Considerații referitoare la modificările și completările aduse părții generale a Codului de procedură penală prin Legea nr. 202/2010 privind unele măsuri pentru accelerarea soluționării proceselor
Approaches on the amendments and completions to the General Part of the Code of Criminal Procedure under Law no. 202/2010 regarding some measures aiming at the celerity of cases’ settlement

Summary/Abstract: In 2010, considering the deadline for the entry into force of new procedure codes, there arose the need to establish procedural rules with immediate effect, under way for the implementation of codes and consistent with legislative solutions established thereupon, so as to smooth efficient enforcement of court proceedings and expedient settlement of cases.The Law regarding some measures aiming at the celerity of cases’ settlement no. 202/2010 frames a series of specific legislative measures, mainly pointing to simplify and increase the celerity of cases’ settlement, with direct impact on the execution of judgments, as well.In the study hereby, the authors analyze, from an applied perspective mainly, amendments and completions to the Code of Criminal Procedure under Law no. 202/2010 on the celerity of cases’ settlement.As regards the general part domain of the Criminal Procedure Code, there have been highlighted a series of situations, resulting from the introduction of the mediation agreement as basis for settling the criminal or the civil case, from the rethinking of the material competence of courts or from express regulation of specific cases on conflict of jurisdiction arisen during the criminal prosecution.Other comments concern completions brought in the field of evidence management, application of the institution of preventive measures’ cessation by right, or relating to enforcement of peremptory writ of mandate, payment of court fees and court fines.As a general observation, since legal provisions under review are at the beginning of their application, and the subject covered is very wide ranging, the work developed by the two authors could not set its purpose neither on their exhaustive analysis, nor on the issue, in all cases, of conclusions claimed as legal certainty, but rather attempted to bring to the attention of practitioners working hypotheses, problems that may arise and their possible solutions.

• Details
• Contents