Abstract
The provisions of the new Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the preliminary chamber judge (art. 345), contain a series of omissions (for instance, the Code does not provide the remedy solution in case of sanctioning the prosecution acts performed in violation of law), inconsistencies and gaps which may cause interpretation and enforcement difficulties in this kind of judicial proceedings. Accordingly, in the current article, the authors identify these situations and analyse them in the framework of current regulations in force, also suggesting possible solutions. Therefore, the main objective of this research consists in exploring the text of the New Code of Criminal Procedure governing the procedure of the preliminary chamber. In this context, several inconsistencies and gaps that will create difficulties of interpretation and application will be signalled. One of them refers to the text of Art. 344 para. (2) and (3) of the New Code of Criminal Procedure, which is incomplete in relation to the text of art. 54 with regards to the jurisdiction of the preliminary chamber judge and in relation to the text provided by art. 342 of the same Code, which legalises the object of the procedure in the preliminary chamber. In conclusion, the article proves of high interest due to its novelty and underlined inconsistencies.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty. Section: Law
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
