Prezumłia de nevinovăłie în materie contravenłională
The presumption of innocence in contravention matters

Summary/Abstract: Regarding the burden proof in contravention matters, The European Court of Human Rights has established that the Romanian courts are obliged to apply the Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which is part of domestic law as result of its ratification by Law no.30/1994. In the case Anghel vs. Romania, the Court held that national courts have to ensure compliance with the innocence presumption, provided in Article 6, paagraph.2. In this regard, the national courts should not solve the case with the preconceived idea that petitioner committed the crime (contravention) that he is accused of. Then, the burden proof belongs to the accused and any doubt should benefit to him. (in dubio pro reo). Trough decision in the case Anghel vs. Romania, the Court, does not intend to revolutionize the contravention procedure but to highlight the importance of respecting the guarantees provided by Article 6 in this procedure, by completing the legal provisions with the principles stated over the time by the European Court. The conclusion is that Romanian courts have to exercise a more active role regarding the management of evidence and to ensure a balance between the legal safeguards provided by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights in favor of petitioner (especially the presumption of innocence) and the presumption of legality and rationality of record of findings and sanctioning contraventions. To eliminate any controversy about the legal issues presented, The High Court of Cassation and Justice should intervene and ensure uniform judicial practice in contraventions matters.

• Details
• Contents