<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<CERIF xmlns='urn:xmlns:org:eurocris:cerif-1.5-1' xsi:schemaLocation='urn:xmlns:org:eurocris:cerif-1.5-1 http://www.eurocris.org/Uploads/Web%20pages/CERIF-1.5/CERIF_1.5_1.xsd' xmlns:xsi='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance' release='1.5' date='2012-10-07' sourceDatabase='Output Profile'>
<cfResPubl>
<cfResPublId>ibn-ResPubl-36377</cfResPublId>
<cfResPublDate>2013-12-20</cfResPublDate>
<cfVol>27</cfVol>
<cfIssue>4</cfIssue>
<cfStartPage>49</cfStartPage>
<cfISSN>1857-2405</cfISSN>
<cfURI>https://ibn.idsi.md/ro/vizualizare_articol/36377</cfURI>
<cfTitle cfLangCode='RO' cfTrans='o'>Unele aspecte discutabile ale practicii judiciare</cfTitle>
<cfKeyw cfLangCode='RO' cfTrans='o'>Curtea  Europeană  a  drepturilor  omului; Codul  de  procedură  penală; examinare; practica  judiciară; instanţă imparţială; European  Court  of  Human  Rights; Code  of  
criminal  procedure; examination; judicial  practice; impartial  
instance</cfKeyw>
<cfAbstr cfLangCode='RO' cfTrans='o'>In conformitate cu pracica judiciară, judecătorii instanțelor de apel, care au participat la examenul de casație impotriva definiției cu privire la aplicarea măsurii de reținere pe proces, nu sunt incompatibili să participe, de asemenea, la examinarea aceluiași proces, in primă instanță și recurs in mod obișnuit, in contradicție cu prevederile art. (33) parag. (3) - (4) din Codul de procedură penală și jurisprudența Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului cu privire la interpretarea dreptului la instanță imparțială, care este garantat de art. 6 § 1 al Curţii Europeane a Drepturilor Omului.</cfAbstr>
<cfAbstr cfLangCode='EN' cfTrans='o'>The judicial practice according to which, the judges of appeal instances, who participated in cassation’s examination against the definition about the application of measure of restraint on lawsuit, are not incompatible to participate also in examination of the same lawsuit at the first instance, in the ordinary way and appeal ordinary way, contradicts the provisions of art. (33) parts (3) – (4) Code of criminal procedure and jurisprudence of European Court of Human Rights about interpretation of the right to impartial instance, which is guaranteed by art. 6 § 1 of European Court of Human Rights.</cfAbstr>
<cfResPubl_Class>
<cfClassId>eda2d9e9-34c5-11e1-b86c-0800200c9a66</cfClassId>
<cfClassSchemeId>759af938-34ae-11e1-b86c-0800200c9a66</cfClassSchemeId>
<cfStartDate>2013-12-20T24:00:00</cfStartDate>
</cfResPubl_Class>
<cfResPubl_Class>
<cfClassId>e601872f-4b7e-4d88-929f-7df027b226c9</cfClassId>
<cfClassSchemeId>40e90e2f-446d-460a-98e5-5dce57550c48</cfClassSchemeId>
<cfStartDate>2013-12-20T24:00:00</cfStartDate>
</cfResPubl_Class>
<cfPers_ResPubl>
<cfPersId>ibn-person-11259</cfPersId>
<cfClassId>49815870-1cfe-11e1-8bc2-0800200c9a66</cfClassId>
<cfClassSchemeId>b7135ad0-1d00-11e1-8bc2-0800200c9a66</cfClassSchemeId>
<cfStartDate>2013-12-20T24:00:00</cfStartDate>
</cfPers_ResPubl>
<cfPers_ResPubl>
<cfPersId>ibn-person-35394</cfPersId>
<cfClassId>49815870-1cfe-11e1-8bc2-0800200c9a66</cfClassId>
<cfClassSchemeId>b7135ad0-1d00-11e1-8bc2-0800200c9a66</cfClassSchemeId>
<cfStartDate>2013-12-20T24:00:00</cfStartDate>
</cfPers_ResPubl>
</cfResPubl>
<cfPers>
<cfPersId>ibn-Pers-11259</cfPersId>
<cfPersName_Pers>
<cfPersNameId>ibn-PersName-11259-2</cfPersNameId>
<cfClassId>55f90543-d631-42eb-8d47-d8d9266cbb26</cfClassId>
<cfClassSchemeId>7375609d-cfa6-45ce-a803-75de69abe21f</cfClassSchemeId>
<cfStartDate>2013-12-20T24:00:00</cfStartDate>
<cfFamilyNames>Ульяновский</cfFamilyNames>
<cfFirstNames>Георгий</cfFirstNames>
</cfPersName_Pers>
</cfPers>
<cfPers>
<cfPersId>ibn-Pers-35394</cfPersId>
<cfPersName_Pers>
<cfPersNameId>ibn-PersName-35394-2</cfPersNameId>
<cfClassId>55f90543-d631-42eb-8d47-d8d9266cbb26</cfClassId>
<cfClassSchemeId>7375609d-cfa6-45ce-a803-75de69abe21f</cfClassSchemeId>
<cfStartDate>2013-12-20T24:00:00</cfStartDate>
<cfFamilyNames>Ulianovschi</cfFamilyNames>
<cfFirstNames>Irina</cfFirstNames>
</cfPersName_Pers>
</cfPers>
</CERIF>