FALSE QUESTION: The principle of legality, also©known as the principle of legal deference, requires that human behavior regulated by law be disciplined by law. Also called the principle of strict legality, it comes from the Magna Carta of 1215 by John Landless. According to him, the law, and only the law, is the immediate formal source of criminal law, so that it alone can create crimes and determine the respective penalties. Second, even if it were to be assumed that the expression “ipso jure” used in the wording of the general principle of legality (art. 5, II) necessarily refers to formal law, it would not be true that in all constitutional provisions in which there is a “legal reservation”, it is only a reinforcement of the principle of legality or even an unnecessary order. That would be the case only in cases where the constitutional provision containing a “legal reservation clause” is a relevant rule governing the conduct of individuals, that is to say, a rule from which the formation of obligations to do or refrain from doing for individuals is derived. In all other cases, it is not possible to speak of overlaps, even if the principle of legality implies the requirement of formal law. […] The existence of specific constitutional provisions which give rise to express hypotheses of legal reservation is justified precisely by the fact that it is only on the basis of the principle of legality (Article 5(II)) that the creation of certain obligations for individuals by means of legal acts is not prohibited. Using some of the examples listed above, we found that one could never speak of “overlap,” “mere reinforcement,” or “useless commandment” compared to the nineteenth-century rule of work. § 37 (“It is only by a special law that the constitution of a joint-stock company, a semi-public company and a foundation may be approved by the authority..”) or article 173, paragraph 1, (“The law shall determine the legal form of a public limited company, a semi-public company and its subsidiaries engaged in economic activity”). These examples, in which we undoubtedly have constitutional provisions with an express “legal restriction” clause, are not included in the content of the principle of legality (art. 5, II), regardless of the interpretation of the word “law” used in its statement, since they do not contain in their ordinances any obligation to “do” or “not to do”. The criminal law norms of the pre-incãpio of the relative reservation of rights apply absolutely: the law defines the foundations, reasons or general legal regime of the regulation + regulation© by another normative source of a sub-legal nature.
The principle of legality has a broader scope than the principle of legal reserve. While the first is to submit to all normative types drawn up in accordance with the constitutional legislative procedure (laws in the broad sense), the principle of reservation of rights relates only to certain material areas subject exclusively to the treatment of the legislative power (laws in the strict sense). If the Constitution requires that its power be fully regulated by law in the formal sense, this is an absolute legal reservation; If, although it requires the adoption of such a law, it can only determine the parameters of action to be supplemented by an act, this is a relative legal reservation. The principle of legality laid down in Article 5(II) of CR/88 therefore means that no one is obliged to do or abstain from doing otherwise than ipso jure. Therefore, the obligations of individuals can only be created by normative means generated in accordance with an appropriate legislative procedure. CAREFUL! The open criminal type weakens the guarantee function of the criminal type, as it can take different forms at the time of interpretation. Nevertheless, the open criminal type does not circumvent legality and tax activity. 5°.
[…] XXXIX – there is no crime without a prior law defining it, nor punishment without prior legal commentary; It also makes it possible to analyze the two types of legal reservation according to the direction of the dominant doctrine: we have already written here on the blog of the Master Juris on the main penal principles. The idea of this article, however, is to analyze in more detail the constitutional principle of legal restriction. The Disarmament Act sets a deadline for the supply of illegal weapons to the authorities in order to erase the criminal responsibility of these owners. After the original deadline, an extension was granted by means of an interim measure. The question of the validity of the measure reached the Supreme Court, which ruled that the law was not illegal because it was more favourable. The indoctriator solves the difficulty of differentiation on the basis of positive constitutional law in view of the power that the Constitution grants to the legislative power.