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]
Administrative law is a division of law governing the activities of executive ... which includes a principle of legal certainty and the principle of non-retroactivity.
Topics concerning ex post facto law, also known as retrospective laws or laws in mitius: laws which act as if they in effect before they were issued. Subcategories This category has the following 2 subcategories, out of 2 total.
The principle of non-retroactivity means that a past role of a confidential collaborator (informant) is alone as such inadmissible from the beginning for criminal prosecution or conviction, thus, lustration allows at least to bring such past collaborators to moral responsibility by making the public opinion aware of the established outcomes ...
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 603 U.S. 799 (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case about the statute of limitations for judicial review of federal agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.
In law, ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"), [1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat ("ignorance of law excuses no one"), [2] is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content.
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.