Diferențe

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

Link către această vizualizare comparativă

--- articole [16.01.2021 11:41] – ranghel
+++ articole [16.01.2021 11:45] (curent) – ranghel
@@ Linia 18: / Linia 18: @@
 [[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 34: / 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
+**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
-Rezumat:
+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
@@ Linia 49: / Linia 53: @@
 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.
-Articol integral: [[https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4319292]]
+**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.
 --------