The problem of the ex post-facto law was also relevant in the 1990s, after German reunification, because there was a debate about the trials of GDR border guards who killed refugees at the German internal border (trial of wall shooters – trials of protection of the wall / guard). In these cases, the German courts have engaged in the formula of wheel break.  In general, the Finnish legal system does not allow ex post de facto laws, particularly those that would extend criminal liability. They are not expressly prohibited; Instead, the prohibition stems from the general principles of law and fundamental rights. In civil cases, such as the . B of taxation, basic standards may be adopted in certain circumstances. Another example of ex post criminal law in the UK is the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The Act allows those acquitted of murder and certain other serious offences to be brought back to justice if there is „convincing, reliable and substantial new evidence“ that the acquitted was actually guilty. This law is retroactive and can be used to prosecute those acquitted before it came into force in 2005, or even before its adoption in 2003. As a result, two of the accused, acquitted in the Stephen Lawrence murder case, were retried even though the murder took place in 1993 and the accused were acquitted in 1996.
Many people have criticized the Criminal Justice Act for its substantial removal of the ban on both post-facto ex-laws and dual risks.  Ex post punishment is prohibited by Article 38 of the Turkish Constitution. In criminal law, however, ex post-facto sanctions are effectively prohibited by Article 112-1 of the French Penal Code, unless retroactive enforcement benefits the accused (retroactivity in Mitius).  They are also considered to be unconstitutional, since the principle of retroactivity is set out in Article 8 of the Declaration of Human and Citizen Rights, which, according to French law, is constitutional.  The trials of the law of legal cleansing, held after the liberation of France in 1944, introduced the status of national indignity for Nazi collaborators, in order to avoid ex post facto laws. Section 26 of the Bill of Rights and criminal legislation of 1985, the Criminal Justice Act, caused significant digressions among judges when the New Zealand Parliament introduced laws that had the effect of imposing a retroactive sanction for crimes involving an element of domestic invasion. In the end, the gap was narrowed by what some have described as artificial logic in the R v Pora and R cases against Poumako. At the end of 2019, the former Minister of the Interior, Ms.
P-ivi Rsonen, was the subject of criminal proceedings on suspicion of agitating an ethnic group for her text on homosexuality published online in 2004. The statute of limitations for this levy is five years, which resulted in the case being construed as ex post facto. However, agitation against an ethnic group is a perpetual crime and the statute of limitations does not begin until the offensive material has been removed from the public. The investigation has always been described as strange, since the text of the R-sonen is not the only online or other material that could be considered a agitation against an ethnic group, and the demarcation between whom and who should not be followed for publication and/or supply of such materials is unclear.  Retroactive criminal laws are prohibited by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the United Kingdom has acceded, but several recognized judicial authorities have expressed their view that parliamentary sovereignty is also a priority here.   Thus, the War Crimes Act created in 1991 a former post-facto jurisdiction of British courts for war crimes committed during the Second World War.