{"id":166998,"date":"2026-02-08T18:15:36","date_gmt":"2026-02-08T18:15:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/?page_id=166998"},"modified":"2026-04-13T19:07:31","modified_gmt":"2026-04-13T19:07:31","slug":"the-principle-of-legality-in-criminal-law","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/adjudication\/the-principle-of-legality-in-criminal-law\/","title":{"rendered":"O Princ\u00edpio da Legalidade em Direito Penal"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"wpb-content-wrapper\"><div data-sticky class=\"data-sticky\"><div data-parent=\"true\" class=\"vc_row scroll-trigger-el scroll-trigger-el-mobile scroll-trigger-el-tablet scroll-trigger-parent has-bg need-focus style-back_color-309354-bg parallax-move row-container\"data-sticky-trigger=\"scroll-trigger\" data-anim-state=\"end\" data-anim-sticky=\"\" data-anim-els=\"\" data-anim-x=\"0\" data-anim-y=\"0\" data-anim-blur=\"0\" data-anim-perspective=\"0\" data-anim-rotate=\"0\" data-anim-origin=\"center\" data-anim-target=\"el\" data-anim-scale=\"100\" data-anim-scale-step=\"\" data-anim-opacity=\"0\" data-anim-radius=\"\" data-anim-radius-unit=\"\" data-anim-start=\"\" data-anim-top=\"0\" data-anim-bottom=\"85\" data-anim-safe=\"\" data-anim-ease=\"none\" data-parallax-move=\"3\" id=\"row-unique-0\"><div class=\"row-background background-element\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"background-wrapper\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"background-inner\" style=\"background-image: url(https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/TEDH.jpg);background-repeat: no-repeat;background-position: center center;background-attachment: scroll;background-size: cover;\"><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"block-bg-overlay block-bg-blend-mode for-ie style-overlay_color-309354-bg\" style=\"opacity: 0.5;\"><\/div><div class=\"block-bg-overlay block-bg-blend-mode not-ie style-overlay_color-309354-bg\" style=\"mix-blend-mode:multiply;\"><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div><div class=\"row exa-top-padding exa-bottom-padding exa-h-padding full-width row-parent\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-bottom pos-center align_left column_parent col-lg-12 double-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-spec style-dark\"  ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-next-to-blend row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-left align_left column_child col-lg-9 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-spec style-dark\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"vc_custom_heading_wrap \"><div class=\"heading-text el-text\" ><h3 class=\"font-161747 custom fontspace-111509 font-weight-300 fontsize-167084-custom font-size-custom\" ><span>Adjudication<\/span><\/h3><\/div><div class=\"clear\"><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_custom_heading_wrap \"><div class=\"heading-text el-text\" ><h6 class=\"h2 text-color-xsdn-color\" ><span>THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY IN CRIMINAL LAW<\/span><\/h6><\/div><div class=\"clear\"><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-3 tablet-hidden mobile-hidden single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><script id=\"script-row-unique-0\" data-row=\"script-row-unique-0\" type=\"text\/javascript\" class=\"vc_controls\">UNCODE.initRow(document.getElementById(\"row-unique-0\"));<\/script><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div data-parent=\"true\" class=\"vc_row has-bg need-focus style-color-xsdn-bg row-next-to-blend row-container\" id=\"row-unique-1\"><div class=\"row single-top-padding single-bottom-padding single-h-padding full-width row-parent\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_parent col-lg-12 double-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\"  ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell quad-block-padding style-color-xsdn-bg has-bg  unradius-std\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"uncode-accordion wpb_accordion wpb_content_element  sign-size-rg w-border\" data-collapsible=\"no\" data-target=\"\" data-active-tab=\"0\" >\n\t\t<div class=\"panel-group wpb_wrapper wpb_accordion_wrapper\" id=\"accordion_884142663\" data-no-toggle=\"1\">\n\n<div class=\"panel panel-default wpb_accordion_section group  no-block-padding\"><div class=\"panel-heading wpb_accordion_header ui-accordion-header\"><p class=\"panel-title font-weight- text-   icon-size-rg\"><a data-toggle=\"collapse\" data-parent=\"#accordion_884142663\" href=\"#d21d5937-3bb0-215556789140011555679505952d6a2-ca1e\"><span>Grand Chamber Judgments<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/div><div id=\"d21d5937-3bb0-215556789140011555679505952d6a2-ca1e\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse\"><div class=\"panel-body wpb_accordion_content ui-accordion-content half-internal-gutter single-block-padding\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>G.I.E.M. S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ITALY (applications nos. 1828\/06 and 2 others, judgment of 28 June 2018): the relationship between the convention and the constitution, the \u201cinterpretative authority\u201d of the Court\u2019s judgment, multilevel constitutionalism, a Convention-oriented constitutional theory of fundamental rights, the efficiency-interests-oriented approach to criminal law, confiscation of immovable property as a penalty for unlawful site development, the substantive nature of the statute of limitations.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-184525%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-205411 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>VASILIAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA (application no. 35343\/05, judgment of 20 December 2015): Soviet genocide of Lithuanian nation, partisans as relevant part of the nation, retroactive application of penal law.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-158290%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-186768 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>ROHLENA v. CZECH REPUBLIC (application no. 59552\/08, judgment 27 January 2015): the difference between a continuing offence (Dauerdelikt, infraction continue, reato permanente) and a continuous offence (fortgesetzte Handlung, infraction continu\u00e9e, reato continuato); the difference between consecutive or cumulative sentence (peine cumul\u00e9e ou peines cons\u00e9cutives), concurrent sentence (peine confondue ou peines simultan\u00e9es) and aggregate, consolidated or overall sentence (peine globale ou peine d\u2019ensemble); broad consensus arising out of a long European tradition on objective (actus reus) and subjective (mens rea) elements of a continuous offence.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-151051%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-105864 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>MAKTOUF AND DAMYANOVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA (applications nos. 2312\/08 and 34179\/08, judgment of 18 July 2013): retroactive application of lex mitior, general principles of law as source of penal law, arbitrary and discriminatory sentencing, arbitrary transfer of case file, principle of natural or legal judge.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-122716%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-110963 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"panel panel-default wpb_accordion_section group  no-block-padding\"><div class=\"panel-heading wpb_accordion_header ui-accordion-header\"><p class=\"panel-title font-weight- text-   icon-size-rg\"><a data-toggle=\"collapse\" data-parent=\"#accordion_884142663\" href=\"#9346230d-a835-915556789140011555679505952d6a2-ca1e\"><span>Section II Judgments<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/div><div id=\"9346230d-a835-915556789140011555679505952d6a2-ca1e\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse\"><div class=\"panel-body wpb_accordion_content ui-accordion-content half-internal-gutter single-block-padding\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>VARVARA v. ITALY (application no. 17475\/09, judgment of 29 October 2013): State obligation to confiscate the instruments and proceeds of crime, disproportionate confiscation on grounds of unlawful land development.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-128094%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-891830 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>LIUIZA v. LITHUANIA (application no. 13472\/06, judgment of 31 July 2012): nulla poena sine lege stricta in the field of security measures, retroactive application of the more severe security measure.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-112566%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-188876 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>HIDIR DURMAZ v. TURKEY (no. 2) (application no. 26291\/05, judgment of 24 April 2012): retroactive application of more lenient penal law including to res judicata cases, delay in the application of a more lenient penal law.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-105663%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-139581 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"panel panel-default wpb_accordion_section group  no-block-padding\"><div class=\"panel-heading wpb_accordion_header ui-accordion-header\"><p class=\"panel-title font-weight- text-   icon-size-rg\"><a data-toggle=\"collapse\" data-parent=\"#accordion_884142663\" href=\"#1768653103440-4-8\"><span>Section IV Judgments<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/div><div id=\"1768653103440-4-8\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse\"><div class=\"panel-body wpb_accordion_content ui-accordion-content half-internal-gutter single-block-padding\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>ROLA v. SLOVENIA (application nos. 12096\/14 and 39335\/16, judgment of 4 June 2019): retrospective application of revocation of a licence to act as a judicial liquidator.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-193493%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-954284 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\t\t<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><script id=\"script-row-unique-1\" data-row=\"script-row-unique-1\" type=\"text\/javascript\" class=\"vc_controls\">UNCODE.initRow(document.getElementById(\"row-unique-1\"));<\/script><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"AdjudicationTHE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY IN CRIMINAL LAW Grand Chamber Judgments G.I.E.M. S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ITALY (applications nos. 1828\/06 and [...]","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":166607,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-166998","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/166998","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=166998"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/166998\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":167607,"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/166998\/revisions\/167607"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/166607"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166998"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}