Diferențe

Aici sunt prezentate diferențele dintre versiunile selectate și versiunea curentă a paginii.

Link către această vizualizare comparativă

--- articole [15.01.2021 12:43] – ranghel
+++ articole [16.01.2021 11:45] (curent) – ranghel
@@ Linia 15: / Linia 15: @@
 administratoare la grefa Curții de Justiție a Uniunii Europene
-{{ :revista_euroquod_2-3-2020-articol.pdf |Articol integral}}publicat în nr.2-3/2020 al Revistei EuRoQuod
+{{ :revista_euroquod_2-3-2020-articol.pdf |Articol integral}} publicat în nr.2-3/2020 al Revistei EuRoQuod
+[[https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4382120]]
-Abstract : Like all EU Institutions and citizens, the Court of Justice of the European Union has been deeply affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. Hearings have been cancelled, deliberations have been postponed and, since 13th March 2020, a teleworking regime has been set up in order to prevent the risk of further contamination by the virus. Despite these measures, the Court of Justice has managed to deal with a significant number of cases and to deliver several important judgments during the health crisis. The present article examines how that result was achieved, through the adoption of measures relating to both the written and oral parts of the procedure, as well as the way in which deliberations of the EU Court have been organised.
+**Abstract :** Like all EU Institutions and citizens, the Court of Justice of the European Union has been deeply affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. Hearings have been cancelled, deliberations have been postponed and, since 13th March 2020, a teleworking regime has been set up in order to prevent the risk of further contamination by the virus. Despite these measures, the Court of Justice has managed to deal with a significant number of cases and to deliver several important judgments during the health crisis. The present article examines how that result was achieved, through the adoption of measures relating to both the written and oral parts of the procedure, as well as the way in which deliberations of the EU Court have been organised.
 --------
@@ Linia 27: / Linia 28: @@
 Alina Petronela Moşneagu, judecător, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti – Secţia a II-a Penală
+[[https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4319269]]
 **Abstract**: In Romania, as wel as in all Member States, the judicial cooperation in criminal matters regarding the execution of the european arrest warrant and the surrender of the sought persons in the context of the COVID -19 pandemic was affected and was assesed on a case-by-case basis. Generally, the non compliance with the surrender deadlines or the postponing of the surrender based on serious humanitarian reasons lead to the release of the sought persons without taking alternative measures in order to prevent absconding, giving the fact that there are no national legal basis to take such measures in this type of situations.
@@ Linia 32: / Linia 34: @@
 **Rezumat**: În România, la fel ca în toate celelalte state membre, realizarea cooperării judiciare internaţionale în materie penală în ceea ce priveşte punerea în executare a mandatelor europene de arestare şi predarea persoanelor solicitate în contextul evoluţiei epidemiei cu coronavirus COVID – 19 a prezentat dificultăţi şi a impus identificarea unor soluţii concrete, în funcţie de circumstanţele specifice fiecărui caz. În general, depăşirea termenelor de predare sau amânarea predării pe motive umanitare serioase a dus la eliberarea persoanelor solicitate, fără a fi luate măsuri alternative pentru a evita riscul de fugă, întrucât luarea unor astfel de măsuri nu este prevăzută de legea internă.
-{{ :ARTICOL-MEA-COVID-MOSNEAGU-EUROQUOD-1-2020.pdf |Articol integral}} apărut în revista EuRoQuod nr.1/2020
+{{ :ARTICOL-MEA-COVID-MOSNEAGU-EUROQUOD-1-2020.pdf |Articol integral}} publicat în revista EuRoQuod nr.1/2020
+--------
+**Aplicarea Deciziei-cadru 2008/909/JAI în România**
+**Implementation of Framework Decision 2008/909 / JHA in Romania**
+Anghel - Tudor Georgiana, judecător, Curtea de Apel Constanţa, Secţia Penală
+Articol integral publicat în Revista EuRoQuod nr.1/2019: [[https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4319292]]
+**Rezumat:**
+În România, dispoziţiile naţionale de transpunere a Deciziei-cadru 2008/909/JAI
+privind aplicarea principiului recunoașterii reciproce în cazul hotărârilor judecătorești
+în materie penală care impun pedepse sau măsuri privative de libertate în scopul
+executării lor în Uniunea Europeană se regăsesc în Titlul VI din Legea nr. 302/2004, privind cooperarea judiciară
+internaţională în materie penală, republicată recent (în Monitorul Oficial nr. 411 din 27 mai 2019), dispoziţii
+care trebuie interpretate în lumina textului şi a finalităţii Deciziei-Cadru, potrivit principiului interpretării
+conforme, şi ţinând cont şi de jurisprudenţa CJUE în interpretarea aceleiaşi Decizii-Cadru.
+**Absttract:**
+In Romania, the national provisions transposing EU Framework Decision 2008/909 / JHA
+on the application of the principle of mutual recognition in the case of judgments
+in criminal matters which impose punishments or custodial measures for the purpose
+their execution in the European Union are found in Title VI of Law no. 302/2004, regarding the judicial cooperation
+Those provisions must be interpreted in the light of the text and the purpose of the Framework Decision, according to the principle of conforming interpretation, and also taking into account the jurisprudence of the CJEU in interpreting the same Framework Decision. The article presents national case law regarding practical issues on different aspects  of the application of  Framework Decision 2008/909 /JHA and CJEU case law.
+--------
   * [[doku.php?id=non_bis_in_idem|Aplicarea principiului non bis in idem în jurisprudența europeană și națională]] (jud. Victor Constantinescu, 17.04.2013)