scholarly journals House Arrest as a Preventive Measure in Accordance with the New Criminal Procedure Code

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 344-348
Author(s):  
Silviu Jîrlăianu
Keyword(s):  
European Community ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Community Law ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Set Up

Abstract Romania's participation in European Community imposed realities of our country harmonization of national legislation in relation to Community law. Such national legislation, in terms of criminal procedure were introduced through preventive measures, house arrest, judicial and Judicial control on bail. In relation to the same European context, Romanian police set up surveillance units of judicial duties in order to enforce these measures.

scholarly journals Practical Application of the Provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Regarding the Measure of Preventive Arrest

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-32
Author(s):  
Nicolae Silviu Pana ◽  
Ana Maria Pana
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Procedure Code

Preventive measures are coercive criminal law enforcement institutions, aimed at the deprivation or restriction of individual liberty, by which the suspect or defendant is prevented from undertaking certain activities that would adversely affect the conduct of the criminal proceedings or the achievement of its purpose. They have been instituted by the legislator for specific purposes, namely: to ensure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings, to prevent the abstraction of the suspect or defendant from trial and to prevent the commission of new offenses (art. 202 para. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code). Preventive measures are not inherent in any ongoing criminal trial, but are exceptional measures (art. 9 para. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code), and the court can decide to sease the measure or make use of the measure in the light of the specific circumstances of each case. Of the five preventive measures, three are deprivation of liberty - detention, house arrest and pre-trial detention, and two are non-custodial: judicial control and judicial control on bail. All these measures are only applicable to the natural person. Specific preventive measures may be taken against legal persons, but those are regulated by the provisions of art. 493 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

House arrest in the system of procedural preventive measures against minors (in genesis)

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 133-139
Author(s):  
Ol'ga Tuchina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Scientific Analysis ◽  
The Russian Federation

To implement the norms of international law into the practice of Russian legal system while choosing a preventive measure against an accused minor or a suspect, to decide on the most humane preventive measure is the issue of great importance. This position is reflected in Art. 423 of the Criminal Procedure Code providing the fundamental foundations of criminal procedure provisions concerning preventive measures against minors. When making a decision on restraint measures related to isolation from society, the possibility of applying an alternative, more humane preventive measure should be taken into account. The article describes the ratio of house arrest to detention. It has been justified that in the system of preventive measures house arrest should be recognized as a measure not related to isolation from society, and as a more common alternative to detention. The legislator periodically attempts to improve the procedural situation of minors involved in criminal procedure. Problems are connected with unstructured placement of norms regarding juvenile suspects and accused in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Secondly, it is linked with the absence of features of house arrest of minors. All this makes the author state that despite the large-scale judicial and legal reform, the legal regulation of preventive measures against minors needs to be further improved. The subject of the study is a scientific analysis of the sources of criminal procedure legislation on the legal regulation of house arrest in the system of preventive measures against minors. The purpose of the study is to provide scientific analysis of the features of house arrest applied to minors and to form an author’s position on this issue. Research methods cover systemic analysis, structural, logical, and comparative scientific methods. The results achieved are the analysis of the system of preventive measures against minors with the identification of the specifics of house arrest, the recognition of this measure as a preventive means not related to isolation from society, and the formation of the author’s version of the norm of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation governing this preventive step.

scholarly journals A General Overview on the Ethics of Pre-trial Detention

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 09-20
Author(s):  
Denisa Barbu ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Title V ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
General Part

The measure of pre-trial detention is one of the five preventive measures regulated by the legislator in Title V of the general part of the new Criminal Procedure Code, adopted by Law no. 135/2010 and implemented on February 1st, 2014, along with detention, judicial control, judicial control on bail and house arrest. Preventive measures are institutions of criminal procedural law, and have a coercive character, aimed at the deprivation or the restriction of individual liberty, whereby the suspect or defendant is prevented from undertaking certain activities that would adversely affect the proper conduct of criminal proceedings or achieving the purpose of the criminal trial. Regarding the cases of pre-trial detention and the conditions that must be met in order to take the measure of pre-trial detention, it must be said that they result from the corroborated examination of the provisions of art. 202 para. 1 and 3, and art. 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Article 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code regulates the general conditions for taking preventive measures, in general, and the provisions of art. 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code regulates the specific conditions for taking the measure of pre-trial detention.

Features of the election of such preventive measure as house arrest in relation to minors

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-157
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Manohina
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
A Minor

In the article, the author turns to the study of the peculiarities of choosing such a preventive measure as house arrest for minors. Due to the fact that the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation does not precisely define cases when a court must elect a house arrest in relation to minors, in practice there are often difficulties in which cases to choose such a preventive measure as detention, and in which house arrest. In the work, the author attempts to determine the essence of such a preventive measure as house arrest and the peculiarities of his election in relation to minors, and also considers the prohibitions and (or) restrictions to which minors cannot be subjected. The positions contained in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court “On the practice of the application by the courts of legislation on preventive measures in the form of detention, house arrest and bail” are analyzed. The author expresses the opinion that it is inadvisable to choose such a preventive measure as house arrest for minors. Based on the study, the author makes recommendations on the possibility, at the discretion of the court, to make adjustments to the prohibitions and (or) restrictions to which a minor suspect or accused will be subjected to whom such a preventive measure as house arrest is chosen.

Improvement of criminal-procedural legislation, regulating the activities of employees, establishments and bodies of the penal system

2019 ◽  
pp. 111-118
Author(s):  
Александр Борисович Диваев
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Investigation ◽  
Penal System ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation

В представленной статье рассмотрен ряд вопросов совершенствования регламентации процессуальных полномочий органов и учреждений уголовно-исполнительной системы Российской Федерации. Высказаны предложения по модернизации ряда норм, устанавливающих статус органов и учреждений уголовно-исполнительной системы и их должностных лиц как органов дознания. Рассмотрен круг проблем, связанных с более четким процессуальным регулированием механизма исполнения меры пресечения в виде домашнего ареста. Даны предложения по внесению изменения в уголовно-процессуальное законодательство, которые должны содействовать более эффективной реализации полномочий по контролю за арестованными со стороны уголовно-исполнительных инспекций. Сформулировано предложение по устранению терминологической неточности, допущенной в ст. 397 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса Российской Федерации. The article deals with a number of issues of improving the regulation of procedural powers of bodies and institutions of the penal system of the Russian Federation. In particular the proposals for the modernization of a number of rules establishing the status of the bodies and institutions of penal system, and their officials, as criminal investigation bodies. In addition, the range of problems associated with a more precise procedural regulation of the mechanism of execution of preventive measures in the form of house arrest. In this regard, proposals were made to amend the criminal procedure legislation, which should contribute to a more effective implementation of the powers to control arrested persons by the penal inspections. In conclusion, a proposal to eliminate the terminological inaccuracy in article 397 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation is formulated.

scholarly journals A New System of Preventive Measures Alternative to Remand in Custody: First Results of Application, Development Prospects

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 242-255
Author(s):  
Lev Bertovskij ◽  
Aleksandr Kvyk
Keyword(s):  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Application Development ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
European Court ◽  
First Results

We currently witness a heightened interest for the humanization of penalization measures, specifically, preventive measures, both in the theory and practice of Russian criminal procedure. There is well-grounded criticism of the fact that the number of remands in custody used as preventive measures is high and that their terms are prolongated many times, and on similar grounds, both in the Russian criminal procedure sphere and in the European Court of Human Rights during the examination of specific complaints. The analyzed statistical information showed that in 2015, remand in custody as a preventive measure in the criminal cases of grave and especially grave crimes was used for every second suspect or accused. It could not but contribute to the development of a system of preventive measures alternative to detention, and to the emergence of its new types. The authors analyze changes in the strict hierarchical system of preventive measures in view of Federal Law № 72-ФЗ enacted on April 18, 2018, which changed the procedure of applying the preventing measures of house arrest and bail and provided a measure that is completely new for Russian criminal process - the prohibition of certain actions. A considerable variety of restrictive measures included in the prohibition of certain actions, and the possibility of applying them in combination with a bail created a situation paradoxical for Russian criminal process when the application of a measure of prohibition of certain actions, that is a milder one in the hierarchy of restrictive actions, may restrict the rights and liberties of a person to a greater degree than a bail, which is a stricter measure. Besides, the legislative definition of the essence of house arrest as complete isolation of a person from the society and the prohibition of certain actions as partial isolation has created a competition between these preventive measures when they are enforced in practice. The authors present convincing arguments to show that it is impossible to ensure complete isolation of a person form the society without placing that person in the pre-trial detention facility, which makes it possible to equal house arrest with a prohibition to leave a dwelling in a certain period within the framework of prohibiting certain actions. Although there are some questions regarding the application of preventive measures alternative to remand in custody, we should commend the efforts of lawmakers to develop a system of these measures, and the practice of their enforcement will certainly allow to eliminate the existing competition and solve specific problems of their selection and application.

scholarly journals A Brief Analysis On Preventive Measures Involving Deprivation Of Liberty

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 398-402
Author(s):  
Denisa Barbu
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
General Nature ◽  
Individual Freedom ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
The Individual ◽  
General Conditions

Abstract Preventive measures are divided by the legislator in 2 categories: imprisonment (detention, house arrest, preventive arrest) and restrictive of rights (judicial review and judicial control on surety). An absolute novelty is the introduction of house arrest. There is some controversy concerning the conditions which must be fulfilled in order to be disposed by the judge of rights and freedoms, the judge of preliminary Chamber or Panel of judges either the house arrest or the measure of preventive arrest. Whereas the establishment of preventive measures involves undermining the individual freedom, the national and the European laws have created a series of legal guarantees to prevent arbitrariness or abuse in making or extend/maintain them. There are also a number of provisions of a general nature, applicable to all preventive measures, namely, termination, revocation or replacement thereof. For all measures involving deprivation of liberty, general conditions must be fulfilled, stipulated by article 202, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but for house arrest and detention in addition to the General conditions, special conditions should be fulfilled foreseen by article 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, conditions which must be cumulatively met. Not fulfilling the cumulative criteria laid down in national and European norms cannot be replaced by other considerations of the judge.

scholarly journals Application of preventive measures in the criminal process: current issues

2020 ◽  
pp. 122-126
Author(s):  
V.S. Suslova ◽  
O.I. Tyshchenko
Keyword(s):  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters

The article is devoted to the research of topical issues of application of the institute of preventive measures in criminal proceedings on the basis of the analysis of normative provisions of the current criminal procedure legislation and law enforcement practice. It is emphasized that the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine 2012 (hereinafter - the CPC of Ukraine) provides for an updated system of preventive measures, unlike the CPC of 1960. Attention is drawn to the degree of restriction of human rights and freedoms in the application of preventive measures. The purpose of this article is to analyze topical issues regarding the grounds and procedural order for the application of preventive measures in criminal proceedings and to offer optimal ways of solving them. The author has come to the conclusion that at this stage criminal procedural legislation in terms of regulation of preventive measures needs improvement. The article investigates the types and reasons for choosing preventive measures, which determined the author's position on the need to consolidate at the legislative level the definition of the term "preventive measures". The scientific positions of different authors on the issues related to the application of preventive measures are analyzed, in particular, the views of the processional scientists on the concept of "preventive measures". This made it possible to demonstrate the existence of a rather wide range of scientific proposals for defining this concept at the legislative level. Attention is drawn to the fact that, in practice, the right of a person to liberty and personal integrity when choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention is quite often unduly restricted. The materials of the case law, legal provisions of the ECtHR, Letter of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine on Civil and Criminal Matters "On Some Issues of Preventive Measures During Pre-trial Investigation and Proceeding in the Procedure Provided by the Criminal Procedure" Code of Ukraine of 04.04.2013 are used.

scholarly journals The content of the preventive measure of home detention

2022 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 642-648
Author(s):  
Mihai-Alexandru Stanciu
Keyword(s):  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Intermediate Form ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
At Home

The criminal procedural provisions in Romania regulate a number of 5 preventive measures, of which 3 are custodial and two restrictive. Of these, the measure of house arrest, regulated as a novelty at the beginning of 2014, seems to be an intermediate form between judicial control and pre-trial detention, borrowing elements of content from both measures. Compared to the obligations that can be imposed on the defendant arrested at home, certain situations can be left uncovered by the legislator, which can make the measure seem ineffective in practice.

Problems of the rights of participants of criminal proceedings in terms of measures of restraint

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-32
Author(s):  
Виктор Новгородцев ◽  
Viktor Novgorodtsev
Keyword(s):  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The Body ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Investigative Activity

The article considers the relationship to ensure the rights and freedoms of participants in the proceedings and other persons in the process of application and the election of preventive measures involving deprivation of liberty. The decision on measures of restraint in the form of home arrest must be justified by specific factual circumstances. They may not be data untested in court, in particular the results of operational-investigative activity granted in violation of the requirements of Art. 89 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The legislator leaves the list of premises open to the court with the circumstances of the case where it shall be entitled to decide on the specific premises for the execution of home arrest at its discretion. The Court needs to check the base of residence of the suspect or the accused in a particular dwelling. That must be a house where the defendant resides, where his property and / or the family resides. Location of home arrest may be outside the municipality, in the territory of which the preliminary investigation on the condition that this would not preclude the implementation of the criminal proceedings, in particular bringing the person in the body of inquiry or preliminary investigation body and the court. The essence of home arrest as a preventive measure, a specific set of prohibitions and restrictions are analyzed. At the same time the court should take into account the identity of the suspect or the accused. Necessary additions are proposed to the law to regulate the process of preparing a preventive measure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document