预防措施期间刑事犯罪的法律定性问题

Xharije Nela
{"title":"预防措施期间刑事犯罪的法律定性问题","authors":"Xharije Nela","doi":"10.2478/ajbals-2024-0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The court is the only constitutional body that delivers justice. One of the functional competences of the court is also giving justice through legal qualification of the criminal offense. The court has the right to make the legal qualification of the criminal offense and this is its exclusive competence. It is important for the court, when making the legal qualification of the criminal offense, gives the criminal fact, the qualification that results from the acts of the investigation file. The provision regarding the competence of the court to change the legal qualification of the criminal offense, has undergone constant changes, with the aim of guaranteeing the right to a fair legal process, the principles of this right such as effective protection, equality and contradiction in obtaining evidences.\n Appropriate legal qualification of the criminal offense is a very effective tool in terms of delivering justice during the trial at first instance and beyond. The situation becomes problematic in the legal qualification of the criminal offense during the precautionary measures, where the court cannot at this procedural moment make the appropriate legal qualification of the criminal offense, different from the one brought by the prosecutor.\n From the practice, we have seen the subjective attitudes of the prosecution body, in relation to the accusation raised during the request for the imposition of a precautionary measure. There are cases where the prosecution improperly facilitates the prosecution, in order to justify the search regarding the measure of security, but there are also cases when the prosecution has aggravated the prosecution, even though the criminal fact is not the one qualified by the prosecutor.\n These subjective qualifications of the prosecutor during the phase of imposing precautionary measures have led to violations of the freedoms and rights of individual, due to the lack of competence of the court to make the appropriate legal qualification of the criminal offense. These problems in practice must be solved by legal amendments or interpretations by the Supreme Court.","PeriodicalId":358300,"journal":{"name":"Academic Journal of Business, Administration, Law and Social Sciences","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Problems on legal qualification of criminal offense during precautionary measures\",\"authors\":\"Xharije Nela\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/ajbals-2024-0014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The court is the only constitutional body that delivers justice. One of the functional competences of the court is also giving justice through legal qualification of the criminal offense. The court has the right to make the legal qualification of the criminal offense and this is its exclusive competence. It is important for the court, when making the legal qualification of the criminal offense, gives the criminal fact, the qualification that results from the acts of the investigation file. The provision regarding the competence of the court to change the legal qualification of the criminal offense, has undergone constant changes, with the aim of guaranteeing the right to a fair legal process, the principles of this right such as effective protection, equality and contradiction in obtaining evidences.\\n Appropriate legal qualification of the criminal offense is a very effective tool in terms of delivering justice during the trial at first instance and beyond. The situation becomes problematic in the legal qualification of the criminal offense during the precautionary measures, where the court cannot at this procedural moment make the appropriate legal qualification of the criminal offense, different from the one brought by the prosecutor.\\n From the practice, we have seen the subjective attitudes of the prosecution body, in relation to the accusation raised during the request for the imposition of a precautionary measure. There are cases where the prosecution improperly facilitates the prosecution, in order to justify the search regarding the measure of security, but there are also cases when the prosecution has aggravated the prosecution, even though the criminal fact is not the one qualified by the prosecutor.\\n These subjective qualifications of the prosecutor during the phase of imposing precautionary measures have led to violations of the freedoms and rights of individual, due to the lack of competence of the court to make the appropriate legal qualification of the criminal offense. These problems in practice must be solved by legal amendments or interpretations by the Supreme Court.\",\"PeriodicalId\":358300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Journal of Business, Administration, Law and Social Sciences\",\"volume\":\"54 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Journal of Business, Administration, Law and Social Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/ajbals-2024-0014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Journal of Business, Administration, Law and Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/ajbals-2024-0014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

法院是宪法规定的唯一伸张正义的机构。法院的职能之一也是通过对刑事犯罪的法律定性来伸张正义。法院有权对刑事犯罪进行法律定性,这是其专有权限。重要的是,法院在对刑事犯罪进行法律定性时,要给出犯罪事实,即调查档案行为所产生的定性。关于法院有权更改刑事犯罪法律定性的规定经历了不断的变化,其目的是保障公平的法律程序权,以及该权利的原则,如有效保护、平等和获取证据的矛盾性。对刑事犯罪进行适当的法律定性是在一审及以后的审判中伸张正义的一个非常有效的工具。在采取预防措施期间,对刑事犯罪的法律定性就会出现问题,因为法院在这一程序时刻无法对刑事犯罪进行适当的法律定性,与检察官提出的不同。从实践中,我们可以看到检察机关对请求采取预防措施时提出的指控所持的主观态度。有的案件中,检察机关为了证明对安全措施的搜查是合理的,不恰当地为起诉提供了便利,但也有的案件中,尽管犯罪事实并非检察官所定性的那样,但检察机关却加重了起诉。由于法院缺乏对刑事犯罪进行适当法律定性的权限,检察官在实施预防措施阶段的这些主观定性导致了对个人自由和权利的侵犯。这些问题在实践中必须通过法律修正案或最高法院的解释来解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Problems on legal qualification of criminal offense during precautionary measures
The court is the only constitutional body that delivers justice. One of the functional competences of the court is also giving justice through legal qualification of the criminal offense. The court has the right to make the legal qualification of the criminal offense and this is its exclusive competence. It is important for the court, when making the legal qualification of the criminal offense, gives the criminal fact, the qualification that results from the acts of the investigation file. The provision regarding the competence of the court to change the legal qualification of the criminal offense, has undergone constant changes, with the aim of guaranteeing the right to a fair legal process, the principles of this right such as effective protection, equality and contradiction in obtaining evidences. Appropriate legal qualification of the criminal offense is a very effective tool in terms of delivering justice during the trial at first instance and beyond. The situation becomes problematic in the legal qualification of the criminal offense during the precautionary measures, where the court cannot at this procedural moment make the appropriate legal qualification of the criminal offense, different from the one brought by the prosecutor. From the practice, we have seen the subjective attitudes of the prosecution body, in relation to the accusation raised during the request for the imposition of a precautionary measure. There are cases where the prosecution improperly facilitates the prosecution, in order to justify the search regarding the measure of security, but there are also cases when the prosecution has aggravated the prosecution, even though the criminal fact is not the one qualified by the prosecutor. These subjective qualifications of the prosecutor during the phase of imposing precautionary measures have led to violations of the freedoms and rights of individual, due to the lack of competence of the court to make the appropriate legal qualification of the criminal offense. These problems in practice must be solved by legal amendments or interpretations by the Supreme Court.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信