-
The study examines the issue of unlawful interceptions and audio or video recordings made during preliminary acts, i.e. prior to prosecution; this is a common problem the case law courts are often faced with. The conclusion that interceptions and carrying out audio or video recordings prior to the start of a criminal trial are unlawful is produced by the author based on the analysis of the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence on this matter and of power of res judicata accompanying the Constitutional Court’s judgments which is attached not only to the operative part, but also to the considerations underpinning it. -
In this article, the author critically examines matters of criminal procedural guarantees for the injured person, the injured party or civil party, stressing their importance in the administration of criminal justice. In this context, topics on the rights of victims are depicted inspired from the principle of equality of arms, inferred from the (European) Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the author making some suggestions on repairing the damage caused as a result of the offense.
-
The study presents critical issues on contraventional complaints’ settlement procedure from point of view of Law 202/2010 regarding certain measures to accelerate the process. The reason for this amendment was obvious: the rapid settlement of trials far more numerous than in other matters also due a consequence of the fact the offenders’ procedural interest was that many times only that of suspension of the enforcement of fines and other sanctions imposed by the records of offense, suspension which, according to legislation in the matter, became effective by law upon the registration of the contraventional complaint until the date of the final and irrevocable judgment. In the second part of the study, the author has analyzed the nature of contraventional law given that offenses were removed from the criminal law and have undergone administrative arrangements. Issues of unconstitutionality by removing appeal in certain contraventional matters were addressed, arguing that thereby they have infringed art. 2 of Protocol 7, supplementing the (European) Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In the final considerations, the author revealed that the ruling no. 500/2012 of the Constitutional Court case-law is a welcomed revival for the Romanian legislation arguing that it forces a reconsideration of the regulation on contraventional proceedings as a whole.
-
Potrivit art. XXIV alin. (1) din Legea nr. 202/2010, numai hotãrârile pronunțate înainte de data intrãrii în vigoare a acestei legi rãmân supuse cãilor de atac, motivelor și termenelor prevãzute de legea sub care a început procesul; prin urmare, hotãrârile pronunțate ulterior intrãrii în vigoare a Legii nr. 202/2010 sunt supuse cãilor de atac, motivelor și termenelor prevãzute de dispozițiile Codului de procedurã penalã, astfel cum au fost modificate prin aceastã lege. Conform alin. (2) al aceluiași articol, „Procesele în curs de judecatã la data schimbãrii competenței instanțelor legal învestite vor continua sã fie judecate de acele instanțe, dispozițiile referitoare la competența instanțelor din Codul de procedurã penalã, republicat, cu modificãrile si completãrile ulterioare, precum și cu cele aduse prin prezenta lege, aplicându-se numai cauzelor cu care instanțele au fost sesizate dupã intrarea în vigoare a prezentei legi”.
