COMPARATIVE ASPECTS REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT UNDER THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF 1969 BY THE HIGH COURT OF CASSATION AND JUSTICE OF AN APPEAL AGAINST AN UNREASONED CONVICTION SENTENCE DELIVERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACQUITTAL DECISION ISSUED BY THE TRIAL COURT
This article examines, in relation to the national law (the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1969) and the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, the judgment of an appeal filed against an unreasoned sentencing decision delivered by the appellate court subsequent to a decision for acqui...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Nicolae Titulescu University Publishing House
2015-07-01
|
| Series: | Challenges of the Knowledge Society |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://cks.univnt.ro/uploads/cks_2015_articles/index.php?dir=01_criminal_law%2F&download=CKS+2015_criminal_law_art.018.pdf |
| _version_ | 1826908021756788736 |
|---|---|
| author | Mircea Constantin SINESCU |
| author_facet | Mircea Constantin SINESCU |
| author_sort | Mircea Constantin SINESCU |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This article examines, in relation to the national law (the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1969) and the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, the judgment of an appeal filed against an unreasoned sentencing decision delivered by the appellate court subsequent to a decision for acquittal rendered by the first-instance court (trial court). The article approaches this issue in light of the domestic and the international case law, with a highlight on several sentences that are deemed illegal due to their superficial reasoning or to a reasoning that fails to describe the circumstances, the evidence adduced and the grounds based on which the sentencing was ordered, as well as by reference to cases where the higher courts, after reassessing the evidence and the facts established by the lower court, delivered a decision to sentence, yet without reexamining the evidence that had been deemed sufficient by the first-instance judge to question the reasonableness of the charge and to render a sentence of acquittal. The author further illustrates the importance given by the Romanian legislator, and in particular by the European Convention on Human Rights, to the duty of the law courts to state the reasons of their sentencing decisions, particularly in cases where the trial court delivered a judgment of acquittal. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-21T13:25:03Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-a8a51b93422a45fbb680e01571b2698a |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2068-7796 2068-7796 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-02-17T09:16:55Z |
| publishDate | 2015-07-01 |
| publisher | Nicolae Titulescu University Publishing House |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Challenges of the Knowledge Society |
| spelling | doaj.art-a8a51b93422a45fbb680e01571b2698a2025-01-02T13:59:16ZengNicolae Titulescu University Publishing HouseChallenges of the Knowledge Society2068-77962068-77962015-07-0151124128COMPARATIVE ASPECTS REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT UNDER THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF 1969 BY THE HIGH COURT OF CASSATION AND JUSTICE OF AN APPEAL AGAINST AN UNREASONED CONVICTION SENTENCE DELIVERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACQUITTAL DECISION ISSUED BY THE TRIAL COURTMircea Constantin SINESCU0Assistant Professor and PhD Candidate – “Nicolae Titulescu” University – Faculty of Law – (mircea.sinescu@sinescu-nazat.ro)This article examines, in relation to the national law (the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1969) and the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, the judgment of an appeal filed against an unreasoned sentencing decision delivered by the appellate court subsequent to a decision for acquittal rendered by the first-instance court (trial court). The article approaches this issue in light of the domestic and the international case law, with a highlight on several sentences that are deemed illegal due to their superficial reasoning or to a reasoning that fails to describe the circumstances, the evidence adduced and the grounds based on which the sentencing was ordered, as well as by reference to cases where the higher courts, after reassessing the evidence and the facts established by the lower court, delivered a decision to sentence, yet without reexamining the evidence that had been deemed sufficient by the first-instance judge to question the reasonableness of the charge and to render a sentence of acquittal. The author further illustrates the importance given by the Romanian legislator, and in particular by the European Convention on Human Rights, to the duty of the law courts to state the reasons of their sentencing decisions, particularly in cases where the trial court delivered a judgment of acquittal.http://cks.univnt.ro/uploads/cks_2015_articles/index.php?dir=01_criminal_law%2F&download=CKS+2015_criminal_law_art.018.pdffailure to give reasonsreassessment of evidenceappealfair trialretrial. |
| spellingShingle | Mircea Constantin SINESCU COMPARATIVE ASPECTS REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT UNDER THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF 1969 BY THE HIGH COURT OF CASSATION AND JUSTICE OF AN APPEAL AGAINST AN UNREASONED CONVICTION SENTENCE DELIVERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACQUITTAL DECISION ISSUED BY THE TRIAL COURT Challenges of the Knowledge Society failure to give reasons reassessment of evidence appeal fair trial retrial. |
| title | COMPARATIVE ASPECTS REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT UNDER THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF 1969 BY THE HIGH COURT OF CASSATION AND JUSTICE OF AN APPEAL AGAINST AN UNREASONED CONVICTION SENTENCE DELIVERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACQUITTAL DECISION ISSUED BY THE TRIAL COURT |
| title_full | COMPARATIVE ASPECTS REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT UNDER THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF 1969 BY THE HIGH COURT OF CASSATION AND JUSTICE OF AN APPEAL AGAINST AN UNREASONED CONVICTION SENTENCE DELIVERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACQUITTAL DECISION ISSUED BY THE TRIAL COURT |
| title_fullStr | COMPARATIVE ASPECTS REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT UNDER THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF 1969 BY THE HIGH COURT OF CASSATION AND JUSTICE OF AN APPEAL AGAINST AN UNREASONED CONVICTION SENTENCE DELIVERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACQUITTAL DECISION ISSUED BY THE TRIAL COURT |
| title_full_unstemmed | COMPARATIVE ASPECTS REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT UNDER THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF 1969 BY THE HIGH COURT OF CASSATION AND JUSTICE OF AN APPEAL AGAINST AN UNREASONED CONVICTION SENTENCE DELIVERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACQUITTAL DECISION ISSUED BY THE TRIAL COURT |
| title_short | COMPARATIVE ASPECTS REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT UNDER THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF 1969 BY THE HIGH COURT OF CASSATION AND JUSTICE OF AN APPEAL AGAINST AN UNREASONED CONVICTION SENTENCE DELIVERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACQUITTAL DECISION ISSUED BY THE TRIAL COURT |
| title_sort | comparative aspects regarding the settlement under the code of criminal procedure of 1969 by the high court of cassation and justice of an appeal against an unreasoned conviction sentence delivered by the court of appeal subsequent to the acquittal decision issued by the trial court |
| topic | failure to give reasons reassessment of evidence appeal fair trial retrial. |
| url | http://cks.univnt.ro/uploads/cks_2015_articles/index.php?dir=01_criminal_law%2F&download=CKS+2015_criminal_law_art.018.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mirceaconstantinsinescu comparativeaspectsregardingthesettlementunderthecodeofcriminalprocedureof1969bythehighcourtofcassationandjusticeofanappealagainstanunreasonedconvictionsentencedeliveredbythecourtofappealsubsequenttotheacquittaldecisionissuedbythetrialcourt |