CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 novembre 1996

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. November 1996 Cantoni v. France - 17862/91 Judgment 15.11.1996 [GC] Article 7 Article 7-1 Nulla poena sine lege Nullum crimen sine lege Criminal conviction of the manager of a supermarket for unlawfully selling pharmaceutical products: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] Reiteration of the case-law: the term "law" in Article 7 alludes to same concept as when other Articles of the Convention use that term - concept comprises statutory law and case-law and implies qualitative requirements, notably those of accessibility and foreseeability. Fact that Article L. 511 of the Public Health Code was based almost word for word on Community Directive 65 ⁄ 65 did not remove it from ambit of Article   7 of the Convention. Legislative technique of categorisation often leaves grey areas at the fringes of definition - penumbra of doubt in relation to borderline cases not in itself enough to make a provision incompatible with Article   7, provided that it proves to be sufficiently clear in large majority of cases. Case-law of the lower courts: there were divergencies - applicant had not indicated whether decisions classified products as medicinal products by virtue of their function or by virtue of their presentation, and, in the latter case, whether presentation had been the same on each occasion - even assuming that decisions dealt with identical cases, questions before lower courts principally questions of fact. Court of Cassation had always either confirmed decisions of courts below classifying parapharmaceutical products as medicinal or quashed decisions denying that classification; it had never upheld a decision by a lower court finding that such a product fell outside notion of medicinal product. Foreseeability of the law: requirement may be satisfied even if person concerned has to take appropriate advice to assess, to a degree reasonable in the circumstances, consequences that a given act may entail. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes