CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mai 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   Communicated on 2 May 2017   FIRST SECTION Application nos. 24705/16 and 24818/16 Paolo BERARDI and Davide MULARONI against San Marino lodged on 26 April 2016   The facts and complaints in these applications have been summarised in the Court’s decision, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS 1.     Did the judgment of the Judge of Criminal Appeals of 12   January 2016 violate the first and the second applicants’ right not to be punished without law under Article 7 of the Convention? In particular, was Article   373 of the Criminal Code, as amended by Article 79 (1) of Law No.   92 of 17 June 2008 applied retroactively in the first and second applicants’ case?   2.     Did the old formula of Article 373 of the Criminal Code (prior to the amendments of 2008) applied in conjunction with Article 50 of the Criminal Code provide for a more lenient penalty?