The pre-trial chamber judge

Author:Edgar Lauren?iu Dumbrav?
Position:PhD Candidate, Faculty of Law, 'Nicolae Titulescu' University of Bucharest (email: edgar.dumbrava@gmail.com).
Pages:64-69
SUMMARY

The importance of this work lies in important changes in the new Code of Criminal Procedure, amendments justified by the new realities of a democratic society in which criminal procedural rules must be adapted according to the daily realities in the achievement of justice. The purpose of the paper is given by the need of approaching at a theoretically level the institution of The Pre-Trial... (see full summary)

 
FREE EXCERPT
LESIJ NO. XXI, VOL. 2/2014
THE PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER JUDGE
Edgar Laurenţiu DUMBRAVĂ*
Abstract
The importance o f this work lies in important changes in the new Code of Criminal Procedur e,
amendments justified by the new realities of a democratic society in which criminal procedural rules
must be adapted according to the daily realities in the achievement of justice. The purpose of the paper
is given by the need of approaching at a theoretically level the institution of The Pre-Trial Chamber
Judge, given that so far there have not been developed any works on the subject. This paper addresses
both practitioners and litigants.
Keywords: judge, Pre-Trial Chamber, legality of sending trial ordered by the prosecutor, the
legality of evidence and to perform procedural acts of the criminal investigation, complaints against
non-traceable solutions or not to proceed in judgment
1. Introduction*
For reasons of simplification and
systematization of the trial, the Romanian
legislator has introduced in the new Code of
Criminal Procedure , ar t. 3, providing the
principle of separation of judicial functions.
Judicial bo dy e xercising the verifica tion of
the legality of the arraignment or
exculpation is the Pre-Trial Chamber Judge.
In the old criminal procedure law,
between 1953 and 1957, there was the
institution "preparatory meeting" governed
by art. 269-280 of the Criminal Procedure
Code adopted in 1936, amended by the
Decree no. 506 of 1953, published in
Official Gazette no. 53 of 14 December
1953. Preparatory meeting held at the end of
the examination phase, while in the first
instance to go to trial only t hose cases in
which evidence was necessary, sufficie nt
and legally produced. Article 272
established the judge who was to preside
over the preliminary hearing required to
study previously, detailed, the case file in the
* PhD Candidate, Faculty of Law, “Nicolae Titulescu” University of Bucharest (email:
edgar.dumbrava@gmail.com).
light of the above. The panel of preparatory
meeting was stiffing broader than p re-
chamber judge having the power to order the
prosecution, to return the case for
prosecution or completion or restoration of
disposal and termination dismissal of
criminal proceedings, if it set one of the
causes that prevented the beginning or
continuation of criminal proceedings. With
the arraignment, the court was ruling also
over taking, maintaining, replacing or
revoking of preventive measures, over
taking the insurance measures, over any
requests made by the p arties, was fixing the
place of trial and summon the parties,
witnesses, experts and interpreters.
In the system of the Criminal
Procedure Code of 1968, in force until 31
January 2014, there wasn’t a separate
procedure for verifying the legality of the
arraignment or exculpation, procedural acts
necessary for such checks being made by the
first instance judge or judge resolve the

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL