opel Austria v Council [1997] ECR II-39 Case T-115/94 The European Court of Justice held that European Council Regulation did not come into effect until it had been published. Opel had brought the action on the basis that the regulation in question violated the principle of legal certainty because it legally came into effect ...
The Court reasoned that selective application of new rules violated the principle of treating similarly situated defendants on an equal basis. The Court also refused to make an exception to the rule of retroactivity in cases where there was a "clean break" with past precedent.