Post by account_disabled on Dec 24, 2023 4:42:29 GMT
Aform in force prior to the amendment by Law no. were the subject of the constitutional review regarding the holders of the right of appeal. Thus by Decision no. published in the M. Of. Part I the Court admitted the exception of unconstitutionality and found that the legislative solution contained in art. paragraph of the CPP in the wording prior to the amendment by Law no. according to which only the prosecutor and the defendant can file an appeal regarding the way of resolving requests and exceptions as well as against the solutions provided for in art. para. it is unconstitutional.
Through the mentioned decision the Court ruled that the provisions of art. paragraph Country Email List of the CPP are contrary to the constitutional provisions regarding free access to justice as long as they do not give the right to the injured person the civil party and the civilly responsible party to file an appeal with regarding the way of resolving requests and exceptions as well as against the solutions provided for in art. para. paragraph . The Court notes that the provisions of art. para. of the Code of.
Criminal Procedure in the wording prior to the amendment by Law no. provide for the possibility to challenge separately or cumulatively two distinct levels of the solutions pronounced in preliminary chamber procedure. A first level is the way of resolving requests and exceptions in which case the appellant criticizes the manner in which the requests and rejected by the judge of the preliminary chamber through the intermediate decision issued pursuant to art. paragraph . of the CPP under the conditions in which there is no separate appeal for this intermediate conclusion. The second level is the modalities for resolving the preliminary chamber procedure based on art. para.
Through the mentioned decision the Court ruled that the provisions of art. paragraph Country Email List of the CPP are contrary to the constitutional provisions regarding free access to justice as long as they do not give the right to the injured person the civil party and the civilly responsible party to file an appeal with regarding the way of resolving requests and exceptions as well as against the solutions provided for in art. para. paragraph . The Court notes that the provisions of art. para. of the Code of.
Criminal Procedure in the wording prior to the amendment by Law no. provide for the possibility to challenge separately or cumulatively two distinct levels of the solutions pronounced in preliminary chamber procedure. A first level is the way of resolving requests and exceptions in which case the appellant criticizes the manner in which the requests and rejected by the judge of the preliminary chamber through the intermediate decision issued pursuant to art. paragraph . of the CPP under the conditions in which there is no separate appeal for this intermediate conclusion. The second level is the modalities for resolving the preliminary chamber procedure based on art. para.