Search

Magistrates, judges and prosecutors, as the main actors on the legal scene, do not benefit from absolute immunity, therefore they can be held legally liable, which wears the five forms, respectively: criminal, civil, moral, contraventional and disciplinary. To avoid this, magistrates must demonstrate good faith and responsibility, both professionally and personally. In the paper, special emphasis is placed on disciplinary liability, indicating what constitutes disciplinary misconduct, what is its structure and what are disciplinary violations, as well as disciplinary sanctions with the addition of examples from the practice of the two sections of the Superior Council of Magistracy, as a disciplinary court, as well as the panel of 5 judges of the ÎCCJ, as an appeals court. At the end, the disciplinary process is presented, indicating the stages that must be completed in order to bring the magistrate judge or prosecutor to disciplinary responsibility. In the paper, I proposed by law ferenda, the addition within article 271 of Law no. 303/2022 regarding the status of judges and prosecutors of the disciplinary offense of noncompliance with the decisions of the Constitutional Court or the decisions issued by the ÎCCJ, in the resolution of appeals in the interest of the law and in the prior resolution of some legal issues; because there is an extremely high risk that the magistrates will not give importance to these decisions, since their non-compliance is no longer provided as a disciplinary offence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article describes the structure of self-regulatory organizations (SROs) and examines the absolute legal immunity granted to SROs such as Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in the U.S. It discusses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case Standard Investment Chartered Inc. v. National Association of Securities Dealers in which the court held that alleged fraud claims against defendant National Association cannot be proceeded as it had sovereign immunity against lawsuits.

The article discusses Hong Kong Court of Final Appeals landmark case Democratic Republic of the Congo v. FG Hemisphere Associates LLC which was related to state immunity under Hong Kong law. It reflects the court's decision that Hong Kong must comply with China's doctrine of absolute immunity. It presents a background of the doctrine of absolute and relative immunity under the common law and analyses the implications of the decision.

The article discusses judicial immunity in the wake of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's ruling in the case Hemminghaus v. Missouri which deals with Missouri's plan for judicial selection and a question regarding how a judicial employee might properly deal with suspected child abuse. An absolute immunity doctrine is examined, along with the U.S. Supreme Court cases Stump v. Sparkman and Mireles v. Waco which address judges' immunity. A qualified immunity doctrine is assessed.