Posibilitatea instanţei de recurs de a agrava situaţia inculpatului achitat din perspectiva reglementărilor interne şi a jurisprudenței CEDO
The possibility of the court of appeal to agravate the situation of the accused from the perspective of the internal regulations and the European Cour

Summary/Abstract: In Mircea v. Romania, Spînu v. Romania, Dănilă v. Romania suits, The European Court of Human Rights has settled that there was a violation of art. 6 parag. 1 of the Convention regarding the right to a fair trial, because the Supreme Court of Justice sentenced the accused without a hearing and without administrating the evidence in the appeal. Random or not, all this convictions concern judments delivered in appeal by the Supreme Court. I consider that these convictions don’t represent an analysis of the Strasbourg Court regarding the fact fairness of the trial, but rather it reflects the Court’s opinion regarding the possiblity of the last court to aggravate the defendant’s situation without administrating evidence, an opinion resulting form a different perception of the procedural rules of the appeal. For a better understanding, I will draw a short history of the appeal and an analysis of the possibilites to aggravate the defendant’s situation in this phas eof the trial.

• Details
• Contents