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!
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.
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?
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.
- 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...
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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 ...
Forums
