Scholarly article on topic 'Viewpoints on the Admissibility of the Complaint Against Acts and Measures of Criminal Investigation Addressed to the Court'

Viewpoints on the Admissibility of the Complaint Against Acts and Measures of Criminal Investigation Addressed to the Court Academic research paper on "Law"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{"the complaint against acts and measures of criminal investigation" / "the right of access to justice" / "the new Criminal procedure code"}

Abstract of research paper on Law, author of scientific article — Andreea Uzlău

Abstract The work analyzes, both in relation to the current rules and to the provisions of the new Code of criminal procedure, adopted by Law no. 135/2010, the conditions under which a person, injured in his legitimate interests through a measure or an act of criminal investigation, may apply directly to the Court or after the rejection of the complaint by the superior prosecutor. In addition, the author presents her views in relation to the content of the regulation and its compatibility with the right to access to justice, as laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights and formulates conclusions and recommendations to determine the uniform application of the text and, consequently, a better implementation of the protected rights.

Academic research paper on topic "Viewpoints on the Admissibility of the Complaint Against Acts and Measures of Criminal Investigation Addressed to the Court"

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 92 (2013) 973 - 980

Lumen International Conference Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty (LUMEN

Viewpoints on the Admissibility of the Complaint against Acts and Measures of Criminal Investigation Addressed to the Court

Andreea Uzlaua*

aUniv. Lecturer PhD student, Faculty of law and administrative sciences, Christian University Dimitrie Cantemir, Bucharesti

Abstract

The work analyzes, both in relation to the current rules and to the provisions of the new Code of criminal procedure, adopted by Law no. 135/2010, the conditions under which a person, injured in his legitimate interests through a measure or an act of criminal investigation, may apply directly to the Court or after the rejection of the complaint by the superior prosecutor.

In addition, the author presents her views in relation to the content of the regulation and its compatibility with the right to access to justice, as laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights and formulates conclusions and recommendations to determine the uniform application of the text and, consequently, a better implementation of the protected rights.

©2013TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.

Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Lumen Research Center in Social and Humanistic Sciences, Asociatia Lumen. Keywords: the complaint against acts and measures of criminal investigation; the right of access to justice; the new Criminal procedure code

1. Introduction

The issue of the conditions under which a person, injured in his legitimate interests through a measure or an act of criminal investigation, may apply directly to the Court or after the rejection of the complaint by the superior prosecutor is controversial and has not found a uniform resolution in the doctrine and in the judicial practice. The expressed views include, where appropriate, the dismissal of the complaint as inadmissible or as premature or the obligation of the Court to verify and to settle, unconditionally, any such complaint in first instance. Such a solution is based on the constitutional provisions and on the European Convention on Human Rights.

The work analyzes this topic, both in relation to the current rules and to the provisions of the new Code of criminal procedure, adopted by Law no. 135/2010.

After the conceptual presentation of the complaint against acts and measures of criminal investigation, the subject of the complaint and the special cases of complaints are examined in detail, such as the complaint against the preventive measures issued by the prosecutor or the complaint against precautionary measures.

Corresponding author.Tel: 0040 0723 545 929 E-mail address: stoicaandreea76@yahoo.com

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Lumen Research Center in Social and Humanistic Sciences, Asociatia Lumen. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.786

In addition, the paper refers to the compatibility of the internal regulation with the right to access to justice, as laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights and formulates conclusions and recommendations to determine the uniform application of the text and, consequently, a better implementation of the protected rights.

2. General considerations regarding the right to access to justice

The right to a fair trial, established in the European Convention on Human Rights (hereafter the European Convention) as a procedural guarantee for human rights and freedoms in courts of law, is one of the prerequisites to ensure the principle of the rule of law in a democratic society.

According to article 6 of the European Convention:

"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

(b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in

court."

Jurisprudential developments have made that the right to a fair trial be regarded both as a formal and as a substantial guarantee (Renucci, 2009; Guinchard and Buisson, 2008).

In this regard, the doctrine (Guinchard and Buisson, 2008) showed that, under the influence of the European criminal-law procedure, the right to a fair trial is no longer just a formal guarantee, but it has its own fundamental importance. Procedural rules of reference contained in the criminal-law procedure continue to guarantee the formal regularity of the proceeding, in order that the process be conducted fairly (this being the role of article 6 of the European Convention). Nevertheless, the criminal-law proceedings have acquired a fundamental importance today, a right that prevails over any other consideration: the right to a fair trial, which is the core of the criminal-law proceedings, becomes the criterion for assessing the compliance of instances of substantial rights, and thus becomes in itself a veritable substantial right (Guinchard and Buisson, 2008).

The structure of article 6 of the European Convention contains (Udroiu and Predescu, 2008):

a) a description of the guarantee mechanism. "Everyone has the right to determine (...) its proceedings by a Court of (...) who will decide (...) ".

The right thus regulated is analyzed in terms of both its object (the guarantee of a fair trial), as well as its subjects, the right holder is any person (litigant), physical or legal persons, irrespective of citizenship, and "the debtor" of the guarantee being the State party to the European Convention, under who's jurisdiction stands the holder of the right.

b) the scope of the guarantee - "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a (...) hearing (...) by an independent and impartial tribunal (...). ". Therefore, appeals with respect to the civil rights and obligations as well as criminal charges come within the scope of the guarantee of the right to a fair trial.

(c) the general content of the guarantee. Article 6 paragraph (1) of the European Convention imposes "a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law". This applies both in criminal and civil matters.

This paragraph provides the following guarantees of the right to a fair trial:

(i) the right to a tribunal established by law, independent and impartial;

(ii) public hearings;

(iii) the right to be trialled within a reasonable time;

(iv) the principle of equality of arms;

(v) the adversarial principle;

(vi) the defendant's right to keep silent and not to be auto incriminate;

(vii) court decisions' motivation required to the tribunal.

d) specific content of the guarantee in criminal matters. Paragraph (2) of article 6 of the European Convention refers to the presumption of innocence: "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."

In turn paragraph (3) of article 6 of the European Convention provides for a series of rights granted to the person against whom in criminal charges were made, this list is not comprehensive: "Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence; to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court."

For understanding the content of the rights protected by this article, it is important to stress the principle that arises from art. 19 of the European Convention: European Court activity is subordinated to the purpose of ensuring compliance to the commitments of the States parties to the European Convention. Thus, it is not for the European Court to examine the errors of fact or law that are claimed to have been committed by national jurisdictions, unless and to the extent that they might affect the rights and freedoms protected by the European Convention. If art. 6 guarantees the right to a fair trial, it does not cover, for example, issues related to the admissibility of evidence pertaining to the competence of national law (ECHR, Schenk vs. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1998, paragraphs 45-46; ECHR, Teixeira de Castro vs. Portugal, judgment of 9 June 1998, paragraph no. 34). In addition, pursuant to art. 6, aspects regarding the plaintiff's guilt are irrelevant.

The European Court of Human Rights (hereafter ECHR) is required only to consider whether the whole procedure was equitable, that is, if it was carried out in compliance with the requirements of the European Convention. The European Court has consistently shown in its case law that the obligations established by Article 6 to the States are obligations of result. The States have full freedom in choosing the means to permit their judicial system to achieve all the aims set out in article 6: free access to justice, expeditiously, publicity, equality of arms etc. (Chiri{a, 2007).

Achieving justice cannot be imagined without the possibility of the charged person of committing a crime to have access to a "tribunal" established by law and which meets the requirements of independence and impartiality. This implies the existence of a right of access to justice, as a fair trial does not make sense in the absence of a trial.

Access to a tribunal must not be illusory or theoretical, but practical and effective (ECHR, Kutic v. Croatia, judgment of 1 March 2002, paragraph no. 25; ECHR, R.D. v. Poland, judgment of 18 December 2001, paragraphs 43-52; ECHR, Airey vs. Ireland, judgement of 9 October 1979, paragraph no. 25).

The obligation to provide a right of access to justice is a positive obligation for the State, indispensable for the proper performance by the State of its conventional commitments. Thus, art. 6 of the European Convention requires States to create a judicial system that guarantees the neutrality of the tribunal established by law, understood in its broad sense, which lends the judge the position of a neutral referee towards the parties of the litigation (Chirita, 2007).

Neutrality is measured, firstly, by reference to the place of the tribunal towards the parties and the other powers of the State (the independence of the tribunal). On the other hand, neutrality is measured by reference to the opinion of the judge and the alleged third party opinion (impartiality of the judge).

The notions of independence and objective impartiality are closely linked together, so that the European Court often analyses them together.

The importance of the right of access to justice is unanimously recognized. Currently, States have an obligation to provide persons, within the domestic law, the means to redress a situation that does not comply with the requirements of the European Convention. In other words, States cannot remain passive. They must ensure that all appropriate means are implemented in order to ensure effective access to a tribunal.

However, the right of access to court is not absolute. States have the possibility to limit this guarantee, under the supervision of the European Court and in very strict conditions: on the one hand, these limitations should not affect the substance of the right in itself (ECHR, Philis vs. Greece, judgment of 27 August 1991, paragraph no. 59).

On the other hand, the restrictions must pursue a legitimate interest and respect the proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought (ECHR, Ashingdane vs. United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, paragraph no. 93).

3. Challenging the precautionary measures and the measure of lifting objects or documents in national law

People whose assets were frozen by taking precautionary measures and any other interested person may appeal against such measures and against the way of fulfilling them.

Thus, according to article 168 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, notice of opposition may be filed against the precautionary measure or against the way of fulfilling them, by the accused, the defendant, civilly responsible party and any other interested person.

The appeal can look so act that was the measure of procedural (ordered) and procedural act that was accomplished protective measure. The opposition can regard both the act by which the procedural measure was taken (order), and the procedural act by which the procedure measure was fulfilled.

The question that arises is to know whether and under what conditions the person unpleased, harmed into his legitimate interests by the measure or the act of prosecution, consisting in the lifting of objects, can apply directly to the Court, at any stage of the criminal process, namely the stage of preliminary proceedings, the stage of prosecution, or when the prosecutor has given a solution not to indict.

Thus, if presently the complaint addressed directly to the Court is explicitly regulated in the case of the prosecutor's acts in which solutions not to indict were taken, the complaint before the Court against the decision of lifting of object as a precautionary measure or lifting of objects that can serve as evidence (art. 96 and seq. and art. 168. (1) the Criminal Procedure Code) is generally and concisely regulated, and in the case of other acts and measures ordered by the public prosecutor is not regulated at all.

However, judicial practice records an increasing number of cases in which the persons concerned, harmed in their interests by various measures and acts during the criminal proceedings, in general, or by stripping away their goods, in particular, is addressed to the courts, either directly or after the complaints against the same measures by the prosecutor supervising the prosecution or by the hierarchically superior prosecutor were rejected.

The issue is controversial and has not found a solution in the doctrine and jurisprudence, the opinions expressed ranging from rejecting the complaint as inadmissible or as prematurely submitted to the requirement for the Court to check and resolve on the merits, unconditionally, any such complaint, such a solution is based on constitutional provisions and of the European Convention on Human Rights.

By decision no. LXXI/2007, given in the interest of the law, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, United Sections, decided that, in the course of criminal proceedings the jurisdiction to solve the complaint made pursuant to art. 168 of the Criminal Procedure Code lie with the prosecutor.

From the analysis of the legal provisions, it follows that there are two situations where judicial bodies can carry out lifting of objects: the situation in which it finds objects that may constitute evidence and the situation in which the identification and lifting of objects aims to ensure recovery of the prejudice caused by the offence or for executing the criminal fine.

Taking into account the wording and systematization of texts, it can be concluded that Article 168 of the Criminal Procedure Code refers to the complaint against the action taken in order to enforce the precautionary measures, and Article 169 of the Code refers to the complaint against acts and criminal prosecution measures through which objects that may constitute evidence in the criminal trial were lifted. However, it should be noted that art. 169 paragraph (1) thesis II referrers to art. 168, which can induce the idea that the way of addressing and resolving of complaints, regardless of their subject, would be common.

Making a first interpretation of the legal provisions referred to above, we appreciate that, in the event of such a complaint, made by the interested person or whose legitimate rights have been injured during the criminal proceedings, regardless of its subject matter, the way forward for the plaintiff must be, initially, that provided by art. 275-278 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

This fact follows from the interpretation of art. 168 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which shows that the complaint will be sent to the public prosecutor or the Court. This requires that the complaint against the precautionary measures or the measure of lifting objects that may constitute evidence ordered by the prosecutor must be solved by the prime-prosecutor of the Prosecutor's Office or, where appropriate, the general prosecutor of the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Court of Appeal or of the Section Chief-prosecutor of the Prosecutor's Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, and when the precautionary measure was ordered by the prosecutor and fulfilled by the criminal investigation body, or the measure of lifting of objects that may constitute evidence has been ordered and fulfilled by the criminal investigation body, the complaint shall be solved by the prosecutor who oversees the criminal prosecution activity.

The above conclusion can be drawn from a systematic interpretation of the text of Article 168 of the Criminal Procedure Code which, in the old regulation, provided that against the precautionary measure taken or against their fulfilment, the defendant or the accused, the civilly responsible party, as well as any other interested person could complain to the criminal investigation body that took the measure or to the prosecutor who oversaw the criminal prosecution activity, up to referral to the court, after that moment the complaint was addressed to the court.

In its current form, the legislator has not determined the two phases of the criminal process and has not properly shown to each phase the competent organ to solve the complaint.

With all the shortcomings of the wording, we appreciate that, indeed, the complaint may be addressed to the prosecutor or to the court at any stage of the criminal process, but a distinction should be made between the criminal investigation, in which case the complaint should be addressed to the prosecutor and the judicial investigation stage, in which case the complaint is solved by the court.

The analyzed aspect has given rise to different opinions. In a first opinion (Nicoara, 2005) it was noted that in order to fulfil the greater scope, that of access to justice, art. 2781 of the Criminal Procedure Code set certain limitation periods and thus delimitation was made as far as the right to complaint against the prosecutor acts and measures, enshrined by art. 275-278 of the same code. The author noted that from the invoked provisions of law the plaintiff can complain anytime during the criminal proceedings, the legal framework set out by art. 197 of the code, against the measures taken or the acts done by the prosecutor or based on disposition given by the prosecutor, to the prosecutor who oversees the criminal proceedings, to the prime-prosecutor, to the general prosecutor of the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Court of Appeal or of the Section Chief-prosecutor of the Prosecutor's Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, and that, in the current regulation, solving such complaints is done only on an hierarchical way, with no possibility for the plaintiff to address the court later.

This view completely excludes the possibility of addressing the complaint against acts and criminal prosecution measures directly to the court, with the exceptions strictly provided for by the criminal procedure law, as long as the file is in the prosecution stage.

Another author (Juculeanu 2005) expressed the opinion that regulation laid down by art. 2781 of the Criminal Procedure Code is only applicable to the solutions not to prosecute, in the case of the other acts and criminal proceedings measures the complaint should be addressed, in accordance with article 275-278 of the code, to the competent prosecutor, up to the prosecutor general of the Prosecutor's Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice. However, it was noted that the regulation provided by art. 275-278 of the Criminal Procedure Code derogates not only from art. 2781, but also from art. 1402 and art. 168.

According to a contrary opinion, any person who claims that the lifted assets belong to him has the right to ask for their return, according to either art. 109 or art. 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code and a dismissal of the complaint addressed directly to the court as inadmissible is unlawful. It was argued that the right of a litigant to address the court would be illusory if a court, legally referred, having the competence to rule on the complaint would dismiss it as inadmissible on the grounds of a misguided invocation of the legislative text (the plaintiff in question invoked in his application the provisions of article 169 reported to article 168 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and in the author's opinion he should have invoked the provisions of article 109 paragraph 4 of the code for the return of lifted objects when performing a search, which had no connection with the cause). It was also argued that art. 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right of any person to complain to a court in respect to his civil rights and obligations, that the right to lodge an action and the conditions are laid down by the Romanian law. As such, it was held that the dismissal of the complaint as inadmissible is unlawful, that the court had to consider the merits of the measure of lifting of objects, in order to verify whether if the interference was permitted.

4. The compatibility of the regulation with the provisions of the European Convention on Human

Rights

We appreciate that the person that has a legitimate interest may complain against the measures and acts taken during the criminal proceedings which led to lifting objects from his property, but those complaints may not be addressed directly to the court if the case is at the stage of prosecution, but first he has to exhaust the path of addressing the complaint to the competent prosecutor.

In the event that the person in question is still unpleased with the solution given to his complaint, contrary to the decision in the interest of law, previously mentioned, we appreciate that he can address the court that is competent to judge the case in the first instance, through direct application of constitutional provisions and of the European Convention on Human Rights, that guarantee free access to justice and the right to a fair trial even in the absence of explicit provisions in this respect of the criminal procedure code.

Thus, access to justice, as provided for by art. 6 paragraph (1) of the European Convention, is an essential right for if it had not been acknowledged, it would be illusory to speak of justice and fair trial (Renucci, 2009). This right is essential as it starts from the effective protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention. Art. 6 paragraph (1) of the European Convention establishes that "in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law (...)".

European judges have noted that the obligation to provide a right of access to justice is a positive obligation of the State, indispensable for the proper performance by the State of its conventional commitments; the lack of clarity and sufficient guarantees regarding the ways to exercise the appeal is contrary to the right to a fair trial. Any person, whose rights and freedoms recognized by the European Convention have been violated, has the right to an effective appeal before a national court, even if the breach had been committed by persons acting in the exercise of their official functions.

In justification of the possibility of the person injured in his rights to also address the court and of the obligation to investigate and solve by the court of such complaints, but only after he has passed the preliminary proceedings before the prosecutor and only if the complaint would refer to a precautionary measure or to an act or a measure of lifting of objects, it could also be invoked the reason of material damage in case of failure or delay in implementation of the owner's right.

We appreciate it as a loophole in the law the lack of regulating the possibility to complaint to the court against precautionary measures and against lifting of objects or written documents. Reference to the court under art. 168 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is insufficient. Faulty regulation allows the interpretation according to which a complaint against the precautionary measures and acts taken during criminal proceedings of to lift of objects that may constitute evidence can be directly address to the court also in situations in which it was not vested with judging the case. Such an interpretation would justify the absurd solution according to which, if the plaintiff can address a complaint to the court when the case is at the stage of prosecution, then nothing can

hinder the ability to address the complaint to the prosecutor during court proceedings. It is obvious that such a solution cannot be accepted.

In our opinion, the legislator's intent, when adopting the new text of article 168 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code was to reconcile these provisions with those of art. 163 paragraph (1) of the same code, under which it has replaced the phrase "criminal investigation body" with "prosecution" and thus, he ruled out the possibility of disposing of precautionary measures by the criminal investigation body.

We do not believe that the amendment to article 168 paragraph (1) meant that the concerned person has the possibility to complain against the precautionary measures, in all cases, directly in front of the court, respectively the person's right to opt to what judicial organ to address the complaint.

To interpret that the complaint of the concerned person must be in any event considered on the merits by the court would mean a decrease until dissolution of the role of the prosecutor who handles the supervision of prosecutions or his substitution by the court, to which is given powers unforeseen by the criminal procedure legislation.

In a broader interpretation of the right of access to a court, any acts or measures ordered or carried out by the criminal investigating body in the criminal investigation phase, which would be related to civil rights and obligations of the parties in the case at issue could be the subject of a complaint addressed to the court that would be entitled to judge the cause on the merit.

The logical solution is that the plaintiff firstly addresses the complaint to the prosecutor supervising the prosecution or to the hierarchically superior prosecutor, under the provisions of art. 275-278 of the Criminal Procedure Code and article 169 reported to article 168 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and only after exhausting such paths, if he is still unpleased, he can address the court, under free access to justice enshrined by the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

As regards the grounds for appeal against the precautionary measures, in line with the views expressed in the specialized literature (Niculeanu, 2009), we appreciate that, both against the disposal, and against the way to fulfilling can be challenged both on the aspects of legality, but also an opportunity.

5. Conclusions

The analysis of the legal provisions mentioned above, in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code, has found that the current legislation is incomplete in terms of regulating the complaint to the court against the precautionary measures and lifting of objects or documents.

However, we consider that the person who has a legitimate interest can complain against the measures and acts taken during the criminal proceedings against his or her property, but these complaints cannot be addressed directly to the court if the case is in a prosecution phase, but, firstly, they have to lodge the complaint to the competent public prosecutor

If the person is still unsatisfied with how his or her complaint was solved, contrary to the decision mentioned above given in the interest of law, we consider that he or she can address the court with jurisdiction to hear the case at first instance.

This solution is the only one that meets both constitutional and the European Convention of Human Rights provisions guaranteeing access to justice and the right to a fair trial, even in the absence of express provision to that effect to the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The solution to the problem is to be found in the new Criminal Procedure Cod. Under the new regulations, persons whose assets were frozen by taking a precautionary measure or whose assets have been lifted, and any other interested person may appeal against such measures, and against the way of fulfilling them.

The appeal can regard both the act by which the procedural measure was taken and the procedural act by which it was fulfilled.

Unlike the current regulation, the unsatisfied person, injured in its legitimate interests because of the measures and acts taken during the criminal proceedings, can directly lodge a complaint to the rights and freedoms judge of the court with jurisdiction to hear the case at first instance, in any phase of criminal proceedings.

We consider that the solution chosen by the legislator is preferable, being based on the constitutional and the European Convention on Human Rights provisions.

References:

Renucci, J.-F. (2009). Law treaty of European Human Rights (p. 357, 378). Bucharest: Hamangiu. Guinchard, S., Buisson, J., (2008). Procédure pénale (4th ed.). (p. 7). Litec.

Udroiu, M., Predescu, O. (2008). European protection of Human Rights and the Romanian criminal trial. Treaty (p. 536-537). Bucharest: C.H. Beck.

Chirijä, R.(2007). European Convention on Human Rights. Comments and explanations, I. (p. 237). Bucharest: C.H. Beck.

Chiritä, R. (2007). The magistrates' independence and impartiality or types of neutrality of the judicial power I. The New Human Rights

Magazine, 2, 2.

Nicoarä, C.(2005). Inconveniences related to the practical application of art. 2781 of the Criminal Code of Procedure. Pro Law, 2, 33. fuculeanu, Al. (2005). Comments on solutions imposed by the court pursuant to art. 2781 of the Criminal Code of Procedure. Law, 7, 211. J.F. Renucci, Law treaty of European Human Rights, Hamangiu publishing house, Bucharest, 2009, p. 357.

Niculeanu, C. (2009). Consideration of the possibility and the limits to challenge the seizure in order to ensure the repairment of the damage caused by the offence, Law, 8, p. 187-189.