Post by account_disabled on Jan 2, 2024 10:52:40 GMT
A para. lit. a from the Criminal Code is unfounded since the criticized legal provisions which regulate the legal regime of qualified theft represent a norm of criminalization and are an option of criminal legislative policy not being likely to affect in any way the principle of legality. . The Peoples Advocate considers that the provisions of art. para. lit. a of the Criminal Code are constitutional because they represent a criminal policy option under the exclusive competence of the legislator. . The presidents of the two Chambers of the Parliament did not communicate their views on the exception of unconstitutionality.
COURT examining the referral conclusion the views of the Country Email List Government and the Peoples Advocate the report drawn up by the judgerapporteur the written notes submitted to the file the prosecutors conclusions the criticized legal provisions related to the provisions of the Constitution as well as Law no. notes the following . The Constitutional Court was legally notified and is competent according to the provisions of art. lit. d from the Constitution as well as from art. paragraph of art. and of Law no. to resolve the exception of unconstitutionality.
The object of the exception of unconstitutionality is the provisions of art. para. lit. a from the Criminal Code which have the following content Theft regarding the following categories of goods a crude oil gasoline condensate liquid ethane gasoline diesel other petroleum products or natural gas from pipelines warehouses tanks or tank wagons ... is punishable by imprisonment from to years. . In support of the unconstitutionality of these provisions of the law of the constitutional provisions of art. paragraph and regarding the supreme values of the Romanian state and the principle of legality of art. para. regarding the equality of citizens before.
COURT examining the referral conclusion the views of the Country Email List Government and the Peoples Advocate the report drawn up by the judgerapporteur the written notes submitted to the file the prosecutors conclusions the criticized legal provisions related to the provisions of the Constitution as well as Law no. notes the following . The Constitutional Court was legally notified and is competent according to the provisions of art. lit. d from the Constitution as well as from art. paragraph of art. and of Law no. to resolve the exception of unconstitutionality.
The object of the exception of unconstitutionality is the provisions of art. para. lit. a from the Criminal Code which have the following content Theft regarding the following categories of goods a crude oil gasoline condensate liquid ethane gasoline diesel other petroleum products or natural gas from pipelines warehouses tanks or tank wagons ... is punishable by imprisonment from to years. . In support of the unconstitutionality of these provisions of the law of the constitutional provisions of art. paragraph and regarding the supreme values of the Romanian state and the principle of legality of art. para. regarding the equality of citizens before.