Search

The article addresses the issue of cancellation of documents resulting from the commission of a crime, mainly concerning the special procedure regulated in Article 5491 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The legal nature of the institution of cancellation of documents resulting from the commission of an offence is the same, regardless of whether it is ordered by the court of law, pursuant to Article 25 paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, or by the judge of the preliminary chamber, pursuant to Article 5491 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the majority specialized literature it was embraced the opinion according to which within the procedure of abolition of documents regulated in Article 5491 of the Criminal Procedure Code only the document regarded as instrumentum probationis may be revoked, and not the legal operation attested by the respective document as negotium juris. Also, the majority doctrine considers that the procedure for the cancellation of documents can be applied only in case of committing forgery offences, not also in case the documents would come from committing other offences. This article seeks to question the correctness of these doctrinal opinions, bringing some arguments in the sense that the cancellation also refers to the legal operation (negotium) and may also concern documents resulting from the commission of offences other than those of forgery. In order to support these points of view, there have been brought resulting from the way in which the institution of cancellation of documents was regulated in the previous Romanian legislations and arguments resulting from the interpretation of the legal texts in force. The problem is of practical importance, because there are many situations in which the prosecutor's office can no longer order the prosecution of the perpetrator of the offence which is at the origin of which the document required to be revoked (due to his death or the intervention of criminal liability for this offence), notifying the judge of the preliminary chamber with the request for the cancellation of the document resulting from this offence. However, the solution which will be adopted by the judge of the preliminary chamber may depend on the clarification of the previously mentioned aspects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The academic field is one that raises many ethical challenges and needs a different approach in this regard. Being an activity field with many particularities, with diversified human relations, with the involvement of a large number of people and with often divergent interests between them, the academic field needs an ethical approach. To better understand the concept of ethics, one should start from the etymology of this word. The definitions of ethics are much more numerous and each one emphasizes one or more aspects considered as defining for it. As a common element of these definitions, one can remember first of all that ethics is about human behaviour. The law and the regulations cannot cover the vastness of these inter-human relations and they manage to solve the multitude of problems that may arise in the relations between teachers, in the relations between students or in the relations between teachers and students. No matter how well the codes of ethics are developed, they will not be able to regulate all of the issues raised by the academic life. That is why greater emphasis should be placed on making each person aware of the importance of acquiring an ethical way of being and behaving in society. The human factor is the one that can ensure the smooth running of the activity in the academic environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In art. 16 paragraph (2) and (4), the new Romanian Criminal code provides „(2) Guilt exists when an action is committed with direct intent, with basic intent or oblique intent.” and „(4) An action is committed with basic intent when the perpetrator: a) can foresee the outcome of their actions but does not accept it, believing without reason that such outcome will not occur; b) cannot foresee the outcome of their actions, though they should and could have done so.” In art. 16 paragraph (6), the Criminal code provides „(6) The act consisting of an action or inaction shall constitute an offense when committed with direct intent. The act committed with basic intent constituted an offense only when the law specifically establishes it as such.” How to find out, the new romanian Criminal code regulates exlicitly the basic intent with foresight and the basic intent whidout forsight. The Criminal code does not regulate other approaches of basic intent, which are analyzed in doctrine. However, these are reference points to be taken into consideration when the judiciaries analyze the criminal guilt whenever an offence has been committed under the criminal law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By the judgement passed in the criminal case no. 754/2012, the High Court of Cassation and Justice held that, where the provisions of Article 3201 Code of Criminal Procedure are applicable, honest behaviour during the trial, consisting in the admission of having committed the acts retained in the document instituting the proceedings, cannot be considered a legal mitigating circumstance, referred to in Article 74 para. (1) (c) thesis II of the Criminal Code. This interpretation is questionable, because there is a legal difference between the two institutions, which doed not preclude their concomitant application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]