Search

As a manifestation of the ne bis in idem principle at the interstate level, the transfer of criminal proceedings is one of the forms of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters that avoids the conduct of parallel proceedings that could lead to prosecution, trial and even conviction a person in different states for committing the same act. Starting from a non-unitary practice aspect regarding the qualification of requests to take proceedings (in the sense of requests to take criminal proceedings or requests to take trial), this study addresses the issue of transfer of proceedings in criminal matters, as regulated in international legal instruments and in the Romanian special law on international judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Law no. 302/2004, republished in 2019). The research methods used in the study are: documentation, observation and scientific analysis (comparative analysis of both legal regulations and solutions of judicial practice). The paper aims to contribute to the uniform interpretation and application of the provisions on the transfer of proceedings in criminal matters, in particular in the relationship between the Member States of the European Union, given that the regulation of those procedures in national legislations is not always similar. The conclusion is that the relations of judicial cooperation in criminal matters between the Member States of the European Union, including through the transfer of criminal proceedings, must be based on mutual trust in internal judicial systems, as a corollary of the principle of mutual recognition.

In the regulation of the current Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 135/2010, entered into force on February 1, 2014), the contestation regarding the duration of the criminal trial was conceived as a procedural remedy in the case of the lack of celerity of the judicial bodies. The lack of promptness of the criminal investigation bodies can lead to the violation of the fundamental right to resolve the case within a reasonable term, as a component of the right to a fair trial, enshrined in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (art. 6 par. 1). Starting from a recent decision of the supreme court in Romania (Decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice no. 7/2022) pronounced in the resolution of a recourse in the interest of the law, the present work addresses the issue of the admissibility of the contestation regarding the duration of the criminal trial in the case of facts whose authors have not been identified. In this study, the following research methods are used: documentation, interpretation and scientific analysis (including the comparative analysis of some jurisprudential solutions). The study aims to contribute to the unified interpretation and application of the provisions relating to the special procedure of contestation regarding the duration of the criminal trial, as currently regulated in the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure. The paper emphasizes the need to exercise the active role of the criminal investigation bodies in the administration of evidence, including in cases with unknown authors. The conclusion is that, considering the hierarchy of normative acts, the application of methodological norms (with lower legal force than the law) regarding the administrative organization of criminal investigation activities in cases with unidentified perpetrators cannot have the effect of diminishing the role of the contestation regarding the duration of the criminal trial, as a remedy in speeding up the procedure, when the judge of rights and freedoms finds that the reasonable duration of these activities has been exceeded.

The concept of ”public safety” can be viewed, in relation to the need to respect the fundamental rights of the person during judicial proceedings, from a dual perspective: - on the one hand, public safety is guaranteed by ensuring that these fundamental rights are respected, because the safety of every person involved in legal proceedings ultimately leads to the preservation of public safety; - on the other hand, some limitations of these rights (in the sense of interfering with their exercise) may occur, in a state governed by the rule of law, only under conditions strictly provided by law and in cases justified precisely by the need to guarantee public safety. This study addresses, from this second perspective, the possibility of limiting by law the fundamental rights of the person during judicial proceedings (in this case, the right to privacy) and refers to the regulation of technical supervision, as evidence in criminal proceedings, calling into question the unconstitutionality of some criminal procedural provisions regarding the obligation to inform the under-surveillance person about the measure that targeted her.

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.