Post by account_disabled on Jan 8, 2024 5:07:24 GMT -5
Aby virtue of which the burden of proof belongs to the one who asserts something in court and not to the one who drew up the record of contravention . . Also by Decision no. of September published in the Official Gazette of Romania Part I no. of October the Constitutional Court held that . By Decision no. of May published in the Official Gazette of Romania Part I no. of July the Court established that contravention legislation in Romania similar to the German one falls under the provisions of art. of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Thus the Court notes that the record of finding and sanctioning Country Email List the contravention enjoys the presumption of legality however when a complaint is filed against it the very presumption it enjoys is contested. In this case the competent court will administer the evidence provided by law necessary to verify the legality and validity of the minutes. The one who filed the complaint does not have to prove his own innocence leaving the court with the obligation to administer all the evidence necessary to establish and find out the truth.
Even if art. of Government Ordinance no. refers to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure the courts cannot strictly apply the onus probandi incumbit actori rule but on the contrary they themselves must play an active role in finding out the truth since the contravention falls under Art. of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. of proof cannot be supported. In fact the European Court of Human Rights in the Anghel case against Romania ruled that although states have the possibility not to sanction some crimes or they can punish them by contravention rather than by criminal means the.
Thus the Court notes that the record of finding and sanctioning Country Email List the contravention enjoys the presumption of legality however when a complaint is filed against it the very presumption it enjoys is contested. In this case the competent court will administer the evidence provided by law necessary to verify the legality and validity of the minutes. The one who filed the complaint does not have to prove his own innocence leaving the court with the obligation to administer all the evidence necessary to establish and find out the truth.
Even if art. of Government Ordinance no. refers to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure the courts cannot strictly apply the onus probandi incumbit actori rule but on the contrary they themselves must play an active role in finding out the truth since the contravention falls under Art. of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. of proof cannot be supported. In fact the European Court of Human Rights in the Anghel case against Romania ruled that although states have the possibility not to sanction some crimes or they can punish them by contravention rather than by criminal means the.