Post by account_disabled on Dec 23, 2023 21:41:48 GMT -6
Afor what they contain but for what they do not contain which is why it is not a true exception of unconstitutionality. The Peoples Advocate considers that the provisions of art. paragraph first sentence of the CPP are constitutional and the exception of unconstitutionality as formulated is inadmissible. The Courts decision THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT in the name of the law DECIDES . Admits the objection of unconstitutionality raised by Ionu Brtil and Floarea Brtil in File no. . of the Bucharest District Court Criminal Section and finds that the provisions of art. paragraph of the CPP are unconstitutional with regard to the case of review provided for in paragraph letter a.
Accepts the exception of unconstitutionality raised by the same Country Email List authors in the same file and notes that the legislative solution contained in the provisions of art. paragraph first sentence of the CPP which excludes the possibility of reviewing the acquittal decision for the case provided for in paragraph letter a is unconstitutional . . Admits the exception of unconstitutionality and finds that the legislative solution contained in the provisions of art. paragraph of the CPP which excludes the revision case provided for in art. paragraph letter a is unconstitutional.
Reasoning for the decision The Court finds that the activity carried out in the ordinary cycle of the criminal process if it was legal and thorough must be completed with the pronouncement of a final decision having the authority of a res judicata but practice has also seen cases of final decisions that resolved criminal cases with serious errors of fact and law. the reason for which he instituted extraordinary appeals as criminal procedural means of annulling decisions with the authority of a res judicata that do not correspond to the law and the truth but the.
Accepts the exception of unconstitutionality raised by the same Country Email List authors in the same file and notes that the legislative solution contained in the provisions of art. paragraph first sentence of the CPP which excludes the possibility of reviewing the acquittal decision for the case provided for in paragraph letter a is unconstitutional . . Admits the exception of unconstitutionality and finds that the legislative solution contained in the provisions of art. paragraph of the CPP which excludes the revision case provided for in art. paragraph letter a is unconstitutional.
Reasoning for the decision The Court finds that the activity carried out in the ordinary cycle of the criminal process if it was legal and thorough must be completed with the pronouncement of a final decision having the authority of a res judicata but practice has also seen cases of final decisions that resolved criminal cases with serious errors of fact and law. the reason for which he instituted extraordinary appeals as criminal procedural means of annulling decisions with the authority of a res judicata that do not correspond to the law and the truth but the.