The benefits of a special criminal proceedings in absentia

Author:Ioan-Paul Chis
Position:Assistant Professor, PhD Candidate, Faculty of Law, 'Nicolae Titulescu' University, Bucharest
Pages:101-107
SUMMARY

A criticism of the national legislator's decision not to introduce a shortened hearing as a special criminal procedure in absentia, which would exclude the Preliminary Chamber and would leave the civil action unsolved. In our opinion, such a procedure would definitely contribute to the efficiency of the judiciary system by significantly reducing the duration of trials, seeing that the evidence of ... (see full summary)

 
FREE EXCERPT
LESIJ NO. XXVI, VOL. 1/2019
THE BENEFITS OF A SPECIAL CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN ABSENTIA
Ioan-Paul CHI
Abstract
Aăcriticismăofătheănationalălegislator’sădecisionănotătoăintroduceăaăshortenedăhearingăasăaăspecială
criminal pr ocedure in a bsentia, which would exclude the P reliminary Chamber a nd would leave the
civil action unsolved. In our opinion, such a procedure would definitely contribute to the efficiency of
the judiciary system by significantly reducing the duration of trials, seeing that the evidence of the case
would not be administrated in the absence of the accused and, as a consequence, the witnesses and the
victim would not be r epeatedly subjected to the stress of the hea rings. Moreover, not solving the civil
action would be a measure of protecting the inter ests of the civil party, seeing how a simple request of
theădefendantăwouldăsufficeătoăinvalidateătheăcourt’sădecisionăgivenăinăa bsentia,ăandăwithăit,ătheărulingă
on the civil claims of the case.
Keywords: special criminal pr ocedure, trial in absence, in a bsentia, abbreviated pr ocedure.
1. Context
The perpetration of an offense gives
rise to the exerci se of criminal proceedings,
and in the case of offenses resulting in
damages, the criminal proceedings can be
joined by the civil action. The relation
between the public and the civil (private)
action has seen several systems, the
Romanian legislator preferring as early as
1864, the hybrid system, namely the system
allowing the two actions to be exercised
jointly within a single criminal trial1.
Therefore, within our legal system, the
party inj ured by the perpetration of a deed
stipulated by the criminal la w is entitled to
choose between seizing the civil court and
joining the civil action to the criminal
proceedings exerci sed concerning that
unlawful deed.
Assistant Professor, PhD CanНТНatО,ăFaМultвă oПă Laа,ă “NТМolaОă TТtulОsМu”ă UnТvОrsТtв,ăBuМСarОstă (О-mail:
chis.ioan@drept.unibuc.ro).
1 I.P.ăCСТ,ă Soluionareaălaturiiă civileă înăprocesulă penală înăcază deă dezincriminare.ăSituaiiă tranzitorii,ă inătheă
Magazineă“Caieteădeădreptăpenal no. 4/2014.
I find that the reason for joining the
two actions is twofold. Thus, first of all,
regard must be taken to the more favourable
terms under which the civil action is settled,
in this case the evidence is the same for the
two actions and it can even be ordered by the
court ex oficio oră ată tСОă prosОМutor’să
application, the proce edings unfold with
greater celerity etc. At the same time, it must
not be neglected the fact that the direct
opponent of the civil party, the defendant,
might be interested in paying the civil claims
in order to benefit fro m this conduct in the
criminal aspects of the trial by nearing some
mitigating circumstances stipulated by the
criminal law, a resort unavailable in the
hypothesis of settling the civil action by a
civil court.
From another point of view, I believe
that the state might have a real interest for
the civil party to bring the civil action in
front of the criminal court, given that in this

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL