Modificãrile aduse pãrtii generale a codului de procedurã penalã prin legea nr. 356/2006 si o.u.g. nr. 60/2006. virtuale elemente progresiste sau o ve
Modifications brought by the Law no 356/2006 and by the Government’s Ordinance no. 60/ 2006 to the Criminal Procedure Code. Virtual progressive elemen

Summary/Abstract: This study analyses the modifications brought to the General Part of the Criminal Procedure Code and has as objective the establishment of the progressive or regressive of those above judging by today’s status of the criminal procedure dispositions. To reach this objective, the author presents these modifications in detail following the structure of the Criminal Procedure Code. As to the criminal prosecution act, the author presents the main elements of the special procedure concerning the prosecution of a legal entity and the importance of those dispositions in the process of changing the traditional conceptions which state that only a person can be the passive subject of a criminal prosecution act. The subject of competence mainly deals with the modifications that came about in the case of Military Courts. The author shows that Law no. 356/2006 continues to limit the special competence of the military courts practically reducing it only to crimes committed by the military. As to the ordinary courts the main modifications were made in the case of the High Courts; their competence was restrained in favor of the courts of justice and the courts of appeal. In addition the special personal competence of the Romanian Supreme Court was extended to the crimes committed by the members of The High Council of Magistrature. The Law no. 356/2006 also brought important changes to the cases of incompatibility and the author appreciates them as being positive and negative at the same time. To begin with, the cases of incompatibility were extended bringing an important guarantee for the impartiality of the judges. Secondly though, the procedure to discharge a judge, as a practical application of the incompatibility cases, has suffered significant limitations: the elimination of the right to discharge the whole court, the elimination of the right to discharge the judge who solves the initial petition to discharge; the introduction of a preliminary examination in the case of a petition to discharge which is in the competence of the same court which the petition to discharge refers to. In the matter of moving a criminal case from one court to another (based on the suspicion of lack of objectivity), the Law no. 356/2006 clearly presents the cases in which this procedure can be triggered. It also states that the petition to move the case must be judged publicly and the decision must be motivated. For the same reasons, as an element of novelty, the prosecutor has the right to ask the Supreme Court, before the indictment, to nominate another court (different from the one which is normally competent) to judge the case. Following the rules of the hearing of protected witnesses, the Law no. 356/2006 has introduced a special procedure of hearing in the case of the victims. As to the hearing of the defendant, this will be stopped when the defendant has the symptoms of a serious illness which might endanger his life.

• Details
• Contents