REFLECŢII PRIVIND EFECTELE DECIZIEI NR. 51/2016 A CURŢII CONSTITUŢIONALE A ROMÂNIEI DIN PERSPECTIVA JURISPRUDENŢEI CURŢII EUROPENE A DREPTURILOR OMULUI
Reflections on the effects of the Decision no. 51/2016 of the Constitutional Court of Romania in the light of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights

Summary/Abstract: In this study, the author examines the effects of the decision of granting of the unconstitutionality of the phrase “or by other State specialized bodies” in the body of art. 142 para. (1) of the Code of criminal procedure, taking into consideration the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. The structure and content of the study reveal the comments on the main causes in which the Constitutional Court examined the above-mentioned issue, by identifying the rigor particulars related to each case, namely: the case Khan v. the United Kingdom, the case PG and JH v. the United Kingdom, Heglas v. the Czech Republic, the case Dumitru Popescu nr. 2 v. Romania, Judgment Bykov v. Russia, the case Dragojevic v. Croatia, the case Niţulescu v. Romania, considering, on the basis of the above, the doctrine developed by Cristina Rotaru, an important name in the field of law. Finally, the author formulates brief considerations regarding the fact that in the light of the judgments of the Court, the declaration of a text which regulates the bodies being able to carry out the technical supervision as unconstitutional, actually results in the lack of the legal basis of the actions enforced by other bodies than the criminal prosecution ones. Secondly, as it should be noted in the principles resulting from the case law of the Court, the lack of legal basis of certain operative actions deemed as interference in the right to private life and correspondence, at the very most give rise to an infringement of art. 8 of the Convention, but not a breach of the right to a fair trial, provided under art. 6 of the Convention, if the other procedural safeguards are complied with.

• Details
• Contents