Search

When it comes to the issue of criminal trials being held in the absence of the accused, Member States of the European Union seem unable to come to a consensus. While some states may go forward with the trial regardless of the defendant's presence, others consider that the trial cannot take place under such circumstances. Furthermore, the contrast in perspective between member states is only emphasized by the different legislation adopted by each state. This article aims to outline the general framework for trials in absentia. It starts with a short history of the Directives adopted by the Council of Europe, meant to emphasize the evolution and the impact of legislation in this matter, and continues with brief contrasts and comparisons between the member states, in accordance to the regulations of their framework in such situations. Last but not least, the final analysis revolves around issues that arise in regards to trials in absentia in Romania, and the manner of how such trials are examined regardless or in accordance with national law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper intends to analyze the issue of respecting the right to a fair trial in the situation where the effectiveness of the defence depends on documents containing classified information. There is a delicate issue regarding the vulnerability of guarantees of the right to a fair trial in order to ensure the right of defense, given that the parties' lawyers should have access to all the evidence in the file. Obtaining an ORNISS certificate is the solution offered by law, but to really get one can be problematic. Based on various situations occurred during the proceedings, the whole legal regime of classified information and its influence on the conduct of the trial, in the qualitative requirements of fairness imposed by the Constitution and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, have been subject to the constitutional review exercised by the CCR. This article aims to summarize the case-law of the Constitutional Court, drawing the appropriate conclusions from it, in order to find the most efficient way to harmonize the need to protect the national security by classifying certain pieces of information with the right to access to public information and with the constitutional and conventional imperative of respect for the right to a fair trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the new Criminal Code of Procedure, the right to an adequate defence represents one of the principles of criminal procedure law. Due to the complex legal nature of the right to defence, the parties and main subjects in the proceedings have the right to defend themselves or be assisted by a counsel. According to the law, the parties, the main subjects in the proceedings and the counsel have the right to be given the adequate time and facilitations needed for preparing the defence. According to the new Criminal Code of Procedure, the counsel is portrayed as a distinct participant who assists or represents parties or main subjects in criminal proceedings, under the law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current regulation on accessing classified information during criminal proceedings is clearly deficient. This fact creates major imbalances between the procedural rights and prerogatives of the various participants, which is reflected in their right to a fair trial. As such, it is necessary to recast the texts regulating the matter in order to extract the many vices of unconstitutionality, some of which being already found. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Romanian Journal of Compulsory Execution / Revista Română de Executare Silită is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

As an essential guarantee of the right to a fair trial, the right to defence is regulated in detail in the New Code of criminal procedure. Similarly to the previous legislation, this right is considered a fundamental principle of the criminal trial. The first part of this paper presents the complex content of the right to defence by constant reference to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. This approach is meant to underline the extent to which the domestic provisions are compatible with the requirements laid down by the Strasbourg Court. The second part of this paper deals extensively with the role of the lawyer in guaranteeing the right to defence. As an absolute novelty, the lawyer is regarded as a distinct participant to the criminal trial, holder of own rights and obligations. The study concludes with a short analysis of the means to ensure the protection of the professional secrecy of the lawyer - a subject of great practical importance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The fundamental principles of the criminal procedure are general rules applicable throughout the criminal procedure in order to achieve its purpose. The fundamental principles are covered by art. 2-12 C.C.P. and are: the legality of criminal procedure, separating the functions of the judiciary, the presumption of innocence, finding out the truth, ne bis in idem, a requirement for moving and exercising penal action, is fair and reasonable term of the criminal trial, the right to liberty and security, the right to defence, respect for human dignity and privacy, the official language and the right to an interpreter. The European Court of Human Rights is conscious that by protecting the fundamental principles it does not only aim at the protection of super eminence of the inextricably right tied to the state of law. These principles represent a set of obligations imposed on the State that has as the sole purpose the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By adopting the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention") in 1994, the Romanian State recognised the necessity that any criminal trial should be carried out under fair conditions, in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention. In this study, we are going to analyse the requirements of the Convention applying especially to criminal trials, namely those related to the right of the charged person to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Moreover, we will take into consideration the obligation of the judicial bodies to offer the charged person the adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence. The analysis will be based on the relevant regulations set down in the Convention and the Romanian criminal procedure legislation. Last but not least, it will include a presentation of the jurisprudence relevant to these matters, both of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as "ECHR") and of the Romanian national courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]