Search

The preliminary chamber is a stage preceding the ruling on the merits of the case. By regulating this institution, the purpose of the Romanian legislator was to eliminate the possibility to raise certain causes of unlawfulness of the criminal prosecution acts carried out during the trial phase. The aim of this scientific research is to highlight certain aspects concerning the purpose of the preliminary chamber procedure, while also militating for its maintenance in the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code.

This present study treats some aspects regarding the exercise of public office, from the perspective of criminal law and criminal procedural law. The violation of criminal legal norms, including by civil servants, leads to the appearance of one right conflict, the solution of which presupposes to draw the criminal liability of the perpetrator, following the deployment of a whole of activities that are part of the criminal proceeding. Applying the sanction corresponding to the criminal norm violated presupposes so therefore a criminal trial, which is why is useful one analysis, from the perspective criminal procedural law, of some aspects which visa the criminal liability of the civil servants. So that starting with a little theoretical considerations regarding of the intimation ways of the criminal prosecution bodies, stipulated by law to be possible to begin a criminal trial, then this study continues with the approach, including by reference to aspects of judicial practice, of the conditions in which may be engaged the civil servant's criminal liability to committing the offense of omission of the referral.

According to the regulation from the Criminal Procedure Code for the criminal liability of the juridical person and in the Criminal Procedure Code there exist some provisions concerning the procedure to hold liable a juridical person. Representing a different way to develop the criminal process than the usual procedure, made of a complex of standards with a complementary and derogatory character, the procedure to hold liable a juridical person represents a special procedure. The present study aims an analysis of this procedure. Besides the systematization from the Criminal Procedure Code from the 1968, in which special procedures made the object of the last title of the Special Part (Title IV) in the structure of the actual Criminal Procedure Code the regulation of special procedures precedes the provisions regarding the execution of decision, provisions that are contained in the final title of the Special Part. It is true that the enforcement of decisions represent the last step of the criminal process, but, taking into account the fact that in special procedures as well one can contain some derogatory standards regarding the enforcement (including regarding the procedure to hold liable a juridical person), more adequate was the systematization from the previous Criminal Procedure Code (from 1968) where derogatory standards were situated after standards of common law, including in the matter of enforcement.

The intensification of the European political and economic integration also requires that our country contributes to continuing the tradition of incriminating criminal deeds perpetrated in the business field. Romanian authorities display their constant interest in expanding their knowledge of the crime phenomenon in this field, while looking to identify effective means to control it. Within this context, corruption crimes approached in the Criminal Code of Law and in Law no. 78/2000 take a distinct place within the group of crimes for which prevention and combating is regulated under the Business Criminal Code of Law. In order to ensure celerity in solving criminal cases involving corruption crimes, certain derogations from the usual procedure were required, as well as enforcement of a special procedure; also, specific procedural aspects regarding corruption crimes need to be retained as we look at the coming into force of the new criminal and criminal procedure legislation.

This paper is dedicated to analysis the impact of some dispositions in Law no. 202/2010 regarding the degrees of jurisdiction in criminal cases. Although it is not expressly regulated by the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code, the celerity is required as fundamental principle of the criminal trial, assuming the requirement that the conduct of the criminal trial and the settlement of the criminal cases should take place as soon as possible. The principle of celerity is combined though with the fundamental principle of disclosure of truth in the criminal trial (Art.3 of the Criminal Procedure Code), requiring the insurance of a balance between the need to accelerate the procedures for settlement of the cases in a reasonable time and the need to run through more degrees of jurisdiction for the proper settlement of these cases. The author try to demonstrate that in order to ensure the celerity of the Romanian criminal trial, the latest legislative amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code (by Law no. 202/2010) also lead to the reduction of the number of degrees of jurisdiction in most of the criminal cases, without this to affect, though, the application of principle of disclosure of truth. In order to achieve better results the analysis is based on survey, observation, comparison of various dispositions (Law no. 202/2010, the 1968 Criminal Procedure Code, the new Criminal Procedure Code) and systematization of the available doctrine in this area. The study may be of special interest to academics and members of the judiciary because it presents in detailed and clear the impact of some dispositions in Law no. 202/2010 and the provisions of the new Criminal Procedure Code in the matter of degrees of jurisdiction.

Dacă în actualul Cod de procedură penală nu există o reglementare expresă a instituţieiparticipanţilor în procesul penal, revenind doctrinei sarcina să definească această noţiune, în proiectulnoului Cod de procedură penală2 instituţia participanţilor face obiectul unui titlu distinct (Titlul III din Partea generală). Astfel, potrivit art.29 din proiect, sunt consideraţi participanţi în procesul penal:organele judiciare, apărătorul, inculpatul, persoana vătămată, partea civilă şi partea responsabilăcivilmente.

Starting from the need to respect, in any judicial procedure, the right to liberty and security of the person, in order to guarantee public safety and ensure a high level of social capital, this study addresses the issue of reparation for damage to the individual's liberty during the criminal proceedings. The paper presents the special procedure for reparation of material damage or non-pecuniary damage in case of illegal deprivation of liberty in the regulation of the current Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure, with the interpretations given by the High Court of Cassation and Justice for ensuring a unitary judicial practice, as well as with the aspect of unconstitutionality ascertained by the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Romania no. 136/2021. In the context of the legislative interventions envisaged by the latest draft law on amending and supplementing the Code of Criminal Procedure, concrete regulatory proposals are made in the paper so that this special procedure guarantees the exercise of the right to reparation for all situations of unlawful or unjust deprivation of liberty in the course of criminal proceedings, according to the standard of protection established by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The possibility of extending the scope of the special reparation procedure to the case of impairment of individual liberty by restrictive measures of liberty is also being considered.