Search

This study aims to highlight some relevant issues concerning the status of parliament and parliamentary immunity. The author refers to the legal provisions on the mentioned topic related to legal provisions of some European Union countries and making parallels and highlighting the most important similarities and differences. ECHR case law presents some of the most important cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to investigate one of the most debatable aspects of the post-communist parliamentary life in Romania: the parliamentary immunity. Initially developed as an instrument of maintaining the Legislative (the Parliament)'s independence, autonomy and integrity against the Executive (the Monarch)'s influence, the present statute of the parliamentary immunity in Romania has been facing different stages of decrease concerning its role and meaning. Who is responsible for bending the limits of this institution? In which way does the parliamentary immunity affect the democratic life in Romania? These are essential questions that this study seeks to answer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objectives of the research contained in the article consist in the examination of the immunity and of the criminal liability of the Romanian parliamentarians over the time according to the rules of the Romanian law, with a focus on the present provisions. The results of the research shall be summarized to the need for keeping the parliamentarians' immunity also in the future provisions of the constitutional and criminal law, especially on the absolute immunity regarding the opinions and the votes expressed in exercising the mandate granted by the poll. Likewise, the author considers that a certain partial immunity has to be kept as well, as regards other actions of the criminal procedural law, such as: the inquisition, the detention, the attachment and the arraignment. The paper may be useful to the theoreticians, practitioners, as well as to the constituent legislator, considering the need for the amendment and supplement of the present fundamental law. The value of the article consists in the examination of the constitutional and criminal provisions regarding the criminal liability of the Romanian parliamentarians, as well as in the critical opinions and the filed de lege ferenda proposals [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the given study, the author draws attention on the provisions of article 84 para. 2 of the Romanian Constitution, which regulates the presidential immunity. The analysis focuses on both types of immunity - inviolability and immunity from jurisdiction. Regarding the legal nature of inviolability the author concludes that it is a special temporary cause which bars the initiation of criminal action or its continuance, in cases when it has already been initiated. On the other hand, immunity from jurisdiction is considered to be a special cause removing the criminal liability of the offender. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Within the framework of study hereby, the institution of the Romanian President's immunity under the Criminal Law is subject to review. Observing the constitutional legislator's option, first there are set under review the material and temporal limits of the procedural immunity. In this context, there are put forth some novel problems such as summoning the President as a witness or the scope of immunity in the case of civil and tort liability. In relation to the substantive law immunity, it is reviewed the rationale of the institution, and then its substantive limits are detailed: the presidential powers are identified, i.e. there are brought to the attention some controversial assumptions such as granting and revoking the conditional pardon, or views expressed by the President in another frame than the official one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]