Hoge Raad, 12-07-2011, BP6878, 10/05151 CW

12 juli 2011

Strafkamer

nr. 10/05151 CW

op het beroep in cassatie in het belang der wet van de Advocaat-Generaal bij de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden tegen een arrest van het Gerechtshof te Arnhem, Economische Kamer, nummer 21-000820-94, van 26 september 1994 in de zaak van:

[Verdachte], geboren te [geboorteplaats] op [geboortedatum] 1933.

3.2.2. Ter terechtzitting in hoger beroep is namens de verdachte aangevoerd dat het tenlastegelegde handelen zonder vergunning niet meer strafbaar is en dat te dezen sprake is van verandering van wetgeving in de zin van art. 1, tweede lid, Sr. Het Hof heeft dienaangaande overwogen en beslist:

"Door de raadsvrouw is aangevoerd, naar het hof dit betoog begrijpt, dat het (...) bewezenverklaarde feit niet strafbaar is op de in de pleitnota aangegeven gronden.

Vooropgesteld zij dat het bedrijf van verdachte nog gedurende een jaar na het van toepassing worden van het Besluit akkerbouwbedrijven milieubeheer vergunning-plichtig blijft, dat wil zeggen tot 1 april 1995. Vgl. artikel 4, eerste lid, van het Besluit en de Nota van Toelichting (Stb. 1994, 107, p. 52).

Tegenover het vervallen van de vergunningplicht met ingang van 1 april 1995 staat de invoering van een meldingsplicht voor bestaande bedrijven, die bovendien met ingang van 1 april 1995 dienen te voldoen aan de voorschriften die zijn opgenomen in de bij het Besluit behorende bijlage 1.

Blijkens de Nota van Toelichting (p. 35) vloeit het Besluit voort "uit de conclusie in het actieprogramma deregulering ruimtelijke ordening en milieubeheer (...), dat in het kader van de inmiddels ingetrokken Hinderwet de totstandkoming van voor alle tot een aangewezen categorie behorende inrichtingen geldende algemene regels met gelijktijdige opheffing van de vergunningplicht voor die inrichtingen afzonderlijk, dient te worden bevorderd.

Dit brengt een zekere centralisatie mee, daar de voorschriften die tot dusverre door het bevoegd gezag aan de vergunning waren verbonden, thans door de centrale overheid worden gegeven. Een neveneffect van de Algemene Maatregel van Bestuur zal zijn dat de beleidslasten welke thans zijn gemoeid met de vergunningverlening, in de toekomst zullen verschuiven naar het terrein van de handhaving.

Voorts vermeldt de Nota van Toelichting: "Het beslag op het justitiële apparaat zal voorzover het de handhaving betreft niet verminderen. Daarop kan zelfs een zwaarder accent komen te liggen. In het actieprogramma deregulering ruimtelijke ordening en milieubeheer is aangegeven dat de voordelen van de amvb's als de onderwerpelijke evident zijn: "meer zekerheid omtrent de inhoud van de regelgeving, geen procedures, dus geen vertraging, ruimte voor de lagere overheden om de achterstand bij de invoering van de Hinderwet snel in te halen en daarbij aandacht te schenken aan die bedrijven die werkelijk problemen veroorzaken".

Uit het bovenstaande volgt dat de regelgever met betrekking tot de strafwaardigheid van het bewezenverklaarde: het in werking hebben van een inrichting zonder vergunning, niet blijk heeft gegeven van een gewijzigd inzicht. De regelgever heeft slechts een procedurele wijziging ingevoerd met het oog op een voortvarende uitvoering van de milieuwetgeving, waarbij voor de omslachtige vergunningsprocedure een eenvoudige meldingsregeling in de plaats is gekomen, gekoppeld aan de verplichting om te voldoen aan de voorschriften in bijlage 1 van het Besluit.

Het betoog van de raadsvrouw wordt verworpen."

3.2.3. Opmerking verdient dat de Hoge Raad in zijn in deze zaak gewezen arrest van 13 februari 1996, LJN ZC9526, NJ 1996/502 heeft geoordeeld dat het Hof het verweer terecht heeft verworpen. Daartoe is in het bijzonder overwogen:

"De Wet milieubeheer en het op art. 8.40 van die Wet geënte Besluit zijn ingegeven door het streven naar verdere stroomlijning en integratie van het wetgevingsinstrumentarium op het gebied van het milieu, ten einde het beleid ten aanzien van het milieu en de handhaving van milieuvoorschriften doelmatiger te doen plaatsvinden. Met het Besluit is voor wat betreft de daarin genoemde categorieën bedrijven beoogd het stellen van de voorschriften die vóór de inwerkingtreding daarvan door het bevoegd gezag werden verbonden aan een vergunning als bedoeld in art. 8.1 Wm in handen te leggen van de centrale overheid. Daarbij heeft de wetgever de strafrechtelijke handhaving van die voorschriften niet willen prijsgeven. Slechts de wijze waarop de naleving van die voorschriften langs strafrechtelijke weg kan worden afgedwongen heeft verandering ondergaan. Zo is onder vigeur van het Besluit de strafbedreiging niet langer verbonden aan het verbod te handelen zonder vergunning en het handelen in strijd met de aan de vergunning verbonden (milieu)voorschriften, doch aan het niet in acht nemen van de bij het Besluit voorziene meldingsplicht en de overtreding van de bij of krachtens het Besluit gegeven (milieu)voorschriften.

Uit een en ander volgt dat het vervallen van de vergunningsplicht en van het daarmee samenhangende verbod van art. 8.1 Wm niet voortvloeit uit verandering van inzicht bij de wetgever omtrent de strafwaardigheid van de vóór het vervallen van die vergunningsplicht begane overtredingen van genoemd verbod.

Dit betekent dat zich te dezen bij de wetgever geen gewijzigd inzicht inzake de strafwaardigheid van de onderwerpelijke gedraging heeft voorgedaan."

3.4.2. Art. 7 EVRM luidt:

"1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

2. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations."

3.4.3. De in dit verband relevante overwegingen van de beslissing van het EHRM luiden:

"(a) Interpretation of Article 7 of the Convention in the Court's case-law

(i) The nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege principle

92. The guarantee enshrined in Article 7, which is an essential element of the rule of law, occupies a prominent place in the Convention system of protection, as is underlined by the fact that no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 of the Convention in time of war or other public emergency. It should be construed and applied, as follows from its object and purpose, in such a way as to provide effective safeguards against arbitrary prosecution, conviction and punishment (see S.W. v. the United Kingdom and C.R. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, § 34 and § 32 respectively, Series A nos. 335-B and 335-C, and Kafkaris, cited above, § 137).

93. Article 7 § 1 of the Convention goes beyond prohibition of the retrospective application of criminal law to the detriment of the accused. It also sets forth, more generally, the principle that only the law can define a crime and prescribe a penalty (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege). While it prohibits in particular extending the scope of existing offences to acts which previously were not criminal offences, it also lays down the principle that the criminal law must not be extensively construed to an accused's detriment, for instance by analogy (see, among other authorities, Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 145, ECHR 2000 VII).

94. It follows that offences and the relevant penalties must be clearly defined by law. This requirement is satisfied where the individual can know from the wording of the relevant provision and, if need be, with the assistance of the courts' interpretation of it, what acts and omissions will make him criminally liable (see Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 52, Series A no. 260-A; Achour, cited above, § 41; and Sud Fondi Srl and Others v. Italy, no. 75909/01, § 107, 20 January 2009).

95. The Court must therefore verify that at the time when an accused person performed the act which led to his being prosecuted and convicted there was in force a legal provision which made that act punishable, and that the punishment imposed did not exceed the limits fixed by that provision (see Coëme and Others, cited above,

§ 145, and Achour, cited above, § 43).

(ii) The notion of "penalty"

96. The notion of "penalty" in Article 7 § 1 of the Convention, like those of "civil rights and obligations" and "criminal charge" in Article 6 § 1, has an autonomous meaning (see in particular, regarding "civil rights", X v. France, 31 March 1992, § 28, Series A no. 234-C, and, on the subject of "criminal charges", Demicoli v. Malta, 27 August 1991, § 31, Series A no. 210). To render the protection offered by Article 7 effective, the Court must remain free to go behind appearances and assess for itself whether a particular measure amounts in substance to a "penalty" within the meaning of this provision (see Welch v. the United Kingdom, 9 February 1995, § 27, Series A no. 307-A).

97. The wording of Article 7 § 1, second sentence, indicates that the starting-point in any assessment of the existence of a penalty is whether the measure in question is imposed following conviction for a "criminal offence". Other factors that may be taken into account as relevant in this connection are the nature and purpose of the measure in question; its characterisation under national law; the procedures involved in the making and implementation of the measure; and its severity (see Welch, cited above, § 28).

98. Both the Commission and the Court in their case-law have drawn a distinction between a measure that constitutes in substance a "penalty" and a measure that concerns the "execution" or "enforcement" of the "penalty". In consequence, where the nature and purpose of a measure relates to the remission of a sentence or a change in a regime for early release, this does not form part of the "penalty" within the meaning of Article 7 (see Kafkaris, cited above, § 142).

(iii) Foreseeability of the criminal law

99. When speaking of "law" Article 7 alludes to the very same concept as that to which the Convention refers elsewhere when using that term, a concept which comprises statute law as well as case-law and implies qualitative requirements, including those of accessibility and foreseeability (see Kokkinakis, cited above, §§ 40-41, Cantoni v. France, 15 November 1996, § 29, Reports 1996 V, Coëme and Others, cited above, § 145, and E.K. v. Turkey, no. 28496/95, § 51, 7 February 2002).

100. In consequence of the principle that laws must be of general application, the wording of statutes is not always precise. One of the standard techniques of regulation by rules is to use general categorisations as opposed to exhaustive lists. That means that many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent are vague, and their interpretation and application depend on practice (see Cantoni, cited above, § 31, and Kokkinakis, cited above, § 40). Consequently, in any system of law, however clearly drafted a legal provision may be, including a criminal law provision, there is an inevitable element of judicial interpretation. There will always be a need for elucidation of doubtful points and for adaptation to changing circumstances. Again, whilst certainty is highly desirable, it may bring in its train excessive rigidity and the law must be able to keep pace with changing circumstances.

101. The role of adjudication vested in the courts is precisely to dissipate such interpretational doubts as remain (see Kafkaris, cited above, § 141). Moreover, it is a firmly established part of the legal tradition of the States party to the Convention that case-law, as one of the sources of the law, necessarily contributes to the gradual development of the criminal law (see Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no. 176 A). Article 7 of the Convention cannot be read as outlawing the gradual clarification of the rules of criminal liability through judicial interpretation from case to case, provided that the resultant development is consistent with the essence of the offence and could reasonably be foreseen (see Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 50, ECHR 2001 II).

102. Foreseeability depends to a considerable degree on the content of the law concerned, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed. A law may still satisfy the requirement of "foreseeability" where the person concerned has to take appropriate legal advice to assess, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Achour, cited above, § 54).

103. In 1978 the European Commission of Human Rights expressed the opinion that, unlike Article 15 § 1 in fine of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 7 of the Convention did not guarantee the right to a more lenient penalty provided for in a law subsequent to the offence (see X v. Germany, no. 7900/77, Commission decision of 6 March 1978, Decisions and Reports (DR) 13, pp. 70-72). It accordingly declared manifestly ill-founded the complaint of an applicant who alleged that, after their commission, some of the offences he had been charged with had been decriminalised. That ruling has been repeated by the Court, which has reiterated that Article 7 does not afford the right of an offender to application of a more favourable criminal law (see Le Petit v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 35574/97, 5 December 2000, and Zaprianov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 41171/98, 6 March 2003).

104. While the Court is not formally bound to follow any of its previous judgments, it is in the interests of legal certainty, foreseeability and equality before the law that it should not depart, without cogent reason, from precedents laid down in previous cases (see, for example, Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, § 70, ECHR 2001-I). Since the Convention is first and foremost a system for the protection of human rights, the Court must however have regard to the changing conditions in the respondent State and in the Contracting States in general and respond, for example, to any emerging consensus as to the standards to be achieved (see, among other judgments, Cossey v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1990, § 35, Series A no. 184, and Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, §§ 67-68, ECHR-2002-IV). It is of crucial importance that the Convention is interpreted and applied in a manner which renders its rights practical and effective, not theoretical and illusory. A failure by the Court to maintain a dynamic and evolutive approach would risk rendering it a bar to reform or improvement (see Stafford, cited above, § 68, and Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 74, ECHR 2002-VI).

105. The Court considers that a long time has elapsed since the Commission gave the above-mentioned X v. Germany decision and that during that time there have been important developments internationally. In particular, apart from the entry into force of the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 9 of which guarantees the retrospective effect of a law providing for a more lenient penalty enacted after the commission of the relevant offence (see paragraph 36 above), mention should be made of the proclamation of the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights. The wording of Article 49 § 1 of the Charter differs - and this can only be deliberate (see, mutatis mutandis, Christine Goodwin, cited above, § 100 in fine) - from that of Article 7 of the Convention in that it states: "If, subsequent to the commission of a criminal offence, the law provides for a lighter penalty, that penalty shall be applicable" (see paragraph 37 above). In the case of Berlusconi and Others, the Court of Justice of the European Communities, whose ruling was endorsed by the French Court of Cassation (see paragraph 39 above), held that this principle formed part of the constitutional traditions common to the member States (see paragraph 38 above). Lastly, the applicability of the more lenient criminal law was set forth in the statute of the International Criminal Court and affirmed in the case-law of the ICTY (see paragraphs 40 and 41 above).

106. The Court therefore concludes that since the X v. Germany decision a consensus has gradually emerged in Europe and internationally around the view that application of a criminal law providing for a more lenient penalty, even one enacted after the commission of the offence, has become a fundamental principle of criminal law. It is also significant that the legislation of the respondent State had recognised that principle since 1930 (see Article 2 § 3 of the Criminal Code, cited in paragraph 32 above).

107. Admittedly, Article 7 of the Convention does not expressly mention an obligation for Contracting States to grant an accused the benefit of a change in the law subsequent to the commission of the offence. It was precisely on the basis of that argument relating to the wording of the Convention that the Commission rejected the applicant's complaint in the case of X v. Germany. However, taking into account the developments mentioned above, the Court cannot regard that argument as decisive. Moreover, it observes that in prohibiting the imposition of "a heavier penalty ... than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed", paragraph 1 in fine of Article 7 does not exclude granting the accused the benefit of a more lenient sentence, prescribed by legislation subsequent to the offence.

108. In the Court's opinion, it is consistent with the principle of the rule of law, of which Article 7 forms an essential part, to expect a trial court to apply to each punishable act the penalty which the legislator considers proportionate. Inflicting a heavier penalty for the sole reason that it was prescribed at the time of the commission of the offence would mean applying to the defendant's detriment the rules governing the succession of criminal laws in time. In addition, it would amount to disregarding any legislative change favourable to the accused which might have come in before the conviction and continuing to impose penalties which the State - and the community it represents - now consider excessive. The Court notes that the obligation to apply, from among several criminal laws, the one whose provisions are the most favourable to the accused is a clarification of the rules on the succession of criminal laws, which is in accord with another essential element of Article 7, namely the foreseeability of penalties.

109. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court takes the view that it is necessary to depart from the case-law established by the Commission in the case of X v. Germany and affirm that Article 7 § 1 of the Convention guarantees not only the principle of non-retrospectiveness of more stringent criminal laws but also, and implicitly, the principle of retrospectiveness of the more lenient criminal law. That principle is embodied in the rule that where there are differences between the criminal law in force at the time of the commission of the offence and subsequent criminal laws enacted before a final judgment is rendered, the courts must apply the law whose provisions are most favourable to the defendant.

(c) Whether Article 442 of the CCP contains provisions of substantive criminal law

110. The Court reiterates that the rules on retrospectiveness set out in Article 7 of the Convention apply only to provisions defining offences and the penalties for them; on the other hand, in other cases, the Court has held that it is reasonable for domestic courts to apply the tempus regit actum principle with regard to procedural laws (see, with reference to new regulations on time-limits for appeals, Mione v. Italy (dec.), no. 7856/02, 12 February 2004, and Rasnik v. Italy (dec.), no. 45989/06, 10 July 2007; see also Martelli v. Italy (dec.), no. 20402/03, 12 April 2007, concerning implementation of a law containing new rules on the assessment of evidence, and Coëme and Others, cited above, §§ 147-149, on the immediate application to pending proceedings of laws amending the rules on limitation). The Court must therefore determine whether the text which, in the present case, underwent the legislative changes complained of, namely Article 442 § 2 of the CCP, contained provisions of substantive criminal law, and in particular provisions influencing the length of the sentence to be imposed.

111. The Court notes that Article 442 is part of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whose provisions normally govern the procedure for the prosecution and trial of offenders. However, the classification in domestic law of the legislation concerned cannot be decisive. Although it is true that Articles 438 and 441 to 443 of the CCP describe the scope and procedural stages of the summary procedure, paragraph 2 of Article 442 is entirely concerned with the length of the sentence to be imposed when the trial is conducted in accordance with that simplified process. In particular, at the time when the applicant committed the offences, Article 442 § 2 provided that, in the event of conviction, the penalty fixed by the court was to be reduced by one-third. Law no. 479 of 1999, which came into force before the preliminary hearing in the applicant's case, then specified that life imprisonment was to be replaced by thirty years' imprisonment (see paragraph 29 above).

112. There is no doubt that the penalties mentioned in Article 442 § 2 of the CCP were those to be imposed following conviction for a criminal offence (see Welch, cited above, § 28), that they were qualified as "criminal" in domestic law and that their purpose was both deterrent and punitive. In addition, they constituted the "penalty" imposed for the acts with which the defendant was charged, and not measures concerning the "execution" or "enforcement" of a penalty (see Kafkaris, cited above, § 142).

113. In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that Article 442 § 2 of the CCP is a provision of substantive criminal law concerning the length of the sentence to be imposed in the event of conviction following trial under the summary procedure. It therefore falls within the scope of the last sentence of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention.

(d) Whether the applicant was granted the benefit of the more lenient criminal law

114. The applicant did not dispute that at the time when he committed the offences (on 2 September 1999) the acts he stood accused of were punishable by life imprisonment with daytime isolation and that, in view of the Constitutional Court's judgment no. 176 of 1991 (see paragraph 28 above), that was an impediment to adoption of the summary procedure.

115. However, the impediment was removed four months later, on 2 January 2000, while the criminal proceedings against the applicant were pending at the preliminary investigations stage, through the entry into force of Law no. 479 of 1999. As noted above, section 30 of Law no. 479 amended Article 442 of the CCP by providing that in the event of conviction following trial under the summary procedure, "life imprisonment [was to be] replaced by thirty years' imprisonment" (see paragraph 29 above). Having regard to the fact that, at the applicant's request, the preliminary hearings judge subsequently agreed to apply the summary procedure (see paragraphs 11 and 12 above), the Court considers that section 30 of Law no. 479 of 1999 is a subsequent criminal-law provision prescribing a more lenient penalty. Article 7 of the Convention, as interpreted in the present judgment (see paragraph 109 above), therefore required the applicant to be granted the benefit thereof.

116. That, moreover, is what happened in the first-instance proceedings. In a judgment of 24 November 2000 the Rome preliminary hearings judge sentenced the applicant to thirty years' imprisonment, granting him the reduction of sentence provided for in Article 442 § 2 of the CCP, as amended by Law no. 479 of 1999 (see paragraph 13 above).

117. However, that application in favour of the accused of a provision prescribing a more lenient penalty which had come into force after the commission of the offences was set aside by the Rome Court of Appeal and by the Court of Cassation. Those courts took the view that it was necessary to apply Legislative Decree no. 341 of 2000, which specified that, where there were cumulative offences, if an offender was liable - like the applicant - to life imprisonment with daytime isolation, that penalty was to be replaced not by thirty years' imprisonment but by life imprisonment without isolation (see paragraphs 19-21, 24, 30 and 31 above).

118. The Court cannot accept the Government's argument that Legislative Decree no. 341 was not a provision introducing new rules on the penalty applicable in the context of the summary procedure but a law interpreting earlier legislation (see paragraph 91 above). In that connection, it observes that, as amended by Law no. 479 of 1999, Article 442 § 2 of the CCP did not contain any particular ambiguity; it clearly stated that life imprisonment was to be replaced by thirty years' imprisonment, and made no distinction between life imprisonment with and life imprisonment without daytime isolation. Moreover, the Government have not produced any examples of judicial decisions which could be alleged to have been based on conflicting interpretations of Article 442.

119. It follows that the applicant was given a heavier sentence than the one prescribed by the law which, of all the laws in force during the period between the commission of the offence and delivery of the final judgment, was most favourable to him.

(e) Conclusion

120. In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the respondent State failed to discharge its obligation to grant the applicant the benefit of the provision prescribing a more lenient penalty which had come into force after the commission of the offence.

121. It follows that in this case there has been a violation of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention."

3.4.4. In deze overwegingen wordt onder meer verwezen naar het ook in Nederlandse strafzaken toepasselijke art. 15, eerste lid, IVBPR, dat bepaalt:

"No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed. If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby."

3.4.5. Ook verwijst het EHRM naar het recht van de Europese Unie.

Art. 49, eerste lid, Handvest van de Grondrechten van de Europese Unie luidt:

"No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national law or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than that which was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed. If, subsequent to the commission of a criminal offence, the law provides for a lighter penalty, that penalty shall be applicable."

Voor de inwerkingtreding van dit Handvest had het Hof van Justitie in HvJ EG 3 mei 2005, zaken C-387/02, C-319/02 en C-403/02, LJN AU8955 in overweging 68 al overwogen:

"The principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient penalty forms part of the constitutional traditions common to the Member States."

3.5.1. Art. 1, tweede lid, Sr luidt:

"Bij verandering in de wetgeving na het tijdstip waarop het feit begaan is, worden de voor de verdachte gunstigste bepalingen toegepast."

3.5.2. De rechtspraak van de Hoge Raad over art. 1, tweede lid, Sr kan als volgt worden samengevat.

Deze bepaling, waarin over "de verdachte" wordt gesproken, beperkt zich tot lopende vervolgingen.

Ingeval na het begaan van het feit de delictsomschrijving is gewijzigd in voor de verdachte gunstige zin, is art. 1, tweede lid, Sr toepasselijk indien die wetswijziging voortvloeit uit een verandering van inzicht van de wetgever omtrent de strafwaardigheid van het vóór de wetswijziging begane strafbare feit (vgl. de hiervoor onder 3.2.3 weergegeven overweging alsmede de in de vordering van de Advocaat-Generaal onder 2.10-2.14 weergegeven rechtspraak).

Deze maatstaf is ook wel aangelegd in gevallen waarin na het begaan van het feit de toepasselijke regels van het sanctierecht zijn gewijzigd in voor de verdachte - mogelijk - gunstige zin (vgl. HR 1 april 1997, LJN ZD0676, NJ 1997/442).

3.6.1. De Hoge Raad ziet in de onder 3.4 weergegeven ontwikkelingen aanleiding zijn rechtspraak aan te scherpen wat betreft veranderingen in regels van sanctierecht. Voor die regels, die zowel het specifieke strafmaximum als meer algemene regels met betrekking tot de sanctieoplegging kunnen betreffen, heeft voortaan te gelden dat een sedert het plegen van het delict opgetreden verandering door de rechter met onmiddellijke ingang - en dus zonder toetsing aan de maatstaf van het gewijzigd inzicht van de strafwetgever omtrent de strafwaardigheid van de vóór de wetswijziging begane strafbare feiten - moet worden toegepast, indien en voor zover die verandering in de voorliggende zaak ten gunste van de verdachte werkt.

Opmerking verdient in dit verband dat op grond van de onder 3.4 weergegeven ontwikkelingen eventueel door de wetgever geformuleerde bijzondere overgangsbepalingen zullen moeten passen binnen de hierboven weergegeven internationale regelgeving. Indien dat niet het geval is, zal de rechter deze bepalingen buiten toepassing moeten laten.

3.6.2. De Hoge Raad blijft echter bij zijn bestendige rechtspraak met betrekking tot veranderingen die verband houden met delictsomschrijvingen, waaronder begrepen veranderingen in de bestanddelen alsmede het vervallen van strafbaarstellingen, bijvoorbeeld in verband met de invoering van een ander handhavingsregime. De onder 3.4 weergegeven ontwikkelingen, die in het bijzonder betrekking hebben op veranderingen in regels van sanctierecht, geven geen aanleiding voor een verandering van die rechtspraak. Daarbij merkt de Hoge Raad op dat die rechtspraak goede grond heeft omdat de strafrechtelijke aansprakelijkheid in beginsel wordt bepaald door de regelgeving die geldt ten tijde van het plegen van het strafbare feit. Een uitzondering daarop wordt echter gerechtvaardigd ingeval sprake is van een verandering van inzicht van de wetgever omtrent de strafwaardigheid van de vóór de wetswijziging begane strafbare feiten.

Dat inzicht kan overigens ook door de wetgever worden vastgelegd in bijzondere overgangsbepalingen - hetgeen de duidelijkheid ten goede komt.