2012
The Preliminary hearing. A way to streamline the procedure, or the repetition of a previous mistake? – Prosecuting - BĂLAN CRISTIAN
Abstract: "The experience of this institution should put the thoughts on the new legislature ...", I wanted to open the debates on the preliminary hearing, reminding the conclusions of Professor Antoniu, hopeing that you will find these words in every aspect that will be discussed on during this work. In the end I will invite you to share your own opinion regarding the institution of the preliminary hearing and whether you consider it to be a way to streamline the procedure.
"Was there a trend in the past Romanian legislature to regulate a similar institution as the preliminary hearing?", "What were the assumptions that led to the shaping of such legislative options", "Did it manage to reach the goal hoped by the legislature?” and especially " What were the concerns raised by the doctrine and practice in relation to which the legislature intended to regulate a different procedure for prosecuting criminal cases and if there is a risk that the same problems affect in a negative way and the preliminary hearing institution, proposed by Law 135/2010?" are, broadly, the questions that this study aims to answer, without further conclusions regarding the accuracy and usefulness of the new institution preliminary hearing.
Although ideas expressed on the institution I intend to examine, tend to deny it’s usefulness, due to the failure of its predecessor – repealed by a law edictied to speed judgments – the purspose if this study is to emphasize issues that have troubled Romanian doctrine of the '50s, to call them in question and to provide accurate benchmarks that can help analyzing the accuracy of the new preliminary hearing.
Key words: notification of court, preliminary hearing, checking the legality of evidence, administration of evidence, declination of jurisdiction, incompatibility judge.
« back