Post by account_disabled on Dec 24, 2023 4:38:05 GMT 1
Ainvoking against the acquitted person the reason for review provided for by art. paragraph letter a of the Code in order to prove the groundlessness of the acquittal decision the authors of the exception consider that the party civil case and the acquitted defendant are in unequal procedural positions discriminatory treatment being instituted. Bucharest District Court The criminal section considers that the criticized legal text does not affect the principle of equality of rights enshrined in art. paragraph of the Constitution because the CCR ruled in its jurisprudence that the violation of the principle of equality and nondiscrimination exists then when.
Differential treatment is applied to equal cases without an objective Country Email List and reasonable justification or if there is a disproportion between the aim pursued by the unequal treatment and the means used. However the difference in legal treatment established by the provisions of art. paragraph first sentence is justified by the existence of different cases considering that the situation of the civil parties. The court also considers that the criticized legal text does not affect free access to justice and the right to a fair trial because from art. of the.
Constitution the conclusion should not be drawn that free access to justice is an absolute right because it may be subject to limitations. Finally the court appreciates that the criticized legal text does not affect the right to defense either art. of the an extraordinary appeal is not an expression or a consequence of the right to defense but this right it cannot have an independent existence apart from a remedy provided by law. The government considers that the exception of unconstitutionality is inadmissible and in the alternative unfounded. It shows that the author of the exception does not criticize the provisions of art. paragraph first sentence of the CPP.
Differential treatment is applied to equal cases without an objective Country Email List and reasonable justification or if there is a disproportion between the aim pursued by the unequal treatment and the means used. However the difference in legal treatment established by the provisions of art. paragraph first sentence is justified by the existence of different cases considering that the situation of the civil parties. The court also considers that the criticized legal text does not affect free access to justice and the right to a fair trial because from art. of the.
Constitution the conclusion should not be drawn that free access to justice is an absolute right because it may be subject to limitations. Finally the court appreciates that the criticized legal text does not affect the right to defense either art. of the an extraordinary appeal is not an expression or a consequence of the right to defense but this right it cannot have an independent existence apart from a remedy provided by law. The government considers that the exception of unconstitutionality is inadmissible and in the alternative unfounded. It shows that the author of the exception does not criticize the provisions of art. paragraph first sentence of the CPP.