Elena Oancea - Contrage of the Impartiality of Magistrates in the New Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure

 Elena Oancea - Contrage of the Impartiality of Magistrates in the New Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure

Motto: „Freedom is the foundation of Law”

Neagu Djuvara

The emergence of major laws which systematize a certain area certainly represents a milestone in the "becoming" of law. If we accept this idea it is understandable that the entry into force simultaneously on 15.02.2014 of the Criminal Code and of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Romania is a moment that will not be easily forgotten.

The new laws seek to meet the expectations and needs of a more modern justice. The old codes of the communist period (in force between 1968-2014) had "endured" with some modifications and completions over the 20 years after 1990, but in spite of the frequent changes, it was found that this will require the emergence of other codes that respond better to the requirements of a constitutional State.

The ideas, the discussions, the controversies, the opinions preceding for over 5 years the emergence of the new codes have preserved even today, after the entry into force of the laws both the span and the intensity. At first glance this seems unnatural. But if we refer to the mentality that characterizes us in the meaning that only the imminence of a problem "awakens us" from the lethargy and while today the controversies are mainly quartered especially in the interpretation of legal norms and putting them into practice in a manner as homogeneous as possible, the initial impression of being unnatural is partially obscured.

The new regulations should be seen in close connection with the existing norms of the Constitution and other laws relating to the judicial independence according to which the judges are independent and are subject only to the law, they enjoy immovability, they cannot be part of political parties nor can they engage in activities of a political nature, they cannot held other public or private office, except for academic activities.

Starting from the statement (which was given the value of an axiom) that the making of justice has as an important component the existence of independent courts, the new legal framework settles the issue of impartiality as being intrinsic to the independence of the court.

To give efficiency to the presumption of impartiality in the Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force on 15 February 2014 shall be expressly regulated the incompatibility, the abstention and the recusal that constitute true institutions in the criminal procedure.

The incompatibility, the abstention and the recusal are provided as procedural remedies through which an official subject of the judicial bodies is removed or refrains from resolving a criminal case. The criminal cases involving judges are exposed with priority in art. 64- Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Article 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads:

"(1) The judge is incompatible if:

a)    He/she was a representative or attorney of a party or of a main procedural subject, even in another case;

b)    He/she is a relative or is in kinship up to the fourth degree inclusiveh: or is in a different situation from those provided in art. 177 of the Criminal Code with one of the parties, with a main procedural subject, with the attorney or representative thereof;

c)    He/she was an expert or witness, in the case;

d)    is a guardian or trustee of a party or of a main procedural subject:

e)    has performed, in the case, criminal proceedings or participated, as a prasecutor, in any proceedings before a judge or a court;

f)    There is a reasonable suspicion that the judge's impartiality is impaired.

(2) The same panel of judges cannot be formed of people who are spouses; relatives or are in any type of kinship up to grade IV inclusively, or are in a different situation from those provided in art. 177 of the Criminal Code.

(3) A judge who participated in the trial of a case cannot participate in the same case in an appeal or retrial after the dissolution or the reversal of the decision.

(4) A judge of rights and freedoms may not participate in the same case, at the preliminary chamber procedure, in the judgment on the merits or in the remedies.

(S) A judge who participated in solving the complaint against the solutions of not initiating the criminal pursuit or criminal lawsuit may not participate in the same case, in the judgment on the merits or in remedies.

(6) The judge who ruled on a measure subject to appeal cannot participate in the review procedures. "

Generally, this regulation is not fundamentally different from the old Code of Criminal Procedure.

One aspect of differentiation is the broadening of the sphere of persons falling within the incidence of Article. 64 letter b Code of Criminal Procedure because the meaning of the concept of "family member" is determined by art. 177 of the Criminal Code. 

This text includes in the mentioned concept, not only the direct relatives, the descendants, brothers and sisters and their children, those who once adopted acquire the quality, the spouse but also "people who have established relationships similar to those between spouses or between parents and children, where they live together".

This case of incompatibility comes to respond to the situations often met of civil partnerships increasingly agreed at the expense of marriage.

The Supreme Court finding an inconsistent application of the law of criminal procedure made a ruling through the decision no. 1/2006 published in the Official Gazette no. 291 of 31.03.2006 issued in the settlement of an appeal in the interest of the law that the change of the legal classification of the offense which is the object of the act instituting proceedings, the conclusion pronounced before settling the case, do not entail the incompatibility of the judge who was part of the panel.

This Supreme Court decision was based on the argument that the will of the legislature was to consider changing the legal classification of the offense to be decided as a procedural issue which did not entail the direct solution of the case. Being in the presence of a law problem solved by the Supreme Court, this solution is applicable the present as well since there is the possibility of changing the legal classification of judicial in the facts to be decided during the trial.

In this respect the art. 477' Code of Criminal Procedure, to ensure a uniform practice, it is expressly stated that the effects of a judgment in resolving an appeal in the interest of the law "ceases" in the case of a new appeal, or finding unconstitutionality or changing the legal provision that has generated the law problem, unless it subsists in the new regulation.

Following the same rationale the judge who resolved the proposal of preventive arrest during the criminal prosecution is not incompatible. As such, the same judge in the same case can solve requests having the object of extension of the preventive arrrest and may solve the cause on merits (decision no. 7/2007, Decision no. 22/2008 issued by the High Court of Cassation and Justice).

The incompatibility case of art. 64 letter a of the Code of Criminal Procedure was completed today in the sense that the judge becomes incompatible only if he was the representative or attorney of a party or of another main procedural subject in the case which he should judge and becomes incompatible if he had this quality "even in another case".

The suspicion of incompatibility appears to be justified even if the attomey did not exercise any of the activities entailed by conducting the defence in a criminal trial. With respect to the incompatibility of the judge who was an expert or a witness in a case, the case is based on the idea that, on the one hand the expert expressed his opinion. on certain aspects of the criminal case, on the other hand the person who provided evidence in a criminal case cannot subsequently evaluate sample himself/herself. The phrase contained in art. 64 letter f has a very wide area of coverage.

The general reference to "reasonable doubt" covers a variety of situations both in the circumstances which would result in suspicion and also in the forms that can be of any type (e.g., the existence of a state of physical or emotional dependence).

With respect to the fact that was given up on the old regulation according to which the judge who "received special favours from a party, attorney, or agent thereof" (Art. 48 parag. 1 lett.i of the old Code of Criminal Procedure) it is to conclude that in the presence of such a situation it becomes applicable the generic reason for incompatibility of art. 64 letter f of the current regulation.

The same generic reason covers also the above situation expressly regulated (currently foregone) on the existence of hostile relations.

A goal stated in the draft of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also to harmonize the European legislation and in particular the case law of the ECHR.

The Romanian regulation had previously in its contents as grounds for the incompatibility of the judge the situation in which "the husband, the brother or the relative (of the judge) up to the fourth degree, has performed the criminal proceedings. supervised the prosecution, solved the arrest proposal or extended the preventive arrest during prosecution "(Art. 48 paragr. 1 lett.e of the old Code of Criminal Procedure was introduced by Law no. 356/2006).

Giving up this reason may prove to be hasty, given suspicions that may arise due to the existence of a reasonable assumption that between the judge on the one hand and those listed there are relationships that may be reflected in the solutions of the judge.

It is true that these situations can be covered by a generic expression of art. 64 letter f. aimed at any "reasonable doubt", but it is noted that, at present, are common the situations where the people listed are part of the prosecution staff.

These people, even if they do not perform themselves the acts of criminal pursuit are involved in activities whose specific are the subordination, the verification, the confirmation of acts which subsequently are to be reviewed by a judge.

This view is not shared by the ECHR. By way of example. in the judement of 29.03.2007 in Case Mircea against Romania it was held that the incompatibility of the Judge persists even in the express assumption, namely that to eine lady judges who were part of the Supreme Court panel that convicted the applicant solely on the basis of evidence administered during the investigation, were married to prosecutors at the court office attached.

There remained in the current regulation as well as "established" reasons of incompatibility certain situations, such as the incompatibility of the judge to rule on the ame case in an appeal or participate in the trial of that case after the retirement or dissolution of the judgment.

In adition to the legal norms governing the cases of incompatibility for judges the Ins regulated also the incompatibility cases of other official participants. Thus, the art. 65 Code of Criminal Procedure reads:

    ”(1) The provisions of art. 64 paragr. 1 lett. a-d and fapply to the prosecutor and to the criminal investigation body.

    (2) The provisions of art. 64 parag. I shall apply to the magistrate - assistant and registrar.

    (3) The provisions of art. 64 parag. 2 apply to the prosecutor and to the magistrate - assistant or, where appropriate, the registrar, when the cause of incompatibility exists henween them or between any of them and the judge of rights and freedoms, the preliminary judge or one of the members of the court panel.

    (4) The prosecutor who participated as a judge in a case may not, in that same case, exercise the function of criminal prosecution or to make submissions in the judgment of that case in the first instance and on appeal. "

The abstention and recusal are the procedural institutions through which incompatibility issues are resolved.

Under the law, an incompatible person is required to declare as appropriate, to the court president, to the prosecutor overseeing the prosecution or higher prosecutor that he/she abstains from participating in the criminal case and showing the incompatibility case and the grounds on which the reason for abstention lies. The declaration of abstention is made once this person is aware of the existence of such incompatibility.

The obligation of abstention is of an immediate nature and is bound to the moral nature of the incompatibility. Failure to do so may result in disciplinary action. Depending on the circumstances, such a breach of the duty of abstention may have as a repercussion even the exclusion from the profession.

The recusal is the legal manner by which the parties, the trial subjects or the prosecutor may invoke a reason of incompatibility if the person did not declare the abstention. It is observed that in the current regulation it is recognized also the right of the prosecutor to apply for recusal.

The recusal may be made orally or in writing, mentioning for each person the alleged incompatibility of the case and the grounds known in fact at the time of application. The application for recusal made orally shall be recorded in a report or, where appropriate, in the conclusion of the hearing

The application for recusal is formulated only against the person of the criminal investigation body, the prosecutor or the judge who performs judicial activities in the case. It is inadmissible the recusal of the judge or the prosecutor called to decide on the recusal.

These provisions shall also apply for the recusal of the assistant magistrate and the cout clerk. It is also unacceptable the request for recusal of the entire panel of the court judges.

 In such a situation one may apply to transfer the trial to another court ”when there is reasonable doubt that the court„s impartiality is impaired due to circumstances of the case, the quality of the parties or where there is danger of disturbing the public order” (Article. 71 Code of Criminal Procedure)

The request for recusal must be necessarily made immediately after the person sho makes it learns about the incompatibility and no later than the closing debate. Such a limitation is reasonable because, after the judgment, the court shall dismiss and the request for recusal is practically devoid of purpose.

Failure to respect the provisions regarding the specific indication of the recused person, in showing the reasons of fact or in the request for recusal against the same person for the same case of incompatibility it attracts the refusal to recusal according to the law as inadmissible. "The inadmissibility is found by the prosecutor or the panel of judges before which has made the request for recusal" (art. 67 par. 5 C. Criminal Proc.).

It is noticed that, generally, the examining of the application for recusal is made by other panel, respectively by another prosecutor. It is only reasonable the solution to assign the competence to examine the application to the panel of judges or to the prosecutor to whom the request is made when in the application for recusal is not given the recused person and (or) the grounds for recusal.

This solution is viable to avoid the time loss (in view of the designation of another panel or prosecutor to process the application for recusal) where requests are such that real and effective examination is impossible.

The solution chosen by the law in resolving repeated requests for recusal (* against the same person, for the same case of incompatibility with basically the same grounds") and that is to be examined by the panel or the prosecutor "to whom one made the request for recusal' is however, questionable.

This is because, in the presence of the indication of the recused person but especially in the presence of reasoning, it is necessary to examine the identity or the reasons de facto. However, only in the presence of an absolutely identical reasoning can be established that there is not a genuine request for recusal, but the repeated request of a copy.

The suspicions in this situation can exist as long as the new request for recusal against the same person for the same reason of incompatibility is formulated as motivating facts in similar terms, but not identical and the similarity does not preclude the new application to have yet concretely other items in the factual determination.

As such, it would be preferable for these recusal applications to be reviewed by other people than just those targeted by the request for recusal.

The resolution procedure of the declaration of abstention or recusal request is non-public and non-contradictory in principle, being done in less than 24 hours from the time of application, namely a declaration in chambers without the participation of the one that declares abstention or that is recused.

If considered necessary, the judge or panel of judges, as the case may be, may carry out any verification and can hear the prosecutor, the main proceedings subjects, the parties and the person who is abstaining or whose recusal is requested. Any such hearing is optional and not mandatory. The conclusion which solves the abstention or the recusal, regardless of the proposed solution is not subject to any appeal.

However, any of the people listed may require the review of the call to note the lack of impartiality of the judge and to have sent the case back to retrial for the legal Conerage of the Impartialiy of Magistrates in the New Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure postion of the panel. In our law, the illegal composition of the panel judging a criminal case is still sanctioned by absolute nullity.

In the conception of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, the concept of imperiality is extended to all judicial bodies operating in the early stage of the criminal trial, namely the prosecution phase.

The cases of incompatibility of the prosecutor and the criminal investigation bodies were exhibited in art. 65 Code of Criminal Procedure in order to avoid the risk of bias from the start of the preliminary investigations.

By the provisions of art. 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code are extended the cases of incompatibility provided for judges and experts.

A person in any of the cases of incompatibility provided in art. 64 cannot be designated as an expert, and if it has been designated, the judgment cannot be based on is findings and conclusions. The reason of incompatibility must be proved by the person who calls upon it.

The issue of settling the incompatibility of the preliminary chamber judge and of the judge for rights and freedoms is regulated as shown in the last three paragraphs of the article 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This issue must be regarded as closely related to the introduction for the first time in our law of a rule with value of fundamental principle of the criminal law suit. This principle is called "separation of judicial functions", aimed "to ensure the operative development of procedures, the impartiality and the credibility in the exercise of the attributions of each judicial body" (page 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the draft of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

Article 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads:

The separation of judicial functions (1) In criminal proceedings the following judicial function are exercised:

a) the function of criminal prosecution;

b) the function of disposition on the rights and freedoms of the person in the prosecution phase;

c) the function of verification of the legality of sending or not sending someone to trial;

d) the function of judgement

(2) The judicial functions are exercised ex officio, unless ruled otherwise by law.

(3) In developing the same criminal trial, the exercise of a judicial function is incompatible with other judicial functions, except those provided in paragr. (1) lett. C), which is compatible with the function of judgement. "

It is easy to see that this regulation, though elevated to a fundamental principle, includes an important exemption that relates to incompatibility. The waiver from a fundamental principle should be justified by a major interest and on the other hand an exemption under these conditions (even regulated as such) should be invoked only in specific circumstances, as little as possible.

Unfortunately, the waiver, the exception to a fundamental principle itself is recognized by the law its nature as a basic, usual rule. This character is given by the rule contained in art. 346 paragraph 7 C. of the Code of Criminal procedure: "The preliminary court room judge who ordered the beginning of the judgment shall act a such in the case."

Under these conditions, the same court judge who verifies the competence of the court, the legality of the intimation act elaborated by the prosecutor's office for prosecution proceedings, the legality of the evidence manag oftent and of claborating the documents by the prosecuting bodies rules the beginning of the prosecution and the same judge rules the criminal case in first instance.

It is noteworthy that both the waiver contained in art 3 paragraph 3 as well as the last paragraph (7) of art. 346 were placed in 13 imple of the new Code of Criminal Procedure by means of the Law no. 255/2013 implementing the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This law was therefore not limited to contain transitional rules of implementing the new law, but brought significant changes to the principle of separation of judicial functions (however, by means of the law enforcement, the code has changed regarding other procedural institutions as well).

However, there remains an incompatibility situation in the case in which the preliminary judge admits the complaint against the order made by the prosecutor through which he ordered the dismissal or waiver of prosecution, dissolves the order and rules the beginning of the court trial regarding the facts and persons because during the research the court proceedings were set in motion, when given sufficient legal evidence and there is no way to prevent the entry into criminal action in circumstances where there is public interest in prosecuting the offense for which they decided on the waiver of prosecution. This is regulated in art. 341 paragraph 7 point 2 letter c of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The new Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that the existence of a situation of overlapping judicial functions generates basically a situation of incompatibility. The separation of judicial functions generates basically a situation of incompatibility. The separation of judicial functions is seen in close connection with the concept of functional impartiality.

This statement remains valid for the form of the law before being amended by the enforcement law. By this latter law, a part of the principle of separation of the judicial functions namely the one that refers to the function of verifying the legality of sending or not someone to trial (exercised by the judge of preliminary court) undergoes an important waiver.

This waiver becomes in fact the commonly applicable rule which has in turn an exception, the only one that falls within the principle and which is contained in art. 341 paragraph 7 point 2 letter c of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

***

The new code does not extend the incompatibility provided in art. 64 letter b to other situations that could be generated by kinship with the lawyer for example.

In this regard it is noted that, by decision no. 1519/15.11.2011 the Constitutional Court has returned to its previous constant practice and admitted the exception of unconstitutionality of art. 21 paragraph 1 of Law no. 51/1995 on the organization and performance of the profession of lawyers.

The text declared unconstitutional reads as follows: "The legal profession cannot be exercised in the courts, as well as in prosecutors' offices attached to them, including the National Anticorruption Directorate, the Investigation of Crime and TerrorismDirectorate, the High Court of Cassation and Justice or the Prosecutor's Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, where the spouse or relative or personal acquaintance of the lawyer to the third degree inclusively acts as judge or Concrase of the Impartiality of Magistrates in the New Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure prosecutor, regardles of the section, direction, department or office in which they operate.

In its older constant case law (e.g. the Decision no. 45/1995, Decision no. 679/2010) The Constitutional Court found that the text of Law no. 51/1995 is constitutional on the ground that it does so eich aish restrictions on the exercise of the right to practice law, but incompatibilities which are protective measures for the parties and against some suspicions that could alter the justice act.

It was noted that the prohibition contained in the text of the law is imposed by the need to protect important social values like order and public morality and on the other hand does not affect the existence of any law and that the incompatibility determined by the criticised legal text does not contravene either to the provisions of the Constitution, which provide that the right to work cannot be restricted, because the text does not establish the restriction of the right to practice law, but a legal guarantee, provided to ensure participants to achieve justice.

Adopting the Decision no. 1519/15.11.2011 through which the exception of unconstitutionality of those provisions of Law no. 51/1995 was admitted, the Court reconsidered its case law.

In the explanation of this reconsideration, the Constitutional Court noted that the reference object regarding the ensurance of a more transparent and more efficient judicial process does not necessarily imply a prohibition of the kind envisaged and that the restriction needs to be proportional to the situation that caused it.

To verify that this condition is met, it has to be checked to what extent there is a fair balance between the restriction being placed on the right of defence and the public interest protected by this limitation.

Or, in this respect, given the existence of the aforementioned legal regulations concerning the obligation of abstention of the judges and prosecutors, coupled with the possibility of their recusal, the Court considers that the prohibition on lawyers to plead in the courts and prosecutor offices where the spouse or relatives or related persons are working as judges, respectively prosecutors, finds no reasonable justification in relation to the interest protected, as long as, as shown, the maintaining of the presumption of impartiality of the court is assured by the relevant provisions of the Civil and Criminal Procedure Codes.

It therefore appears as excessive the restriction of the right to defence, as a consequence of the prohibition to practice to the full court where a judge works and has a family relationship or affinity with the chosen lawyer. The prohibition contained in the criticized text of the law ignores the obligation to abstain incumbent to the judge and prosecutor, at the expense of completeness for the exercise of the right of defence.

Moreover, as a purposive interpretation, the criticized legal text starts right from the premise of the failure of the judge, respectively a prosecutor of the above mentioned obligation. Such a conception of law is in conflict with the basic principles of ethics and the magistrates' deontology.

It was also noted that the text of art. 53 of the Constitution provides that the measure must be "applied without discrimination". The Court examines this condition criticized law text. from the point of view of the one on which bears the prohibition contained in the criticized law text

Thus, if we consider the category of lawyers affected by the prohibition on exercising the profession at that court where her husband, relative or his close relative works as a magistrate, it can be equal that the measure is applied indiscriminathy. affecting all those in this situation equally.

However, the measure has the effect of a clear discrimination of the lawyer who for the sole consideration of the relationship resulted from marriage, kinship or relationship with a judge or prosecutor, is unable to practice their profession in the whole coun respectively the entire prosecutor's office, although meets the same conditions as all the other lawyers authorised to provide legal assistance to that court.

Through the Decision no. 1519/15.11.2011 the Constitutional Court removed the reason behind the prohibition contained initially in Law. 51/1995.

In this context, it is noted that the Law for exercising the lawyer profession was subject to a constitutional review before promulgation.

The reason for the prohibition into the law in is original form was in a strong connection with the removal of any doubt where lawyer impartiality may be impaired due to circumstances of the cause. The practical reality that led to the imposition of that prohibition was that which also currently exists, namely that there are very often situations where a lawyer ensures defence services in the court or prosecutor's office where the lawyer's husband is a judge or prosecutor.

It is true that the law establishes a presumption of impartiality and that any analysis must take as a basis the presumption of good - faith, but it is no less true that it is not enough that the courts must be independent from the executive power, the public ministry or the executive power.

These basic conditions are met in our legislation, but it is also necessary that the judicial independence to be protected from any kind of pressures, either indirect or potential.

As noted, we chose the motto for this theme the quote of a known Romanian historian and philosopher (Neagu Djuvara) ,,Freedom is the foundation of Law" It can be said that freedom is the foundation of justice. Freedom understood as freedom to express yourself without fear for your family, profession or other repercussions. Freedom as a way to move, to act without having in the subconscious that there is the possibility of negative consequences.

The freedom understood in every way without interacting with the freedom of others. In the context of the theme, the freedom aims "The law" seen like a law adopted in the interest of many, regards justice as a system and last but not least regards the judge free from prejudice, pressures, and restrictions.

These commonly met themes in public speeches or private discourses lose the momentum they could provide in the context in which the legal committees of the legislature include persons who "qualify" in these committees without having the slightest connection with the legal field or in the context in which the judges body. proud of the immovability of its members, doesn't make sustained efforts to improve the quality of these members.

No wonder that the respect of the citizens (and correlative their confidence in the judiciary system) for the justice is low. The reference to the excuse of the legislative inflation, workload, working conditions, etc. is no longer sufficient.

We need a qualitative leap, a moral leap, an essential leap. The new law does not take it because it doesn't concem many problems that dragged on (e.g. the magistrate status of the prosecutor), it excludes incompatibilities that were required to be included, it governs waivers and turns them into rules etc.

We can however comfort ourselves with the thought that in general the laws are not perfect and sometimes it is as important as to how to apply the law itself. It is imporant that justice be done but it is also important for it to be seen that it is done, that the citizens really feel the effects of justice.

The restoring of the confidence of the citizens in the justice surely requires that impartiality is not in danger, is not impaired.

But trust is a volatile element. To inspire confidence is obviously that the impartiality must also be seen constantly emerging from the judiciary system.

The lamentations of some representatives of the judiciary power in that the justice is under pressure from the media do not help to restore public confidence. No citizen will understand the link between an unjust judgment decision and a media campaign, even a virulent one.

The speeches of politicians which criticize the judiciary system and sometimes foolishly suggest that judgment decisions would not deserve to be executed do not help to restore confidence. These manifestations are dangerous inherently and should be penalized.

The achievement of a true justice involves efforts from both the legislative power to create a system of rules able to ensure the freedom of justice, including impartiality of magistrates as well as efforts by magistrates themselves who are obliged to defend their independence. Last but not least, all the participants in judicial proceedings, regardless of their quality, must shape their conduct to this common and continuous effort.

References

Codul de procedura penala - Legea nr. 135/2010; (The Code of Criminal procedure - Law no. 135/2010).

Legea nr. 255/2013 pentru punerea in aplicare a Legii nr., 135/2010 privind Codul de procedura penala si pentru modificarea si completarea unor acte normative care cuprind dispozitii procesual penale: (Law No 255/2013 for the implementation of the Law no 135/2010 relating to the Code of criminal procedure and for the amendment and completion of certain normative aets which include penal provisions)

Legea nr. 303/2004 privind statutul judectorilor si procurorilor (Law no. 303/2004 regarding the status of judges and prosecutors).

Decizia nr. 1519/15.11.2011 a Curfii Constitutionale; (4. Decision no. 1519/15.11.2011 of the Constitutional Court).

Tratat de procedurà penala - Partea generala. Ion Neagu, Editura Universul Juridic, 2008;

(5. Treaty of criminal procedure - General part, lon Neagu, Universul Juridic Publishing House, 2008).

Noul Cod de procedura penala - Ghid de aplicare pentru practicieni, C. Voicu, A.S. Uzläu,

G. Tudor, V. Vaduva, Editura Hamangiu, 2014; (6. The New Code of criminal procedure - Application Guide for practitioners, C. Voicu, A.S. Uzlau, G. Tudor, V. Vaduva, Hamangiu Publishing House, 2014).

Protectia europeana a drepturilor omului si procesul penal român - Tratat - M. Udroiu, O. Predescu, Editura C.H. Beck, 2008; (7. European protection of human rights and the House, 2008).

Romanian criminal process - Treaty - M. Udroiu, O. Predescu, C. H. Beck Publishing Noul Cod penal - Comentarii pe articole, T. Toader, M. I. Michinici, A.Crisu, M. Dunea, R.

Raducanu, S. Raduletu, Editura Hamangiu, 2014; (8. The New Criminal Code - Comments on articles, T. Toader, M. I. Michinici, A. Crisu, M. Dunea, R. Raducanu, S. Raduletu, Hamangiu Publishing House, 2014).

Tratat de teoria general a dreptului, Ion Craiovan, Editura Universul Juridic, 2007. (9. Treaty on the general theory of law, lon Craiovan, Universul Juridic Publishing House. 2007).