Athe Court finds that the exception of unconstitutionality regarding the provisions of art. of the Criminal Code of and art. of the Criminal Code is unfounded. . Regarding the criticism regarding the provisions of art. of the Criminal Code of and art. of the Criminal Code the Court finds that they refer to the notion of punishment provided by law. . The author believes that these provisions violate the constitutional provisions of art. paragraph and regarding the rule of law and the quality of laws because they have a deficient and contradictory wording.
That affects both the principle of predictability and accessibility as well as the principle Country Email List of legal security. Thus in the case of special normative constructions such as aggravatedattenuated variants or absorbing complex crimes problems may arise in the analysis of the concept of punishment provided by law. For example in the case of the crime provided by art. of Law no. the reason for the aggravation of the punishment which should not be taken into account when is in a different legal text than the one that criminalizes the deed in the standard version in the consummated form.
Therefore in the absence of stable legal criteria used by the legislator in creating these various derivations from the standard content of some crimes it remains at the discretion of the judge whether to refer to the text that incriminates the deed in the standard version or to the text of the law distinctly which incriminates the same deed in the aggravated version. . With regard to these criticisms the Court notes that two periods are distinguished in the conduct of a criminal activity namely the internal and the external period. The internal psychic period is included in the interval between the moment of the idea of committing a crime and the.
發表於 2023-12-27 17:47:25
收藏