[ad_1]
There is the article on the signing of the grounds of conviction, in which case the politician gave Roamnia to the ECHR.
The Constitutional Court issued Wednesday the reasons for the decision 633 of 12 October 2018 on the amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The document has 430 pages. The reasoning, put forward by Judges Daniel Morar and Liviu Stanciu, has two distinct opinions.
The Constitutional Court found that 64 of the provisions of the law amending the Code of Criminal Procedure were unconstitutional, while the 31 provisions for which objections were raised are constitutional.
Verdict unanimously
Two of the unconstitutional statements are directly related to Liviu Dragnea.
This concerns the amendment of articles on the drafting and signing of judgments (Article 406) and cases of review of final sentences (Article 453). The decision on both articles was voted unanimously.
If the amendments were in force, Dragnea could have asked for a revision in the referendum file, whose final sentence is 2 years of suspended imprisonment.
Read also: Liviu Dragnea case – Referendum: arguments in favor of the change likely to entail the re-examination of the sentence, rejected by the judges
The case of Liviu Dragnea
In the Liviu Dragnea case, sentenced to two years in prison, two of the five magistrates who participated in the proceedings, deliberations and convictions did not sign the reasons.
Judges Livia Stanciu and Luminita Zglimbea retired between the conviction of April 2016 and the publication of the motivation (February 2017).
Instead of both, the motivation of the sentence was signed, in accordance with the procedure, by the President of the Supreme Court, Cristina Tarcea.
Articles with dedication
The amendment to article 406 of the CCP stipulated that the reasons for the sentence should be signed by all judges who participated in the final stage of the trial in the proceedings, deliberations and sentencing.
If this is not possible, for whatever reason, the case is underway, then practically resume the judgment of the last term in a new component of the panel of judges.
In this context, a new ground of revision has been introduced, Article 453, which means an extraordinary way of attacking – not motivating or not motivating all the judges who have made a decision.
The code determines who signs the sentence
In the case of the amendment to section 406, the CCR states that, in the case of a single judge training, the decision is drafted and signed by the judge of the court. case and that, in the case of a formation of several judges, the decision is drafted by one or more of the judges of the formation. resolved the case and signed by all panel judges.
The signature of the court decision is made by the members of the group who participated in the debates and deliberations and by the clerk.
"If one of the members of the court is unable to sign, in accordance with article 406, paragraph (4) of the Code, the decision shall be signed in its stead by the chairman of the group special and if the president of the group is prevented from signing, the decision signed by the president of the court ", explains the CCR.
When the impediment concerns the clerk, the decision is signed by the chief clerk. In all cases, mention is made of the cause that caused the impediment.
"The changes are not clear"
However, the new regulation uses two different sentences on both operations, writing –one of the judges who participated in the case", signing respectively -"the members of the group who participated in the administration of the evidence and in the judgment of the merits"There is uncertainty as to the category of judges who signed the decision," says CCR.
"In analyzing the criticized text, the Court notes that the concepts used by the legislator are not clear", concludes the RAC.
Thus, it is unclear whether, in referring to the judges who participated in the administration of the evidence, the legislature took into consideration the judges who carry out the judicial inquiry, in accordance with the law. Article 376 et seq. of the Code.
"The Court concludes that the legislature has used unconfirmed expressions in the Code of Criminal Procedure to the detriment of the precise terms determined by the legal texts. In law, he must use clear and unequivocal terminology, capable of interpretation and unitary application.", motivates the CCR.
CCR: "In the light of these arguments, the Court considers that the provisions of Article I, point 235, referring to Article 406 para. (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are unconstitutional, in violation of Article 1 para. (5) of the Constitution".
"Do not meet the requirements"
In the case of the amendment to Article 453, the judges of the CCR stated that this "is intended to seize the court attached to the court decision for purely formal reasons, generating unacceptable and unprecedented instability of legal relations. ".
It was this article which led to the re-examination of the last sentence: "not to judge and / or not to indicate the decision of conviction pronounced by the judge who participated in the settlement of the case".
The court declares that the standard does not meet the legislative requirements, contrary to the provisions of Article 16, para. (1) and (2) of Law 24/2000 because it introduces a contradiction with the provisions of Article 406 of the CCP.
The full motivation of the RCC decision has been published on the website of the institution.
to follow Newspapers.com and Facebook! Comment and see in your new Facebook news feed the latest and most interesting articles from Ziare.com.
Source link
