CONSIDERAȚII CRITICE CU PRIVIRE LA ARTICOLUL 532 ALIN. (3) DIN CODUL DE PROCEDURĂ PENALĂ. ARGUMENTE DE NECONSTITUȚIONALITATE
SOME CRITICISM REGARDING ARTICLE 532 PAR. (3) OF THE ROMANIAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. ARGUMENTS ON UNCONSTITUTIONALITY

Summary/Abstract: The entry into force of the new Criminal Procedure Code on 1st February 2014 has brought, in the area ofjudicial rehabilitation, a new, special and negative.substantial condition for obtaining this type of rehabilitation,consisting in the request that the prison sentence that was enforced on the convicted person to not be prescribed forreasons attributable to him or her.As far as this issue is concerned, the author analyzes the resorts of the legal provision from art. 532 par. (3)of the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code and its consequences for the situation of the convicted persons to whomit is addressed, finally concluding that the provision finds no conceptual justification and appreciating, at the sametime, that the legal provision is unconstitutional. Regarding the unconstitutionality of the provision, although headmits that the arguments already put forward by the person who raised an objection of unconstitutionality regardingthe provision that is being analyzed were not well founded, so that the solution of rejection ruled by the RomanianConstitutional Court appears to be justified, the author believes that there can be brought other arguments is support ofclaiming the unconstitutionality of the legal provision.In this respect, the author presents his arguments sustaining that the rehabilitation of a convicted person shouldnot be conditioned by the intervention of the prescription of penalties imposed on the convicts, by pointing out theoxymoronic, incorrect and even harmful implications that may be generated by the Romanian legislator’s angle in thisarea of criminal law.Least, but not the last, starting from the elements identified in the decisions of the Romanian ConstitutionalCourt and from the constant case law of the European Court of Human Rights, it can be certainly concluded that thelegal provision evoked infringe the right to a social private life and the constitutional principle regarding the equalitybefore the law, establishing a perpetual impossibility of reintegration in society of the persons who were convicted atpenalties involving more than 2 years of imprisonment. As such, the author pleads for a quick intervention of the legislator in order to eliminate this condition forobtaining judicial rehabilitation or, in contrary case, his belief is that his considerations exposed in the next chapterswill be perceived by the readers as an advanced argumentation basis pleading in favor of the unconstitutionality of thelegal provisions that are currently being in force

• Details
• Contents