Search

In this paper we have examined the crime of forgery in private documents, in terms of elements of the structure of the crime, such as the objective side, the subjective side, forms, ways of sanctions and some procedural aspects. We also considered the comparative examination of the current provisions in relation to those of the previous law. Given the references to recent judicial practice, the paper may be useful to students in the country's faculties, as well as to practitioners in the field of criminal law. The paper is part of a university course to be published by a recognized law firm.

Motivated by the lack of this incrimination in the 1969 Criminal Code, in this paper we have proceeded in examining the offense of evading removal measures in the country. In the paper we have considered the examination of the pre-existing elements of the offense, of its constitutive content, as well as of the legislative precedents. We also considered the examination of the similarities and differences between the two texts, which are absolutely necessary in the application of the more favorable criminal law in transitory situations. The novelties concern both the examination of the constitutive content of the offense and the comparative examination of the two crimes. The work may be useful to the university environment as well as practitioners in this field.

In the paper I examined the constitutive elements of the blackmail offense provided by the Romanian law, as well as the elements of resemblance and difference in relation to the previous law. The examination also includes references to the judicial practice adopted by the courts in Romania, as well as some opinions on the application of the more favorable criminal law, having of course some elements of differentiation between the previous and the current regulations. The novelty elements of this paper consist both in the examination carried out as well as in the considerations regarding the application of more favorable criminal law in transient situations. The work may be useful to students in faculty and practitioners in the field of law enforcement.

In the current study we have examined the institution Sentenced Persons Held in Third Countries, in order to serve the sentence or the measure of deprivation of liberty in a penitentiary or a medical unit in Romania, focusing on the recognition of the foreign judgment by the competent courts in Romania. The conducted examination has revealed some shortcomings of the Romanian special law, which refers specifically to the absence of the convicted person from hearing to the appeal of the case, and his inability to defend. Also, it has been highlighted the fact that no Romanian legislator has taken into account the possibility of requesting the transfer of a minor convicted in a third State to a penalty or an educational measure of deprivation of liberty. The novelty of the work covers both examining the institution in the light of the Romanian jurisprudence and the formulated proposals de lege ferenda. The work also continues other studies published in some journals or volumes of international or national conferences, achieved in the context of researching the institution of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The paper can be helpful to scholars, master students and practitioners in this field.

In the present work it is examined one of the most important institutions of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters, namely the recognition and enforcement of a judgment passed by a competent judicial authority of a State, which is not part of the European Union. The examination takes into consideration the duration and scope of the recognition procedure and the conditions for recognition and enforcement, as they are provided in the Romanian law, recently amended. The work can be useful for judicial bodies with responsibilities in this area, and for academics. The innovations consist in examining this institution, and the way in which it has increased its importance in the international judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The paper continues further studies in this area, which will be complete by reediting the master course of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters, by the end of this year.

Within the paper it is examined the constitutive content of the offense on leaving post and the presence to work under the influence of alcohol or other substances according to the new criminal code entered into force on 01.02.2014. The novelty consists in the examination performed in the light of the new amendments and completions to the law, and the comparative analysis with the old law, considering the transitional situations involving the more favorable application of the criminal law. The paper can be useful to law students, academics and practitioners in the field, and all those interested in the new legislative amendments occurred in the Romanian criminal law, in this area.

Representing an absolute novelty in the Romanian legislation within the paper it was examined the institution of renouncing to applying the penalty in the context of the provisions of the New Criminal Code, of implementing and changing the law. We are also presenting some critical comments and suggestion of lege ferenda, the work can be useful both for academic theorists and practitioners and also for the legislator with the entry into force of the New Criminal Code. The innovations presented in this stud text analysis and the critical remarks.

In this paper we examine a topic in the field of European law, which is of particular interest, beingalways a novel subject, that is the protection and human rights within the complex activity of executing theEuropean arrest warrant by the judicial authorities of each Member State. The paper continues previousresearch materialized in some in studies and articles published in national or international specialized journalsor proceedings. The examination of the European arrest warrant institution has led to some conclusions,which ultimately need to certify the completion of some provisions, notably the ones regarding the mutualrecognition and increase of efficiency. The work can be useful both for practitioners and theorists in the field,the essential contribution consisting of the examination and the expressed critical opinions, which may lead tothe amendment and completion of the European legislative act.

In this paper we examine the internal and European provisions governing the institution ofrecognizing the forensic psychiatric expertise in the European Union, based on the European and internallegislation in the field. We previously conducted research on the recognition of judgments and judicialforeign acts emanating from another Member State, research that have resulted in studies and articlespublished in national or international specialized journals or proceedings. The work is useful for practitionerswho work in this area, and also for those interested in researching this institution. The essential contributionof this paper consists of the examination of the institution recognition in the light of the national and theEuropean legislation, the critical observations relating to certain provisions of the European legislative actsand proposals for completing and amending the European legal instruments.

The recognition and subsequently the execution of criminal penalties of deprivation of liberty byanother Member State, other than the one of the conviction, is an act of mutual trust between Member Statesof the European Union. However, the differences between criminal legal norms, particularly regarding theminimum and maximum limits of some punishment prescribed for the same offense, require a differentapproach in the sense that a member can not recognize and then enforce a sentence of deprivation of libertywith the maximum limits greater than its own legislation, for the same offense. This very sensitive issue wasresolved by adopting the Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of the Council from 27 November 2008, wherethe European legislative act allows the executing Member State the re-individualization of the deprivation ofliberty sentence, the goal being that the penalty imposed is compatible with the internal law of theenforcement state. In the implementation of European legislative act depositions, any member State whichhas recognized such a court order, based on a legal decision ordered by a competent judicial body may stillre-individualize the penalty regarding its maximum limit. The examination of the European legislative acthighlights also some flaws that must be corrected, taking into account the possibility for the executingMember States to fully modify the applied punishment, as regards both its nature and its proportion applied inthe sentencing State.

Based on a dysfunction detected during the surrender of a pursued person under the European Convention on Extradition, the European Union instituted a new procedure that is the European arrestwarrant. Because initially the provisions of the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA did not provide clear legal rules regarding which procedure to follow if the wanted person was not present at the trial, this situation was observed also by the European Court of Human Rights, it was amended and supplemented accordinglyby adopting the Framework Decision 2009/299/JAI. The evaluation of the provisions of both acts highlights the existence of some incomplete legal rules, which in time they will cause some dysfunctions regarding the issuing and the enforcement of a European arrest warrant. We also consider modifying and expanding thelegal rules relating to mandatory and optional reasons for the refusal of enforcement of a European arrest warrant, and the inclusion of educational deprivation of liberty measures in the category of the reasons that justify the request of the execution of a European arrest warrant. The originality of the work results from the analysis of the recent changes of the European legislative framework document and the critical opinions expressed about some stipulations, which in our opinion are incomplete. The paper can be useful not only for the Romanian legislator, but also for the European one, from the perspective of modifying the concerned legalacts and also the doctrine. It has a major importance in this domain for ensuring an area of freedom, security and justice in the European Union.

The European arrest warrant is the most important form of judicial cooperation in penal matters within the European Union, which is based on the mutual recognition of criminal judgments. The Europeanlegislative act that governs the institution is the Framework Decision no. 2002/584/JHA of 13 July 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, amended and supplemented by the Council Framework Decision of 2009/299/JAI February 26, 2009. Although the first piece of the European legislative act has been transposed into our legislation by the Law no. 302/2004 on international judicial cooperation in criminal matters, with subsequent amendments, the modifying normativeact has not been transposed into national law. The research conducted on the depositions of special law and of the European legislative act, and especially on their implications in the internal and European judiciary practice, demonstrates the existence of some incomplete stipulations, secures the workability of the issuing,transmission and identification, pursuing and handing over the persons wanted by the Romanian judicial authorities in the Member States. A very special situation which is determined by the omission of national and EU legislator, in order to include the category of the persons submitted to the handing over and the minors against whom it was applied an educational and a deprivation of liberty measure, a situation which leads directly to the non execution of such sanctions of the minors. The originality of the work consists of the critical observation and also the proposals of lege ferenda which covers both the Romanian special law and also the European legislative act. At the same time the critical observations are useful not only for Romanian legislator who intends to supplement and modify the special law, but also for our doctrine.

Aware of the obligations assumed in fighting crime, Romania translated in itsinternal legislation the European Convention on the transfer of procedure in criminal matters,adopted in Strasbourg on 15 May 1972, ratified through Government’s Ordinance no.77/1999.The transfer of procedure in criminal matters is one of the forms of international judicialcooperation in criminal matter and represents an act on mutual trust in the organizing activityfor crime pursuit at the international level. According to law, the procedure transfer in criminalmatter consists in performing criminal procedure or continuing the procedures initiated by thecompetent Romanian authorities for an action that represents a crime, in accordance with theRomanian law and transferring it to another state. The procedure transfer in criminal matters isaccomplished only if the conditions expressly provisioned by law are fulfilled, respecting thenon bis in idem principle.

The unprecedented development of criminality at the social and economical levels, the tendency toglobalize some categories of crimes, of maximum gravity, as terrorism, armament traffic, drug traffic orhuman traffic, have determined the world states to undertake specific measures to prevent, combat and finallyreduce it. The first and most important measure taken by the Europe’s Council, regarding the intensificationof judicial cooperation in criminal matters was the adoption of the European Convention on extradition, inParis on 13 December 1957, completed by the two Additional Protocols in Strasbourg, on 15 October 1975and 17 March 1978. In this context, the release of the Council’s Framework Decision on 13 June 2002 on theEuropean arrest warrant and the procedures of delivery among the member states (2002/584/JAI) representeda natural decision, with the purpose of contributing at ensuring a free, secure and just European space. TheEuropean arrest warrant is a judicial decision through which a competent judicial authority of a EuropeanUnion member state solicits the arrest and delivery by another member state, in order to proceed to theprosecution, trial or execution of a penalty or safety measure that is privative of freedom.