Papers by Valeriu V. Bodean
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research), Dec 15, 2020
As the suspension of the criminal investigation is a distinct procedural institution, which impli... more As the suspension of the criminal investigation is a distinct procedural institution, which implies the temporary cessation, by the prosecutor, of the activity of collecting evidence by means and evidentiary procedures, without resolving or final resolution of the investigated case, it becomes necessary to study the procedure of resuming the criminal investigation after its suspension, with the identification of the distinct role of each procedural subject empowered with such attributions. Equally important are the discussions on the grounds and deadlines within which the criminal investigation can be resumed, but also those regarding the actions subsequent to the reopening of the procedure that had been temporarily suspended. Namely the approach of these aspects is the object of the article presented below, with the value of exposing some opinions that, certainly, can and must be discussed, taking into consideration not only the theoretical aspects, but also the existing practice in this segment.
Studia Universitatis Moldaviae (Seria Ştiinţe Sociale), May 17, 2019
Articolul 287 din Codul de procedură penală prevede posibilitatea reluării urmăririi penale după ... more Articolul 287 din Codul de procedură penală prevede posibilitatea reluării urmăririi penale după adoptarea de către procuror a soluției de netrimitere a cauzei penale în instanţa de judecată. Scopul studiului a fost să identificăm în ce măsură evoluţia legislativă a textului respectivului articol a înlăturat controversele şi situaţiile confuze existente până la intrarea în vigoare a Legii nr.316 din 22.12.2017, care conţine ultimele modificări de până acum, operate în raport cu instituţia reluării urmăririi penale. Ar fi oare dispoziţiile actuale ale art.287 din Codul de procedură penală suficiente pentru a garanta principiul non bis in idem și, pe de altă parte, pentru a asigura o anchetă eficientă? Este raţională sau nu excluderea procurorului de caz din cercul persoanelor care pot anula o hotărâre de scoatere a persoanei de sub urmărire penală, de încetare a urmăririi penale sau de clasare a cauzei penale? Acestea sunt chestiunile care, cu siguranţă, prezintă o importanţă teoretică, dar cu un impact practic imediat. Cuvinte-cheie: non bis in idem, reluarea urmăririi penale, fapte noi, fapte recent descoperite, viciu fundamental, procuror, judecător de instrucţie. Article 287 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the possibility of the resumption of criminal prosecution after the adoption by the prosecutor of a decision not to send the criminal case to the court. The purpose of the study was to identify to what extent the legislative evolution of the text of the concerned article removed the confusing controversies and situations existent before the entry into force of the Law No. 316 of December 22 nd , 2017, which contains the latest modifications up to date, made in relation to the institution of criminal prosecution resumption. Would the current provisions of the art.287 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be sufficient in order to guarantee the principle of non bis in idem on the one hand and, on the other hand, ensure an effective investigation? Is it rational or not to exclude the prosecutor of the case from the circle of persons that can cancel a decision of the liberation of the person from criminal prosecution, of the termination of criminal prosecution or cessation of criminal prosecution? These are matters that certainly present a theoretical importance, but with an immediate practical impact.
Studia Universitatis Moldaviae: Stiinte Sociale, 2019
Articolul 287 din Codul de procedură penală prevede posibilitatea reluării urmăririi penale după ... more Articolul 287 din Codul de procedură penală prevede posibilitatea reluării urmăririi penale după adoptarea de către procuror a soluției de netrimitere a cauzei penale în instanţa de judecată. Scopul studiului a fost să identificăm în ce măsură evoluţia legislativă a textului respectivului articol a înlăturat controversele şi situaţiile confuze existente până la intrarea în vigoare a Legii nr.316 din 22.12.2017, care conţine ultimele modificări de până acum, operate în raport cu instituţia reluării urmăririi penale. Ar fi oare dispoziţiile actuale ale art.287 din Codul de procedură penală suficiente pentru a garanta principiul non bis in idem și, pe de altă parte, pentru a asigura o anchetă eficientă? Este raţională sau nu excluderea procurorului de caz din cercul persoanelor care pot anula o hotărâre de scoatere a persoanei de sub urmărire penală, de încetare a urmăririi penale sau de clasare a cauzei penale? Acestea sunt chestiunile care, cu siguranţă, prezintă o importanţă teoretică, dar cu un impact practic imediat. Cuvinte-cheie: non bis in idem, reluarea urmăririi penale, fapte noi, fapte recent descoperite, viciu fundamental, procuror, judecător de instrucţie. Article 287 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the possibility of the resumption of criminal prosecution after the adoption by the prosecutor of a decision not to send the criminal case to the court. The purpose of the study was to identify to what extent the legislative evolution of the text of the concerned article removed the confusing controversies and situations existent before the entry into force of the Law No. 316 of December 22 nd , 2017, which contains the latest modifications up to date, made in relation to the institution of criminal prosecution resumption. Would the current provisions of the art.287 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be sufficient in order to guarantee the principle of non bis in idem on the one hand and, on the other hand, ensure an effective investigation? Is it rational or not to exclude the prosecutor of the case from the circle of persons that can cancel a decision of the liberation of the person from criminal prosecution, of the termination of criminal prosecution or cessation of criminal prosecution? These are matters that certainly present a theoretical importance, but with an immediate practical impact.
Article 287 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the possibility of the resumption of crimi... more Article 287 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the possibility of the resumption of criminal prosecution after the adoption by the prosecutor of a decision not to send the criminal case to the court.<br> The purpose of the study was to identify the demarcation line of the attributions of the procedural subjects empowered with the right to decide on a solution to classify the criminal case, to remove the person from criminal prosecution or to stop the criminal prosecution, which results in the resumption of criminal investigations on case.<br> In other words, we have tried to establish the limits to which the right of the prosecutor or the investigating judge to intervene with a procedural document with a dispositive character when a criminal case has already been solved, without reaching the substantive court notification , competent to examine the merits of criminal cases, and last but not least, to note the possible interference of the duties of prosecutors and...
Uploads
Papers by Valeriu V. Bodean