Proiect SEMPER FIDELIS
  • Prima pagina
  • FORUM
  • Despre noi
  • Statut
  • Galeria foto
  • Download-uri

Remember me      Forgot password?    Signup

Forums

Proiect SEMPER FIDELIS :: Forums :: Securitate nationala :: Cadrul legislativ
 
<< Previous thread | Next thread >>
ultraj si evacuare silita - Vadim Tudor
Go to page
      >>  
Moderators: ex-ad, colonelul, echo, truepride, dorobant, spk, Radu89, Pârvu Florin, justme, Mihais, Resboiu
Author Post
ex-ad
Tue Jan 04 2011, 04:58PM
nosce te ipsum

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Feb 28 2006, 11:26AM

Posts: 4678
Thanked 67 time in 37 post
am vazut toti nenumarate cazuri in care familii amarite au fost zvirlite in strada in urma unei executari judecatoresti.... insa in Romania legea se aplica functie de telefoane, de notorietate sau de interes de grup...

am urmarit circul televizat oferit de Vadim si nu ma intereseaza cit de legala sau nu este hotarirea de executare judecatoreasca si de ce pe Vadim nu l-au aruncat in strada asa cum procedeaza autoritatile cu toti cetatenii de rind... ma intereseaza, insa, un singur lucru: de ce politia nu a intervenit in momentul in care executorul a fost agresat?


Lege nr. 188/2000 privind executorii judecătoreşti

Art. 2. - (1) Executorii judecătoreşti sunt învestiţi să îndeplinească un serviciu de interes public.

Art. 5. - Activitatea executorilor judecătoreşti se înfăptuieşte în condiţiile legii, cu respectarea drepturilor şi intereselor legitime ale părţilor şi ale altor persoane interesate, fără deosebire de rasă, de naţionalitate, de origine etnică, de limbă, de religie, de sex, de apartenenţă politică, de avere sau de origine socială.


Codul Penal

Art. 175 Functionar public
(1) Functionar public, in sensul legii penale este persoana care, cu titlu permanent sau temporar, cu sau fara o remuneratie:
a) exercita atributii si responsabilitati, stabilite in temeiul legii, in scopul realizarii prerogativelor puterii legislative, executive sau judecatoresti;
(...)

(2) De asemenea, este considerata functionar public, in sensul legii penale, persoana care exercita un serviciu de interes public pentru care a fost investita de autoritatile publice sau care este supusa controlului ori supravegherii acestora cu privire la indeplinirea respectivului serviciu public.



Art. 257 Ultrajul
(1) Amenintarea savarsita nemijlocit sau prin mijloace de comunicare directa, lovirea sau alte violente, vatamarea corporala, lovirile sau vatamarile cauzatoare de moarte ori omorul savarsite impotriva unui functionar public care indeplineste o functie ce implica exercitiul autoritatii de stat, aflat in exercitarea atributiilor de serviciu sau in legatura cu exercitarea acestor atributii, se sanctioneaza cu pedeapsa prevazuta de lege pentru acea infractiune ale carei limite speciale se majoreaza cu o treime.
(2) Savarsirea unei infractiuni impotriva unui functionar public care indeplineste o functie ce implica exercitiul autoritatii de stat ori asupra bunurilor acestuia, in scop de intimidare sau de razbunare, in legatura cu exercitarea atributiilor de serviciu, se sanctioneaza cu pedeapsa prevazuta de lege pentru acea infractiune ale carei limite speciale se majoreaza cu o treime.



Pe romaneste: beeeeeeeeeeeeeeei, sefi ai politiei, va tremura chilotii in fata unui derbedeu schizofrenic cu pretentii de sef de partid cu 3 membri!!!!!! Halal!

[ Edited Tue Jan 04 2011, 08:06PM ]
Back to top
truepride
Tue Jan 04 2011, 05:20PM
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Registered Member #996
Joined: Thu Mar 13 2008, 11:32PM

Posts: 3434
Thanked 254 time in 183 post
Da chiar am vorbit azi dimineata cu un prieten politist pe tema asta... problema in speta este imunitatea parlamentara la nivel declarativ a dementului.Da-i unui nebun putere pentru a-i spori dementa.
In fapt si in drept parlamentarul european beneficiaza de aceeasi drepturi ca si un menmbru al parlamentului roman.
Back to top
ex-ad
Tue Jan 04 2011, 05:42PM
nosce te ipsum

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Feb 28 2006, 11:26AM

Posts: 4678
Thanked 67 time in 37 post
nu este adevarat...un europarlamentar este un cetatean ca oricare altul in fata legii romane... de unde ai scos-o p-asta cu imunitatea la europarlamentari?

[ Edited Tue Jan 04 2011, 05:48PM ]
Back to top
truepride
Tue Jan 04 2011, 05:51PM
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Registered Member #996
Joined: Thu Mar 13 2008, 11:32PM

Posts: 3434
Thanked 254 time in 183 post
I. The legal basis of parliamentary immunity
Article 28 of the Treaty of 8 April 1965 establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the European Communities (the merger treaty) lays down that the European Communities shall enjoy in the territories of the Member States such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the performance of their tasks, under the conditions laid down in the protocol annexed to that treaty.
Articles 9 and 10 of this protocol (the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities, henceforth referred to as PPI) reiterate the provisions concerning non-liability and
inviolability of members of the European Parliament.
Article 9
Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties.

'Article 10
During the sessions of the European Parliament its Members shall enjoy:
(a) in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;
(b) in the territory of any other Member State, immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings.
Immunity shall likewise apply to Members while they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the European Parliament.
Immunity cannot be claimed when a Member is found in the act of committing an offence and shall not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members.’
In a resolution adopted on 15 September 1983, Parliament committed itself to proposing a revision of the PPI with a view to adapting it to the new mode of composition of Parliament and to drawing up a uniform statute for all its members, prompted by the various disparities in dealing with parliamentary immunity across Member States. Despite successive calls by
Parliament for action on this issue, the Council of Ministers has so far failed to take a decision on amending Articles 9 and 10 of the PPI.

II. The duration of parliamentary immunity The exemption of members of the European Parliament from liability for the opinions expressed
and votes cast by them in the performance of their duties (as specified in Article 9 of the PPI) protects them for the entire duration of their term of office and, indeed beyond, given that the privilege is indefinite.
Inviolability provided for in Article 10 of the PPI is effective 'during the sessions of the European Parliament'. Given the specific purpose of parliamentary immunity and Parliament's practice of concluding its annual session on the day preceding the first day of the following session, it is clear that immunity is effective throughout a member's five-year term of office.
Exceptions apply where a member's term of office ends prematurely for reasons of decease, resignation or incompatibility. The date on which the term of office is deemed to have ended, and on which, consequently, the protection conferred by parliamentary immunity ceases to apply, is determined on the basis of the interpretative criteria adopted by Parliament and set out in a note attached to Rule 8 of its Rules of Procedure.
It should be added that, in view of the silence of the PPI on the matter and the absence of any
other rule thereon, Parliament has adopted the criterion whereby immunity under Article 10 of
the PPI applies not only to actions during a member's term of office but also retrospectively
(immunity thus does not apply to actions after expiry of the term of office). This criterion is
based on the premise that the primary purpose of immunity is to protect the normal functioning
of the parliamentary institution, which principle might otherwise be jeopardised by actions
occurring both before and after the start of a member's term of office.

III. The scope and purpose of parliamentary immunity
According to Article 28 of the merger Treaty of 8 April 1965 the privileges and immunities set
out in the PPI were established with the purpose of enabling the Communities to carry out their
mission. Article 4 of the EEC Treaty, Articles 3, 6 and 7 of the ECSC Treaty and Article 3 of
the Euratom Treaty make it clear that the Communities are bound to act through their respective
institutions, including the European Parliament. It has, accordingly, been the traditional view
that the immunity defined in Articles 9 and 10 of the PPI is intended to ensure the protection of
Parliament as a Community institution rather than the protection of its members as individuals.
Article 9 of the PPI (non-liability)
(a) Opinions and votes
Under Article 9 of the PPI, members of the European Parliament are exempted from liability for
the opinions expressed and votes cast by them in the performance of their duties. This privilege
is intended to safeguard members' freedom in the performance of their duties, leaving their
actions to be subject only to the rules governing procedure and the conventions of parliamentary
etiquette.
Despite the existence of analogous provisions in the Member States, the scope of this privilege
is not identical to that prevailing under the various domestic systems. The European Parliament
has endeavoured to define the precise scope of the provision concerned, proposing that the
existing text of Article 9 of the PPI be replaced by the following wording:
'Members of Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal
proceedings, in connection with civil, criminal or administrative proceedings, in respect of
opinions expressed or votes cast during debates in Parliament, in bodies created by or
functioning within the latter or on which they sit as Members of Parliament.'
According to legal opinion, and following the interpretation of the parliamentary committee
responsible, this wording should be taken to mean opinions expressed and votes cast not only
during the part-sessions of Parliament but also during the meetings of parliamentary bodies such
as committees or political groups. However, Article 9 of the PPI is deemed not to cover
opinions expressed by members at party conferences, during election campaigns or in books or
articles which they publish.
(b) Defamatory Intent
In contrast to the German and Greek national parliamentary immunity arrangements, the PPI
does not exclude actions committed with defamatory intent from the scope of non-liability.
Furthermore, non-liability as defined in Article 9 of the PPI is absolute; no exclusion is
permitted on the part of any entity, not even Parliament itself.
(c) Testimony in Court
An amendment of the PPI in 1987 entitles MEPs to refuse to testify in court, in so far as their
testimony related to their activities as members of the European Parliament. The effect of this
proposal is to give official recognition to a privilege existing in various Member States but
which is not referred to in the existing protocol.
Article 10 of the PPI (inviolability)
Inviolability refers to actions by Members of the European Parliament not covered by Article 9
of the PPI, i.e.:
- opinions expressed and votes cast outside debates in the European Parliament, in the
bodies set up by Parliament or functioning under its auspices, or in bodies where the
Members concerned meet or are present in their capacity as Members of the European
Parliament;
- actions which cannot be classified as opinions or votes, whether carried out within or
outside Parliament.
Article 10 of the PPI draws a distinction between two types of situation arising 'during the
sessions of the European Parliament', according to whether the Member concerned is physically
present in the territory of his own Member State or in the territory of any other Member State.
(a) Situation in the territory of an MEP's own Member State
If an MEP is in his own Member State, the article refers the matter to the national law of the
Member States, stating that MEPs are entitled to the immunities accorded to members of their
respective national parliament. However, this arrangement results in an inequality of treatment
between members because of the variations between the different national provisions on the
matter.
This situation also entails adverse consequences for Parliament's own work, since it obliges
Parliament, in each individual case of a request for waiver of immunity, to review the relevant
national legislation concerning immunity and the related procedures. This may lead not only to
delays in decision-making but also to errors in interpretation and even misapplication of the
rules concerned.
(b) Community Immunity
Where an MEP is present on the territory of a Member State other than that of which he is a
national, he is exempt from 'any measure of detention and from legal proceedings.
(c) Travelling to and from the meeting of Parliament
Article 10 of the PPI additionally confers immunity on Members 'while they are travelling to
and from the place of meeting of the European Parliament.' This, too, should be regarded as a
'Community immunity', irrespective of the protection accorded by national legislation.
(d) Flagrante delicto
The final paragraph of Article 10 sets out a conventional exception to the privilege of
parliamentary immunity, insofar as it states that immunity 'cannot be claimed where a Member
is found in the act of committing an offence'.

IV. The procedure for waiving parliamentary immunity
Article 10 of the PPI confers on the European Parliament the right to waive the immunity of
individual Members. It emphasises the institutional purpose of this prerogative, which seeks to
safeguard the independence and normal functioning of the parliamentary institution.
The procedure for waiving the immunity of an MEP referred to in the third paragraph of Article
10 of the PPI must be based on Community law. Since Community law contains no specific
provision concerning the waiving of immunity, it is up to the European Parliament to determine
the nature of the procedure. Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure is the only procedural provision
existing on the subject. Parliament's practice over the years has led to the establishment of a
series of basic guidelines applying to the procedure for waiving a Member's immunity.
A request submitted to Parliament is valid where drawn up and forwarded by the authorities
which, under the relevant national legislation, are entitled to submit and forward a similar
request to the parliament of the Member State concerned.
Provided that the independence of Parliament and of its members is not adversely affected, the
precise moment at which, in the context of the preparation of legal proceedings, a request for
waiver of immunity is to be drawn up prior to initiation of the judicial action is to be determined
by the national law of the Member States.
(a) Dual Mandates
In the case of members holding a dual mandate, Parliament acts in accordance with a decision
adopted by the committee responsible at the beginning of the parliamentary term following the
first direct elections and has traditionally waited for the decision of the national parliament
concerned. Although the procedures in question are independent of each other, it has been
considered desirable, for both political and practical reasons, to await the national parliament's
position on a request before considering it. This practice accounts for the delay which
sometimes characterises Parliament's decisions.
(b) Parliamentary committee's right to obtain detailed information
The introduction in May 1992 of further provisions revising the Rules of Procedure, now enable
a committee to ask for information not set out in the original request for waiver of immunity and
the member concerned to submit such information. These provisions reinforce the legitimacy of
the parliamentary committee's right to obtain detailed information concerning each case
examined and to have at its disposal for this purpose all the information which it deems
necessary for it to reach a decision.
On several occasions, the European Parliament has based its refusal to waive a Member's
immunity on the grounds that the national authorities in question had failed in their duty to
cooperate under Article 5 of the EEC Treaty and not provided certain information which had
been requested as being indispensable for the consideration of the requests concerned.
(c) Confidentiality
The committee responsible has so far considered requests for waiver of immunity at meetings
held in camera. The purpose of this practice is to ensure confidentiality, in the interests of both
the member concerned and of the committee itself and its members, in such a way as to ensure a
free and unbiased debate, with particular regard to cases of this nature.
(d) Obligation not to pronounce guilt or innocence
Paragraph 5 enshrines the conventional principle, whereby the committee is not empowered to
pronounce on the guilt or innocence of the Member concerned, since this is a matter for the
judicial bodies.
(f) The precise action to be taken by committee
The procedure for considering action is detailed in part 6 of Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure:
‘6. The report of the committee shall be placed at the head of the agenda of the first sitting
following the day on which it was tabled. No amendment may be tabled to the proposal(s) for a
decision.
Discussion shall be confined to the reasons for or against each proposal to waive or uphold
immunity.
Without prejudice to Rule 122, the Member whose immunity is subject to the request for a
waiver shall not speak in the debate.
The proposal(s) for a decision contained in the report shall be put to the vote at the first voting
time following the debate.
After Parliament has considered the matter, an individual vote shall be taken on each of the
proposals contained in the report. If any of the proposals are rejected, the contrary decision
shall be deemed adopted.’
(g) Notification of authorities
The procedure concludes with the immediate notification of the decision to the national
authorities concerned. However, in cases where the decision taken involves the waiving of
immunity, the President of Parliament is obliged to ask to be kept informed of the progress of
the legal proceedings in question.

V. Parliamentary practice
Parliamentary practice has now developed and consolidated a set of principles and criteria
intended to serve as guidelines for the committee responsible.
These principles are based in part on the case-law of the European Court of Justice. They may
be summarised in the following section:
(a) Purpose of parliamentary immunity
Parliamentary immunity is not to be seen as a privilege benefiting individual Members; it is
designed to guarantee the independence of Parliament and its Members vis-à-vis other bodies.
Accordingly, the date of the alleged offences is entirely relative. They may be prior to or
subsequent to the election of the member. What is paramount is the protection of the
parliamentary institution through that of its Members.
(b) Renunciation of immunity
Keeping its focus on the institution, not the individual, the renunciation of parliamentary
immunity by an individual Member has no legal effect.
(c) Autonomous nature of immunity in the European Parliament and in Member State
parliaments
Outcomes of decisions taken on requests for waiver of immunity created a coherent notion of
parliamentary immunity which should, as a matter of principle, be independent compared with
the various practices in the national parliaments. If that were not the case, the disparities
between members of one and the same parliament would be accentuated on the grounds of their
nationality. The Committee on the Rules of Procedure currently thinks that the ground must be
prepared for a genuine European Parliament immunity, one which is in principle autonomous,
while retaining the references to national parliaments set out in the Protocol on privileges and
immunities.
The application of these principles has resulted in a constant element in Parliament's decisions,
one which has become a fundamental criterion for consideration of the action to be taken on
individual requests for waiver of immunity. In all cases where the charges against a Member are
related to the exercise of a political activity, immunity is not to be waived. However, if the
charges relate to what may be considered ‘particularly serious’ activities, immunity will be
waived.
Between the date when direct elections to the European Parliament were introduced and
February 2001, a total of 92 requests for waiver of parliamentary immunity were considered.
Parliament decided to waive immunity in 18 cases, i.e. 19.5% of the total.
There are three groups of cases in which the committee has refused to accept the interpretation
that the acts imputed to the Member fell within the sphere of his political activities:
a) In all cases where the acts were considered to constitute a threat to individuals or to
democratic society. Examples: support for persons guilty of terrorist acts; membership of
criminal organisations; drug-trafficking; participation in demonstrations equipped with
dangerous objects which could constitute a threat to the lives of others;
b) In all cases of defamation where the injured party or parties were considered to have been
denigrated as individuals rather than as representatives of an institution (administrative
bodies, media organs, etc.). Examples: verbal and written attacks on an individual police
officer directed at him personally rather than at the police as such; a written attack on a
journalist directed at him personally without reference to the press in general or to a
particular newspaper;
c) In all cases involving a clear-cut breach of the criminal law or of administrative rules or
provisions, where there was no connection whatever with any political activity. Examples:
failure to report a road accident; insulting police officers after being found driving with
irregular number plates; nepotism involving financial favours; accounting fraud.
The acts in respect of which a request for waiver of a Member's immunity was submitted and
accepted by Parliament include the following: provision of assistance to criminals to enable
them to escape justice; membership of a criminal organisation and drug- trafficking; possession
at a demonstration of objects liable to cause injury to persons and property; parking in a
prohibited area; encouragement and support for the reconstitution of a dissolved fascist party;
failure to report a road accident; insulting a representative of law and order; insult or defamation
directed against individuals or groups; financial offences involving embezzlement and fraud;
libellous material published in a newspaper; abuse of powers, embezzlement, use of and
complicity in the drawing up of bogus documents; denying the Holocaust at a press conference
held to mark the launch of a book on the member's life and political activities; aggravated fraud.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Marc Van der Hulst, The Parliamentary Mandate, Inter-Parliamentary Union, Geneva,
2000. An excellent examination on the nature of the parliamentary mandate and the requirement
of parliamentarians in modern democracies.
Council of Europe, European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice
Commission) "Report on the regime of parliamentary immunity" CPL-INF(96) 7,
Strasbourg, June 1996.
Marília Crespo Allen, "Parliamentary Immunity in the Member States of the European
Union and the European Parliament", European Parliament, July 1999. A European
Parliament Working Paper from the Legal Affairs series by Marília Crespo Allen. Since this
paper is mainly drawn from this Working Paper, it is its bibliography which features below,
detailing a great deal of useful material for further research.
COMPARATIVE AND GENERAL STUDIES
Links: LINK
LINK
LINK
- COUNCIL OF EUROPE, European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission)
Report on the regime of parliamentary immunity CPL-INF(96) 7, Strasbourg, June 1996.
- EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (Legal Service), "Le statut des parlementaires dans les États membres:
irresponsabilité et inviolabilité", Committee on the Rules of Procedure, the Verification of
Credentials and Immunities, 26 April 1990, PE 140.198.
- FRENCH SENATE, "L’immunité parlementaire" (étude comparative), Division des Études de
législation comparée, No 56, May 1994.
- INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION, Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments,
Constitutional and Parliamentary Information, No 175, first half-year 1998, Final report presented
by Mr Robert Myttenaere, Deputy Secretary-General of the Chamber of Representatives, Belgium,
adopted at the Moscow session (September 1998), on the immunities of Members of Parliament.
- ZAHLE, Henrik, (ed) "Danmarks Riges Grundlov med kommentarer", København, Jurist- og
Økonomforbundets Forlag, 1999
- JENDRAL, Hans-Jürgen, Immunität – noch zeitgemäß? Kritische Untersuchung eines
immerwährendes Privilegs des Parlaments, Haag + Herchen, Frankfurt am Main, 1993.
- MARTINELLI, Claudio, "Immunità parlamentari: l'individuazione della camera competente tra
prassi parlamentare e interpretazione della costituzione", in Rassegna parlamentare, No. 42, 2000,
pp. 445 – 457.
- AMADO GOMES, Carla, As imunidades parlamentares no Direito Português, Coimbra Editora,
1998.




[ Edited Tue Jan 04 2011, 06:01PM ]
Back to top
truepride
Tue Jan 04 2011, 05:57PM
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Registered Member #996
Joined: Thu Mar 13 2008, 11:32PM

Posts: 3434
Thanked 254 time in 183 post
Imunitatea aceasta se poate si ridica fara probleme: LINK - spun doar ca politia a procedat corect legal, incorect moarlemnte si firesc.
Back to top
ex-ad
Tue Jan 04 2011, 05:57PM
nosce te ipsum

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Feb 28 2006, 11:26AM

Posts: 4678
Thanked 67 time in 37 post
dupa cum bine ai postat:

- Article 9 Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties.

- Immunity cannot be claimed when a Member is found in the act of committing an offence and shall not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members.

nota: "offence" inseamna aici "infractiune".


vb aici de o evacuare a unui sediu de partid si de agresarea unui executor judecatoresc....

si parlamentarilor din Romania, si parlamentarilor straini li se acorda imunitate pentru chestiuni politice, nu penale...


ramin la parerea mea: nu poti agresa un reprezentant al autoritatii publice in exercitiul functiunii fara sa raspunzi conform legii.... iar legea este de partea politiei, fiindca vorbim de cetateanul Vadim in acest caz, nu de europarlamentarul Vadim....d-aia se duce naibii tara asta.... cum a fost in cazul Becali cu sechestrarea de persoane?

... dar sa raminem la subiectul "ultraj", fiindca banuiesc ca vom avea ce discuta in viitor daca e sa ne gindim prin ce trec zilnic politistii bunaoara...

[ Edited Tue Jan 04 2011, 06:20PM ]
Back to top
truepride
Tue Jan 04 2011, 06:24PM
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Registered Member #996
Joined: Thu Mar 13 2008, 11:32PM

Posts: 3434
Thanked 254 time in 183 post
Sa nu crezi nici 5 secunde ca il simpatizez pe vadim, caci daca ar fi dupa mine l-as trimite pe marte cu toti schizoizii ce l-au votat pe el si pe gigi.N-a vrut sa te supar, doar sa punctez ca politia a procedat corect.

1.Am stabilit ca exista imunitatea.
2.Da este adevarat ca acesta imunitate poate fi ridicata, exact din aceste motive am postat un exemplu.
3.In momentul comiterii faptelor de ultraj in concurs cu nerespectarea hotararii judectaoresti VC tudor a beneficiat de acesta Imunitate, astfel pana la ridicarea ei, politia a procedat corect deoarece la fel ca si in situatia parlamentarilor romani, pana la ridicare imunitatii de catre camera(PE in speta) respectiva persoana nu poate fi cercetata, retinuta, arestata.
4.Imunitatea poate fi ridicata la comiterea unei "offense"(dupa sistemul common law s-ar traduce fapta de natura criminala sau administrativa cu grad de pericol social ridicat).Din aceste motive am postat si practica judicara prin care acesta imunitate a fost ridicata:

"In all cases involving a clear-cut breach of the criminal law or of administrative rules or provisions, where there was no connection whatever with any political activity.
Examples:
failure to report a road accident; insulting police officers after being found driving with irregular number plates; nepotism involving financial favours; accounting fraud.
The acts in respect of which a request for waiver of a Member's immunity was submitted and
accepted by Parliament include the following: provision of assistance to criminals to enable
them to escape justice; membership of a criminal organisation and drug- trafficking; possession at a demonstration of objects liable to cause injury to persons and property; parking in a prohibited area; encouragement and support for the reconstitution of a dissolved fascist party; failure to report a road accident; insulting a representative of law and order; insult or defamation directed against individuals or groups; financial offences involving embezzlement and fraud; libellous material published in a newspaper; abuse of powers, embezzlement, use of and complicity in the drawing up of bogus documents; denying the Holocaust at a press conference held to mark the launch of a book on the member's life and political activities; aggravated fraud."
5.Acum chestiunea privind "inafara atributilor parlamentare" este o chestie subiectiva si legea a fost intodeauna favorabila interpretarii prin extindere.

Putin cam offtopic, caci eu ma refeream la partea cu imunitatea strict la ultraj- dupa cum am vazut si titlul.Evacuarea ca urmare a unei hotarari judecatoresti nu este discutabila, ci se pune in fapt si drept imediat. Vadim asa imun cum este el sa scuipe politia si executorii judecatoresti trebuia scos in strada pe sus daca trebuie.


[ Edited Tue Jan 04 2011, 06:49PM ]
Back to top
ex-ad
Tue Jan 04 2011, 07:20PM
nosce te ipsum

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Feb 28 2006, 11:26AM

Posts: 4678
Thanked 67 time in 37 post
pai oarecum asta spuneam si eu, bro.... (si scuze daca m-am exprimat mai apasat inainte, fiindca nu sint suparata, ci al naibii de amuzata)... nu neg tot ceea ce spui, fiindca si eu citesc jurisprudenta europeana si o vad la fel, dar acel "offence" anterior se refera la orice fel de infractiune, deci incalcare a legii penale...

Vadim trebuia luat de guler si zburat afara din sediu... punct... UDMR a trebuit sa paraseasca de doua ori sediul si n-au asteptat executorul judecatoresc...

dar daca faza cu paharul de apa in fata executorului si faza cu sapca politistului (iar astea sint doar cele prezentate la tv, dar probabil au fost mai multe) ramin fara urmari, atunci avem inca o dovada ca in Romania legea e valabila doar pentru noi, astia de rind... si ma gindesc cind ne vom satura de atitea dovezi...

ce anume ii mai trebuia politiei sa-l retina pe vadim, cu tot cu imunitatea lui? reiau: imunitatea este fata de opiniile politice... in caz de infractiuni si mai ales in caz de flagrant, imunitatea nu exista! un parlamentar este in slujba poporului, deci nu poate fi deasupra lui si a legilor....




Constitutia Romaniei

ARTICOLUL 72
(1) Deputaţii şi senatorii nu pot fi traşi la răspundere juridică pentru voturile sau pentru opiniile politice exprimate în exercitarea mandatului.

(2) Deputaţii şi senatorii pot fi urmăriţi şi trimişi în judecată penală pentru fapte care nu au legătură cu voturile sau cu opiniile politice exprimate în exercitarea mandatului, dar nu pot fi percheziţionaţi, reţinuţi sau arestaţi fără încuviinţarea Camerei din care fac parte, după ascultarea lor. Urmărirea şi trimiterea în judecată penală se pot face numai de către Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie. Competenţa de judecată aparţine Înaltei Curţi de Casaţie şi Justiţie.

(3) În caz de infracţiune flagrantă, deputaţii sau senatorii pot fi reţinuţi şi supuşi percheziţiei. Ministrul justiţiei îl va informa neîntârziat pe preşedintele Camerei asupra reţinerii şi a percheziţiei. În cazul în care Camera sesizată constată că nu există temei pentru reţinere, va dispune imediat revocarea acestei măsuri.

[ Edited Tue Jan 04 2011, 07:30PM ]
Back to top
ex-ad
Tue Jan 04 2011, 07:29PM
nosce te ipsum

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Feb 28 2006, 11:26AM

Posts: 4678
Thanked 67 time in 37 post
reiau intrebarea: de ce Politia Romana nu a respectat prevederile Constitutiei in cazul evidentelor actiuni de ultraj de astazi in cazul lui Vadim?

si o observatie offtopic: toate actiunile din ultimul an sint facute sa-i ridice lui Vadim cota... media lucreaza intens... ma bucur, totusi, ca Realitatea (care intra pe site din ora in ora) a inceput, finalmente, sa discute de ultraj....

[ Edited Tue Jan 04 2011, 08:13PM ]
Back to top
Mihais
Tue Jan 04 2011, 08:36PM

Registered Member #2323
Joined: Mon Nov 30 2009, 11:22PM

Posts: 3943
Thanked 457 time in 321 post
off-topic Sa zambesc frumos,ca ma da la televizor



Back to top
truepride
Tue Jan 04 2011, 08:38PM
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Registered Member #996
Joined: Thu Mar 13 2008, 11:32PM

Posts: 3434
Thanked 254 time in 183 post
Da intradevar, am evitat problematica flagrantului deoarece nu stiam cum este reglementata in viziunea parlamnetului european, legislatia europeana primand fata de cea nationala iar acolo unde este mai favorabila legislatia nationala primeaza reglementarii internationale. Acum in schimb am gasit o referinta la flagrante delicto ce permite sistarea imunitatii in "momentul prinderii asupra faptei"- roughly translated.
Eu inteleg imunitatea romana din textul legal astfel: dupa cum este reglementata, imunitatea este o forma de scoatere de sub raspundere aprope totala a beneficiarului.Desi la nivel declarativ este o imunitate doar pentru opinii si voturi, tot aceeasi lege prevede acordul camerei pentru inceperea procedurilor penale necesare.Astfel se poate adimite ca desi parlamentarul a comis fapte de natura penala ce nu au legatura cu mandatul, un vot politic majoritar poate stopa actiunea de responsabliziare penala a celui in cauza.Desi se permite urmarirea si trimiterea acestuia in judecata, domnii din cadrul parchetului nu au instrumentele legale pentru a obtine probe la dosar.Ba mai mult si in cazul infractiunilor flagrante, o masura preventiva luata de un organ judiciar poate fi anulata prin votul majoritar a membrilor respectivei camere.Dupa aceste aspecte mie sincer nu mi se pare ca avem o imunitate doar la nivel declarativ.
Opinia mea referitoare la imunitate este: nu exista o institutie legala in toata legislatia nationala ce sa fi facut sau sa faca in continuare mai mult rau Romaniei.Nu este uman acceptabil ca vecinul tau sa nu rapsunda le fel ca tine pentru o gresala in fata legii.Desi spunem ca imunitatea apara doar opinii si voturi, vedem nenumrate cazuri prin care justitia este blocata la usa palatului precum o ruda saraca pe temei politic.
Pentru a spala putin camasa avem doua optiuni:Fie adoptam modelul european in care imunitatea este la nivel declarativ si doar atat fie dupa model olandez renuntam la imunitate pentru cei alesi.
Admit astfel ca politia putea gestiona situatia mai bine.
Back to top
truepride
Tue Jan 04 2011, 08:40PM
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Registered Member #996
Joined: Thu Mar 13 2008, 11:32PM

Posts: 3434
Thanked 254 time in 183 post
Intreb si eu acuma, daca suntem sursa de inspiratie a celor de la iRealitatea, nu primim si noi ceva bani, ca surse credibile ce suntem.
Back to top
Mihais
Tue Jan 04 2011, 08:46PM

Registered Member #2323
Joined: Mon Nov 30 2009, 11:22PM

Posts: 3943
Thanked 457 time in 321 post
Problema e in felul urmator,dupa mine.Observand discutia nu privire la imunitate si la faptul ca treaba nu e clara,tinand cont de prezenta presei (care orice ai fi facut o intorcea ca la Ploiesti),de faptul ca sunt politisti romani care primesc suturi in dos in loc de sprijin de la sefi,tinand cont si de faptul ca e posibil sa nu se fi asteptat la asa o reactie violenta(cat de plauzibila o fi idea asta ramane de vazut,dar pana la noi informatii o iau in calcul)indecizia era exact ce se poate astepta.Asta am semanat la nivel de institutii,asta culegem.
Back to top
ex-ad
Tue Jan 04 2011, 09:13PM
nosce te ipsum

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Feb 28 2006, 11:26AM

Posts: 4678
Thanked 67 time in 37 post
fara beeep



cu beep, dar si fara


[ Edited Wed Jan 05 2011, 04:10AM ]
Back to top
ex-ad
Wed Jan 05 2011, 04:09AM
nosce te ipsum

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Feb 28 2006, 11:26AM

Posts: 4678
Thanked 67 time in 37 post
in orice tara civilizata, Vadim era saltat instant... e drept, in tarile civilizate personaje ca Vadim nu exista...

la fel ca si ceilalti nebuni ai tarii, asta e doar o gogoasa umflata de media... daca miine e saltat, in 2 zile e uitat de presa... intr-o luna e uitat de toti ...
Back to top
Go to page
      >>   

Jump:     Back to top

Syndicate this thread: rss 0.92 Syndicate this thread: rss 2.0 Syndicate this thread: RDF
Powered by e107 Forum System uses forum thanks

More links

Imnul SEMPER FIDELIS
Arhiva stiri
Trimite-ne o stire
Marsuri
Articole
2% pentru voi
Directia Generala Anticoruptie din MAI
Resboiu blog
Asociatia ROMIL
InfoMondo
Fundatia Pentru Pompieri
Liga Militarilor
Politistul
SNPPC
NATOChannel TV
Forumul politistilor
Forumul pompierilor
Asociatia "6 Dorobanti"
© 2006-2015 Proiect SEMPER FIDELIS
Site protejat la copierea cu soft-uri dedicate. Banare automata.Opiniile exprimate pe forum nu reprezinta si pozitia asociatiei fata de persoane, institutii si evenimente. Regulile de functionare a forumului sint formulate in baza prevederilor constitutionale si legilor in vigoare. Asociatia isi exprima pozitia fata persoane, institutii si evenimente prin fluxul de stiri publicat in prima pagina a site-ului.