-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
After the entry into force of Article 1541 of the Civil Procedure Code, the judgments will have a different communication regime as compared to the other procedural documents. More precisely, if the party indicates the appropriate data in order to communicate the procedural documents by e-mail, the court will have the obligation to communicate the judgment to the party by e-mail, in accordance with the provisions of Article 1541 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code, however, it will not be obliged to communicate the summons or the other procedural documents to the respective party by e-mail, since with regard to these procedural documents remain applicable the provisions of Article 154 (6) of the Civil Procedure Code, which regulates only the possibility of the court to communicate these procedural documents by e-mail, and not the obligation of the court to proceed in this way. Therefore, we note the existence of an asymmetry, with regard to the communication regime, between the judgment and the other procedural documents, which is why we believe that the legislator should intervene in order to standardize the communication regime of all procedural documents, there being no reason why the respective communication of procedural documents should be carried out differently.
-
We are researching the mechanism of proof necessary for the application of the sanction of the automatic exclusion of statements obtained through torture or other ill -treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. The topic has not yet been addressed in Romanian law, although it is of indisputable importance for the practical application of the sanction. Proof to a high standard of ill-treatment is essential to the normative force of the sanction. The difficulty of proving ill-treatment is the main impediment to its application in judicial practice. The resulting problem is solved by the European Court of Human Rights through a mechanism of proof that manages the legal consequences of uncertainty and does not lose sight of the requirement to find out the truth. This mechanism has three main components: The first is the requirement of an arguable claim about the ill-treatment, which is similar to the formal burden of proof (the burden of adducing evidence) in common law, with the difference that it is not imposed on a particular party, but is met if information about ill-treatment comes to the attention of the authorities in any way. The second is the obligation to effectively investigate this claim. The third is the substantial burden of proof or persuasive burden, which must be met to a certain standard of proof. Ill treatment must be proven by the party alleging it to the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but this standard can be met by corroborated presumptions. We present some typical presumptions applicable in situations frequently encountered in practice. Under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the requirements of the fair trial may justify derogations from these general principles. For the automatic exclusion of statements, two cumulative conditions must be verified: the lack of an effective investigation and the real risk of ill-treatment.
