Court ruled that the measure of judicial control

Roselin67

Ajurisprudence in the sense that the diversion of legal regulations from their legitimate purpose through a systematic erroneous interpretation and application of them by the courts or by the other subjects called to apply the provisions of the law can determine the unconstitutionality of that regulations. In this case the Court considered that it has the competence to eliminate the vice of unconstitutionality thus created essential in such situations being to ensure respect for the rights and freedoms of individuals as well as the supremacy of the.

Constitution in this sense Decision no. of October above and Country Email List Decision No. of April published in the Official Gazette of Romania Part I No. of May paragraph . . Considering these aspects the Court observes that the preventive measure of judicial control can be ordered according to art. of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the prosecutor by order during the criminal investigation by the judge of the preliminary chamber in the procedure of the preliminary chamber or by the court during the trial in the last two cases pronouncing a judicial decision . . The Court notes that by Decision no. of December published in the Official.



Gazette of Romania Part I no. of January paragraph analyzing from a constitutional point of view the nature of preventive measures found that they constitute interferences in the fundamental right of individual freedom provided by art. of the Constitution. At the same time the  also represents an intrusive measure that can affect other fundamental rights and freedoms namely free movement intimate family and private life freedom of assembly work and social protection of work and economic freedom regulated in art. and respectively of the Constitution. . Next the Court finds that the request addressed to the.