Post by account_disabled on Jan 2, 2024 0:11:37 GMT -5
Ajudgment and in the case of judgments given in extraordinary appeals or in substance after annulment with remand within days from the pronouncement. . In the opinion of the author of the exception of unconstitutionality the criticized legal provisions contravene the provisions of the Constitution contained in art. para. and regarding equal rights art. para. which enshrines the right of free access to justice and to a fair trial resolved within a reasonable time art. para. regarding the right to defense art.
Regarding the restriction of the exercise of certain rights or freedoms art. para. which Country Email List rules on the administration of justice and art. regarding the use of appeals. The provisions of art. paragraph regarding the right to a fair trial and art. regarding the prohibition of the abuse of law from the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. . Examining the exception of unconstitutionality the Court observes that it has also ruled on the provisions of the law criticized in the present case by Decision no. of May published in the Official Gazette of Romania Part I no. of July rejecting as unfounded the exception of unconstitutionality.
Through the aforementioned decision the Constitutional Court found that the establishment of a term in which the request for completion can be introduced in the case of judgments given in extraordinary appeals or in the merits after annulment with remand a of the judgment does not contravene the right of free access to justice. In essence the Court held that none of the parties is prevented from carrying out this procedural step as long as the judgment in question was the result of a process carried out under the conditions of the legal fulfillment of the subpoena procedure so that.
Regarding the restriction of the exercise of certain rights or freedoms art. para. which Country Email List rules on the administration of justice and art. regarding the use of appeals. The provisions of art. paragraph regarding the right to a fair trial and art. regarding the prohibition of the abuse of law from the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. . Examining the exception of unconstitutionality the Court observes that it has also ruled on the provisions of the law criticized in the present case by Decision no. of May published in the Official Gazette of Romania Part I no. of July rejecting as unfounded the exception of unconstitutionality.
Through the aforementioned decision the Constitutional Court found that the establishment of a term in which the request for completion can be introduced in the case of judgments given in extraordinary appeals or in the merits after annulment with remand a of the judgment does not contravene the right of free access to justice. In essence the Court held that none of the parties is prevented from carrying out this procedural step as long as the judgment in question was the result of a process carried out under the conditions of the legal fulfillment of the subpoena procedure so that.