-
The present paper aims to examine the „positive” conditions of the procedure of the right to damage repair in case of miscarriage of justice, i.e. those provided only in paragraph (1) of Article 538 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The paper begins with the delimitation of the area of analysis, after which it examines the conceptual reason of the analyzed procedure. Then, the conditions and subconditions found in paragraph (1) of Article 538 of the Criminal Procedure Code are treated by turns. Finally, after analyzing the concept of miscarriage of justice, we take a look at countries with similar legislation: the Republic of Moldova and Switzerland. At the same time, through this material, I am trying to demonstrate, by identifying the problems of interpretation of this paragraph, the fact that the action for damage repair provided in Chapter VI of the Criminal Procedure Code must comply, at least in the light of paragraph (1) of Article 538 far too restrictive conditions. The conditions which this paragraph involves turn the procedure of repair of the material damage or of the moral damage in case of miscarriage of justice into a non-feasible procedure with conditions which presuppose an insignificant stake, as compared to the reparation of the damage in case of the principal’s liability for the deed of his agent, a liability much easier to prove by the damaged person. -
Special procedures are rules derogatory from the common rules governing the criminal trial. They are also of a supplemental type and strict enforcement when a certain procedural aspect is regulated differently than the common rules. However, their purpose is the same, namely the resolution of the criminal and civil action, when required. Among these procedures, the agreement for acknowledgement of guilt is a transaction concluded between the prosecutor, as a representative of the state, and the defendant. The agreement for acknowledgement of guilt must meet certain requirements of substance and form. The court solutions in case of examining the agreement for acknowledgement of guilt can be of accepting the agreement for acknowledgement of guilt and admitting the factual basis of the offence for which the defendant acknowledges his/her guilt and of not accepting the agreement for acknowledgement of guilt. In the first situation, the judgment can be appealed only for procedural errors and the amount of punishment and, in the second situation, the prosecutor may file and appeal within 24 hours or, if not, the court orders the judgment of the case according to the usual procedure. -
Relatively recently brought under regulation by our law system, the models of utility are inventions with a lower level of complexity that are legally protected by means of the protection certificate released following a specific procedure. Encompassed in the study presented herein are precisely those judicial aspects of the formalities that need to be fulfilled when aiming at the release of the model of utility certificate of protection. Altogether, the author sets forth an original point of view regarding the approach and the systematisation of the internal and international formalities to be taken into account when dealing with the procedure of releasing the protection title for the models of utility, and also critically inspects the legal editing process, and the corelation between some legal provisions belonging to this field of interest and intereferring law-related notions, while laying down relevant de lege ferenda proposals in fulfilling the purpose of correction and defining with more clarity the legal provisions specific to this law branch. -
In this study, the author examines exhaustively the problems of the preliminary proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union [Article 19 (3) (b) of the Treaty on European Union; Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union]. To this end there are examined: the referral, the preliminary, the preliminary procedure of common law and the special prejudicial procedures. -
In this study, the author presents, from the point of view of the constitutional law, the complex process of re-emergence of the state formations after the break-up of the Roman imperial administration at the end of the 5th century. The collapse of the boundaries of the West Roman Empire and the penetration of the conquering migratory populations to its centre have generated not only the destruction of the military capacity of the empire and its army, but also of the political institutions and of the entire Roman administration. Practically, the Roman state has entered an advanced dissolution process that has led also to the replacement of the old production relations with new relations. Instead of the Roman administration, rudimentarily organized patriarchal formations which responded to the new military conditions imposed on the indigenous population by the conquering populations appeared. At the same time with these, in the former Roman provinces, the Christian churches continued to carry on a social organization activity. Practically, the Christian Church took over some social organization and management functions, specific in the past to the Roman administration. The gradual conversion of the conquering populations to Christianity has stimulated the process of restating and the emergence of the first barbarian kingdoms. The Church had thus an overwhelming role and hastened the re-emergence of the statehood on the former territories of the vast Roman Empire. Finally, new states have emerged on the European continent, with well defined ethnic physiognomies and endowed with a political administration based on constitutional principles that have proven their validity in the subsequent centuries. At the same time with the formation of the new states, a new theory of the political institutions has been forged and gradually developed, in which, along with the elements of laic thinking, many precepts of Christian religion can be emphasized.
-
In the following study the author reviews the decision making in the European Union (including the European Atomic Energy Community) as governed by the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union subsequent to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (which occurred on December 1st, 2009), compared with previous regulations, the exposure being focused on the innovations brought by the latter Treaty, in relation to previous establishments. -
Procesul lui Iisus, poate cel mai cunoscut proces din istoria umanității, este și cea mai vădită eroare judiciară a tuturor timpurilor. „Prototipul însuși al condamnatului nevinovat”1 generează din această perspectivă o temă de analiză aprofundată și dezbatere atât pentru teologi, istorici sau analiști ai fenomenului religios, cât și pentru juriștii preocupați de identificarea greșelilor procedurale săvârșite pe parcursul celebrului proces. Format și educat într-o familie cu profunde valori creștine, imaginea răstignirii lui Iisus m-a marcat, m-a impresionat și mi-a stârnit nenumărate emoții și motive de meditații. Cu toate acestea, până la întâlnirea cu lumea dreptului, nu m-am gândit că întregul proces de condamnare a celui mai cunoscut nevinovat al istoriei poate fi analizat și din perspectiva juridică. Din aceste considerente, prezentul editorial își propune să abordeze procesul lui Iisus, prezentând elemente și date ce descriu locul și data desfășurării, personajele implicate și resursele biblice sau extrabiblice utilizate
-
The criminal trial can be defined as the activity regulated by law, carried out by the criminal judicial bodies, so that persons having committed criminal offenses are brought to account for criminal liability and criminal penalties are imposed. Criminal trial aims to account for criminal liability persons who have committed criminal offences (i.e. achievement of the conflict criminal legal relationship), imposition of criminal penalties and their enforcement. The criminal trial phase is a division thereof, in which operate a particular category of judicial bodies in carrying out tasks that fall within their procedural position (to seek, to judge or to execute the decision), and following its exhaustion a particular solution on the criminal case may be rendered. The author reveals that, under the current Romanian legislation, the criminal trial covers three phases: prosecution, adjudication and enforcement of judgments (according to the Romanian doctrine, although the Code of Criminal Procedure in force entitles „Enforcement of Criminal Judgments” Title III of the Special Part). Under the new Code of criminal procedure rules, the criminal trial covers four phases: prosecution, the preliminary chamber, adjudication and enforcement of criminal judgments. -
Starting from the real premise of the existence of certain controversies regarding the prosecutor’s seat, role, functions and competencies in the internal legal system, the author brings to debate the special situation of the prosecutor, protected, under exceptional provisions, by the constraints of the hierarchical subordination specific to the organization of the Public Ministry. During the performance of his procedural functions, regulated under art. 316 of the Code of criminal procedure, the prosecutor can claim a status similar to the judge’s. The rules acknowledging his freedom of action and procedural expression concurrently exonerates him from any form of liability that might be engaged as effect of the procedural practice totally independent in relation to the hierarchical management or agents of other powers. -
The administration of evidence necessarily implies that the evidence is first proposed and produced (submitted) by the parties and then approved by the court. The legislator of the Civil Procedure Code instituted a regime of evidence renewed in its spirit and in its formal expression, devoting, in addition to the general provisions on the administration of evidence (Articles 260–263 of the Civil Procedure Code), also some provisions specific to the administration of evidence by written documents (Articles 292–300 of the Civil Procedure Code), as well as to the conduct of the procedures for verification of documents (Articles 301–308 of the Civil Procedure Code). As a rule, the production (submission) of the documents takes place voluntarily, under the terms and conditions set by law. However, in some cases, the documents relating to the pending trial are not produced voluntarily, whereas their presentation in court could have consequences for those who hold them or for their spouse, kin or relatives. The attitude of the person who holds the document not to produce it voluntarily may have different motives: family secret, business secret, confidentiality, strictly personal matters about the dignity or private life of a person, etc. In other cases, bringing written documents to court would be too expensive or the documents would be too voluminous or numerous. In such cases, the justice of the dialogue will prevail. From the correlation of the provisions of the final sentence of Article 22 (2) with those of Article 254 (2), Article 254 (5) of the Civil Procedure Code, it appears that the legislator draws attention to the cooperation which must exist between the judge and the parties, as regards the evidence of facts, without thereby understanding that the judge substitutes the parties, automatically filling the passivity of the party either a claimant, or a defendant
-
Prin natura sa, omul reprezintă cea mai complexă și dinamică expresie a vieții. Știința și religia, încă și acum, în contemporaneitate, își dispută apartenența nașterii sau creației divine a acestuia. Credem că acum are loc cea mai mare schimbare a mentalității, prin acceptarea unei singure perspective asupra genezei noastre, ceea ce constituie revoluția în evoluția creației umanității. Justiția privită din perspectiva conceptului este abstractă, însă ceea ce îi conferă viață este judecătorul.
-
By the Decision on 29th January 2019, in Case No 6080/06 Ahunbay & others v. Turkey (6080/2006), the ECHR has made a great leap forward, by means of the subsequent considerations, in recognizing the general principle of the right of access to common cultural inheritance. The Court has rejected the principal claim as inadmissible (ratione materiae); even though, by finding that the object is related to an evolving field and by considering that given the international instruments and the common ground regarding international legal standards, compulsory or not, it cannot be a priori excluded the existence of a common European and International approach regarding the need to protect the access to cultural inheritance, it has opened significant perspectives for the process of giving this principle a legal shape. Thus, there have been created the premises so that, in the near future, by means of case law, several significant progresses can be made in this field.
