Examination of these legal texts the constitutional

Roselin67

Athat at the same time the discriminatory character appears as obvious in the situation where it is found that the conditions for engaging in criminal liability have not been met the right to reparation of damage arising only in the case of the person illegally deprived of liberty not in the case of the one in connection with which judicial control measure was taken. From the perspective of the proportionality of the total duration of the judicial control measure it considers that the terms provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure do not respect this principle. . Regarding the provisions of art. para. of the Code of Criminal Procedure assesses that they.

Are unconstitutional because they do not regulate the term for resolving the Country Email List appeal against the preventive measure of judicial control ordered by the prosecutor. Thus the situation is reached where the resolution of the appeal intervenes after the termination of the measure of judicial control which goes against the requirements imposed by the invoked constitutional provisions. . Bucharest Court of Appeal Second Criminal Section regarding the exception of.



Unconstitutionality of the provisions of art. paragraph of the Criminal Procedure Code shows that by Decision no. of December the Constitutional Court found that the provisions of art. of the Criminal Procedure Code contravene the provisions of art. of the Basic Law only in the aspect that they give the opportunity to judicial bodies to order the preventive measure of judicial control and judicial control on bail for unlimited periods. In carrying out the constitutionality court did not identify any violations of the Constitution in terms of the maximum duration for which this measure could be taken. . Furthermore it notes that the interference generated by the institution of judicial control concerns fundamental rights namely the right to individual freedom the right to free movement.