Search

It is indicated that the tasks of criminal proceedings are to protect the person, society and the state from criminal offenses, to protect the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the participants in criminal proceedings, as well as to ensure a quick, complete and impartial pre-trial investigation and trial, so that everyone who has committed a criminal offense, was prosecuted to the extent of his guilt, no innocent person was charged or convicted, no person was subjected to unreasonable procedural coercion, and that due process of law was applied to each participant in the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the article is devoted to the coverage of one of the most complex and strict investigative (search) actions in criminal proceedings, namely, the theoretical and practical issues of conducting a search and the role of participants in this procedural action during its conduct. The current legislation, which regulates the search, was analyzed, some changes and additions to the current Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine were proposed. The need for criminal procedural clarification of the circle of subjects who have the right to be present during the search was emphasized, it was noted that the application of the proper legal procedure will contribute to the protection of human rights and freedoms in criminal proceedings. Summing up, the article notes that during the search, the prosecution is empowered with broad powers provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Due to the fact that some procedural issues are not clearly regulated by the legislator, the person conducting the search uses procedural loopholes to his advantage. Precisely in order to specify the powers of the prosecuting party during the search, we propose to supplement Part 2 of Art. 235 of the CCP of Ukraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Romanian Review of Private Law / Revista Română de Drept Privat 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.)

In this article, the authors conduct a scientific study of the distinctive features and highlight certain types of judgment in civil cases. In particular, the authors draw a distinction between other decisions issued in the framework of civil proceedings, and also highlight certain types of court decisions inherent exclusively in civil proceedings. The authors give specific features of the court decision that distinguish it from other acts of the court, namely, the court decision is a procedural document that resolves the case and restores violated rights, issued by the court in the procedural form established by law on the basis of consideration of the case on the merits. Separately, a characteristic is given to each type of court order and the requirements that each court order must comply with are characterized.

The Brussels Ibis Regulation (hereinafter – the Regulation) established the free movement of judgments and mutual trust in civil and commercial matters among Member States. However, the Regulation does not provide a clear answer as to whether all decisions of the courts of Member States fall within the scope of this regulation. Although the Regulation introduces the concept of a judgment, it provides only a list of exemplary court documents, which is not exhaustive. This article analyzes the criteria by which the decisions of Member States must be evaluated to ensure their enforceability is recognized across borders. The article also suggests one broad interpretation of the requirement for a court decision to be rendered in adversarial proceedings in order to also include default judgments, court orders and court settlements therein. The author submits that only such a wide interpretation meets the goals of Regulation and is aligned with the political will it enshrines. Finally, the article analyzes whether the decisions of Member States made based on the decisions of third Statesor in matters of their recognition fall within the scope of application of the Regulation.

Background: Which type of information experts use to make decisions regarding legal insanity within forensic psychiatric investigations (FPI) is relatively unknown, both in general and when considering variations due to case context. It is important to explore this area to be able to counteract the effects of various kinds of cognitive bias. Method: The aim was to explore whether FPI expert groups differed regarding case-specific as well as general use of information types required to make decisions on severe mental disorder (SMD). Three FPI case vignettes were presented to three professional groups involved in FPIs in Sweden (n = 41): forensic psychiatrists (n = 15), psychologists (n = 15), and social workers (n = 11). The participants reported which types of information they required to reach conclusions regarding SMD in each case. They also reported which types of information they had used within general FPI praxis during the previous year and the information types' perceived usefulness. Results: The expert groups differed somewhat regarding what type of information they required for the cases (e.g., results from cognitive testing), but some information was required in all cases (e.g., client's self-report). Regarding the preliminary assessment of SMD in the three cases, minor differences were found. Within the general FPI praxis, experts reported using several information types, while the general perceived usefulness of these sources varied. Discussion: The professional groups relied partly on a "core" of information sources, but some case-specific adaptations were found. The professional groups' inclination to suspect SMD also varied somewhat. This indicates a need to explore the potential consequences of these similarities and differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundWhich type of information experts use to make decisions regarding legal insanity within forensic psychiatric investigations (FPI) is relatively unknown, both in general and when considering variations due to case context. It is important to explore this area to be able to counteract the effects of various kinds of cognitive bias.MethodThe aim was to explore whether FPI expert groups differed regarding case-specific as well as general use of information types required to make decisions on severe mental disorder (SMD). Three FPI case vignettes were presented to three professional groups involved in FPIs in Sweden (n = 41): forensic psychiatrists (n = 15), psychologists (n = 15), and social workers (n = 11). The participants reported which types of information they required to reach conclusions regarding SMD in each case. They also reported which types of information they had used within general FPI praxis during the previous year and the information types’ perceived usefulness.ResultsThe expert groups differed somewhat regarding what type of information they required for the cases (e.g., results from cognitive testing), but some information was required in all cases (e.g., client’s self-report). Regarding the preliminary assessment of SMD in the three cases, minor differences were found. Within the general FPI praxis, experts reported using several information types, while the general perceived usefulness of these sources varied.DiscussionThe professional groups relied partly on a “core” of information sources, but some case-specific adaptations were found. The professional groups’ inclination to suspect SMD also varied somewhat. This indicates a need to explore the potential consequences of these similarities and differences.

The article analyzes the court practice of courts of Ukraine regarding submissions of enforcement agents on forced entering to the debtor’s dwelling or other property. On the basis of court practice, the existence of a structural problem of the courts of Ukraine in the matter of interpretation of the norms of the Law of Ukraine “On enforcement proceedings” was revealed regarding the debtor’s notification of existing of enforcement proceeding. It was established that courts while considering submissions of enforcement agents require enforcement agents to provide evidence of proof of the debtor’s notification of enforcement proceedings actions that the enforcement agents are not obliged to carry out in accordance with the legal framework. The courts do not properly interpret article 28 of the Law “On Enforcement Proceedings”, which stipulates that the debtor is deemed to be informed about the opening of enforcement proceeding if the resolution on opening the enforcement proceeding is sent to the debtor’s address stated in the writ of execution with a registered letter with a return receipt. Nevertheless, the courts even after the citation of the norm of article 28 of the Law, which directly specifies the fiction of the notice the debtor on the enforcement proceedings, still does not apply it, but require proof of the debtor’s notification of enforcement proceedings, which is not provided for by law. The situation is complicated by the fact that cases on submissions of enforcement agents on forced entering to debtor’s dwelling are not reviewed by the Supreme Court; therefore, it is impossible to develop a unified practice in this cases. In most cases, courts dismiss the submissions of enforcement agents on the basis of abovementioned reasons, which are inappropriate. While considering abovementioned submissions the court has to establish all actions of enforcement agents. If the enforcement agent carried out all possible actions with no or minimum result, it is the reason for the court to allow the submission and permit the enforcement agent to enter to debtor’s dwelling or other property using force as a last resort.

Copyright of Romanian Case Law Review / Revista Română de Jurisprudenţă 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.)

The function of the judiciary is to protect the law system and the law rights and centers by a request applied to it by the concerned persons, and by issuing decisions and verdicts that remove the state of ignoring which surrounds the right or the law center wanted to be protected in which it gets the binding force of the thing judged owing to its issue which prevents the review of the dispute among the same fellows for the same subject and cause. For the judicial verdict to get the binding force of the thing sentences, it must be issued by a judge in limits of his judicial sponsorship, also, it must be issued in the legally decided form. So, If the judicial sponsorship removed from the judge, for any reason, there will be important results that we will deal with them in this study. And since the Iraqi Law of civil pleadings did not address this issue, we will try in this study to find the best legal ways to address the above topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After several decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) against Croatia because of incomplete reasoning in a court order for covert measures (cases Dragojević, Bašić, Matanović and Grba), statutory regulations were not amended, but in the case-law an attempt was made to change the interpretation regarding exclusion of gathered evidence. The author researches this issue in order to determine the trends in the Supreme Court's (SC) interpretation, and impact of the ECtHR case-law over the past 12 years (N=67). The results show that for a long time the SC has argued that a deficiency in reasoning is an irregularity, but not as serious to lead to exclusion of covert recordings and other evidence. One of the SC chambers issued a decision in 2017, which it called "the revision", in which it expressed a different view that it was necessary to exclude all evidence gathered using incomplete court order, referring to some rules in few ECtHR decisions. The author therefore analyses the ECtHR's rules on the judicial review, the exclusion of illegal evidence, and other available safeguards to reduce court arbitrariness. The results indicate that exclusion of evidence is not primary remedy for improving lawfulness of procedure. Problems with compliance with the Convention law could continue to arise due to a lack of other appropriate safeguards in Croatian legislature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Inonu University Law Review / İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Inonu University Law Review (IULR) 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.)

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.)

Remedies are means provided by the law by which the State, through the Public Ministry, and the persons designated by law promote a judicial control in which criminal judgments are verified in order to abolish those judgments which contain factual and legal errors and replacing them with judgements compliant with law and truth. Remedies against court decisions, both ordinary and extraordinary, are based on the need to control the work of the courts. Following the exercise of judicial control, possible errors in the judicial process can be avoided, either in terms of establishing the facts or as regards the enforcement of the law. Starting from the lato sensu definition, a criminal procedural law must take into account certain principles when regulating the appeal system, whether ordinary or extraordinary. Thus, the Criminal Procedural Law must take into account the principle of necessity (preventing the continued validity of an unlawful and ungrounded decision), the principle of operability (the judgment of conviction being enforced as soon as possible, and therefore a reasonable duration of the criminal proceedings), the principle of res judicata (in essence, this principle ensures the prestige of the final judgments under the legal presumption that they are in accordance with the truth and the law). Too many extraordinary remedies would inevitably result in distrust of justice, uncertainty about the way in which the courts have been finally ruled in criminal cases. The principle of operability and res judicata must be used by the legislator in a rational and balanced way. The length of the criminal proceedings can not be shortened to the detriment of a legal and thoroughly decision, the stability of the court judgment invested with res judicata does not justify maintaining a judgment with serious errors of fact and law, even if it is final. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reflects on the treatment given by Spanish courts to arbitral awards issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in relation to the application in Spain of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Special mention is also made of the Judgment of the National Court of June19, 2017, known as the «Marta Domínguez Case». [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) describes a constellation of physical, cognitive, neurologic, and behavioral impairments resulting from prenatal exposure to alcohol. FASD is recognized as being one of the most common causes of preventable brain injury in children. There had long been concerns that some youth in conflict with the law may be affected with FASD given repetitive patterns of offending and apparent lack of understanding of the consequences of their actions. In 2004, funding was received from Justice Canada for a pilot project with a cross-departmental steering committee working together to determine a best way of working across systems to provide FASD assessments to these youth. It was recognized that provision of timely FASD assessments would allow the court to provide more meaningful sentences taking into account the youth's strengths and challenges and enhance the changes of decreased recidivism and increased changes of rehabilitation. This paper describes the basic science around FASD and its diagnosis, provides a history of the FASD Youth Justice Program, and reports on legal issues, structure, statistics, accomplishments, and ongoing future challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]