Post by account_disabled on Jan 8, 2024 9:21:58 GMT
To amend and supplement Law no. published in M. Of. Part I no. of July . cyunconstitutional complaint is that the law has retroactive effects thus violating the principle of nonretroactivity of the law enshrined in the provisions of art. para. from the Constitution of Romania The law disposes only for the future with the exception of the more favorable criminal or contravention law . The hypothesis described in the act of notification exists de plano since even before deputies or senators could not freely decide on the employment of relatives or relatives in their own parliamentary offices they having the obligation to respect the legal regime of conflicts of interest namely the provisions of art. . and of Law no. i . i Regarding some measures to ensure transparency in the exercise of public dignities public functions and in the business environment the prevention and sanctioning of corruption published in M. Of. Part I no. of Aprtation could lead to a legal conflict of a constitutional nature between the Parliament and the High Court of Cassation an.
Acompared to the special provisions contained in art. para. and from Country Email List Government Ordinance no. which require the court to listen to the petitioner and allow him to present even orally the grounds of appeal. . The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights ECtHR was invoked the cases of Ozturk vs. Germany Salabiaku vs. France and Pham Hoang vs. France according to which the regulations that sanction contraventions have a criminal nature so that when judging such of causes the guarantees provided by art. of the Convention. . of Alexandria which considers that the justification of the complaint within the day period does not entail the forfeiture of the petitioner from the right to invoke any aspects of illegality and unfoundedness of the minutes of the finding of the contravention while in the procedure of the regularization of the request he has the obligation to.
Motivate his complaint and to propose evidence to prove the aspects reported in it by way of consequence it is appreciated that only in the hypothesis in which the petitioner not only does not justify his complaint in fact and in law but also does not indicate the means of proof in support of it the sanction of the forfeiture of the right to present evidence and to to invoke exceptions except those of public order. The courts of sectors and Bucharest Alba Iulia PiatraNeamt TrguNeamt Moineti Bacu majority Buhui Braov Fgra Rupea.
Acompared to the special provisions contained in art. para. and from Country Email List Government Ordinance no. which require the court to listen to the petitioner and allow him to present even orally the grounds of appeal. . The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights ECtHR was invoked the cases of Ozturk vs. Germany Salabiaku vs. France and Pham Hoang vs. France according to which the regulations that sanction contraventions have a criminal nature so that when judging such of causes the guarantees provided by art. of the Convention. . of Alexandria which considers that the justification of the complaint within the day period does not entail the forfeiture of the petitioner from the right to invoke any aspects of illegality and unfoundedness of the minutes of the finding of the contravention while in the procedure of the regularization of the request he has the obligation to.
Motivate his complaint and to propose evidence to prove the aspects reported in it by way of consequence it is appreciated that only in the hypothesis in which the petitioner not only does not justify his complaint in fact and in law but also does not indicate the means of proof in support of it the sanction of the forfeiture of the right to present evidence and to to invoke exceptions except those of public order. The courts of sectors and Bucharest Alba Iulia PiatraNeamt TrguNeamt Moineti Bacu majority Buhui Braov Fgra Rupea.