Autor: Marcel SANDU

Publicat în: Revista Dreptul nr.8/2016

Disponibil onlineaici.

Titlul lucrării în engleză: Discussions regarding a case where a police officer received a final conviction and opinions referring to the provisions of Article 103 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code

Abstract: In the case law of the Strasbourg Court, in the cases in which Romania has been convicted for the use of undercover investigators, it has been retained the violation of the right to a fair trial, not by the importance given to the statements of the investigators, the protected witnesses or collaborators, but by the omission of the judge examining the merits to take actual steps to hear them in the trial phase. These obligations, which are directly applicable in the Romanian law system, are established, on the one hand, so that the defendant and any other party can address questions to the witnesses, debate and contest their allegations, and, on the other hand, so that the judge can hear directly the depositions of the investigators or collaborators. Despite these clear and common-sense rules arising from the mandatory case law of the European Court, the current Criminal Procedure Code has provided, in Article 103 (3), that the statements of the investigators, collaborators and protected witnesses can not contribute decisively to proving crimes, thus the interdiction is valid whether they have been heard or not by the law court.

Keywords: undercover investigator; protected witness; bribe-giving; bribe-taking; ECHR case law.