Autor: Andrei BĂNCILĂ
Publicat în: Revista Universul Juridic nr. 1/2017
Disponibil online: aici.
Abstract: On the occasion of the notification registered under no. 4020/1/2016, at the High Court of Cassation and Justice – The panel competent to resolve law issues, we believe that it can be cleared up a question of law which should arouse particular interest to legal experts, namely that of knowing the meaning of the concept of law in the term more favourable criminal law and more concretely, if different ways of interpreting and implementing the provisions of a law, imposed by mandatory supreme court jurisprudence, fall in with the principle of applying the more favourable criminal law until the final judgment of the case, governed by art. 5 of the Criminal Code. Given that in the current state of our country legislation, there are a number of mechanisms for practice unification (some with special finality set of regulations in this respect – the appeal in the interest of law, preliminarily resolving law issues – , others gaining that functionality through judicial interpretation – a posteriori constitutional review), aimed at delivering rulings that induce with binding power, a certain sense of interpretation and application of legal texts likely to generate uneven practice, we believe that the ECHR standards concerning the law of jurisprudential origin will be increasingly reached.
Keywords: art. 67 of Law no. 192/2006 on mediation; art. 5 of Criminal Code; more favourable criminal law; art. 7 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; ECHR standards; law of jurisprudential origin; mechanisms for practice unification.
