Aand from Law no. republished with subsequent amendments and additions since if the action that has as its object highrisk drugs and highrisk drugs is unique the condition regarding the plurality of actionscrimes provided for in art. of the Criminal Code respectively art. of the Criminal Code is not fulfilled. VIII. The jurisprudence of the High Court of Cassation and Justice The Panel for resolving legal issues in criminal matters Decision no. of January published in the Official Gazette of Romania Part I no. of February by which admitting the referral made by the Oradea Court of Appeal.
Criminal Section and for cases with minors it was ruled that the provisions Country Email List of art. of the Criminal Code represents a mitigated version of the crime of embezzlement provided by art. of the Criminal Code. In the considerations of the decision the High the provisions of art. of the Criminal Code do not define a standalone crimetype since the structure of the norm does not describe a distinct act with its own configuration but references are made to the provisions and punishments included in other incrimination norms including those provided in art. of the Criminal Code.
As such the legal norm in art. of the Criminal Code does not have the ability to function independently as a standard crime but only in close connection with the criminalization norms that it enumerates. . . . . . . . . . . The submission from the content of art. of the Criminal Code at the disposition and punishment of the norm provided for in art. of the same code constitutes a legislative technical procedure. As a rule the reference from the content of a legal provision to other norms can have a fulfilling extension or exclusion function. If it fulfills a compliance function the norm.
發表於 2023-12-27 16:41:06
