THE TASKS OF A PROBATION OFFICER RELATED TO THE MONITORING OF PERFORMANCE OF PROBATIONAL OBLIGATIONS DURING THE TRIAL PERIOD IN “O” CASES

The tasks of the probation officer who execute judgments in criminal matters, resulting from the Executive Penal Code, include, inter alia, control of the execution by the convict of probation duties imposed by a court judgment. Their aim is to educate and prevent the return to crime. In connection with the supervision of the performance of duties during the trial period without adjudicated supervision, probation officers have a number of tasks that are discussed in this article. It also addresses issues raised by probation officers in the scope in which the implementing provisions do not directly specify the obligations of this professional group.

On the Definition, Legal Essence and Classification of Electronic Information Used Within the Framework of International Cooperation in Criminal Matters

The article is devoted to the analysis of such a complex and multifaceted legal phenomenon as „electronic information“. The aim of the research is to define the concept and legal nature of such information. The analysis is based on materialistic dialectics, legal hermeneutics, special and comparative legal methods, a sociological approach and a forecasting method. The study shows that the doctrine and practice lacks a unified approach to understanding electronic information in criminal cases, often the concept of „electronic information“ is confused with „electronic evidence“, while losing sight of its criminal procedural application. Author comes to the conclusion that there is no legislative definition of the concept of “electronic evidence” and it is still possible to operate with the term “electronic information” today, taking into account its cross-disciplinary purpose, respectively, the author’s definition of this concept is proposed. In addition, an attempt was made to determine the types of electronic information in criminal cases, including those requested in the framework of international cooperation, namely, the provision of mutual legal assistance. As an empirical basis for the study, we used the materials contained in the Practical Guide for Requesting Electronic Evidence from Other Countries, prepared jointly by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the Executive Directorate of the UN Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee and the International Association of Prosecutors in collaboration with the EuroMed Justice programs and Euromed Police.

The Tangled Path From Identifying Financial Assets to Cross-Border Confiscation. Deficiencies in EU Asset Recovery Policy

The article discusses the shortcomings of EU policy regarding cross-border asset recovery. The identified problem is a disjointed approach to the overlapping objectives of criminal proceedings: gathering evidence and securing assets for future confiscation. In the current EU legal framework, the process of recovery of assets, understood as a sequence of functionally related activities, lacks the continuity necessary to be effective. EU cross-border cooperation instruments in criminal matters do not meet the needs of this process, as they relate to separate investigative measures. Problems in this field have been indirectly reflected in the practice of Eurojust and the ejn. The article proposes a change in the perception of the initial phase of the asset recovery process, where the objectives of identifying and locating financial assets are combined with their provisional securing. This takes place under one mechanism of cross-border cooperation (an eio), prior to issuing a regular freeze or seizure order.

The Preconditions for the Admission of the Preventive Measure Based on an European Arrest Warrant

In addition to the mandatory “grounds for refusing to execute an European arrest warrant, the legislator” also provided for some optional grounds on the basis of which the competent judicial bodies “of the executing Member State may refuse to execute an European arrest warrant”. These provisions give the courts of the executing Member State the right to invoke or not to invoke them and, implicitly, the right to execute or not to execute an European arrest warrant. In our view, the refusal to execute the warrant must be complemented by the establishment “of direct links between the judicial authorities of the two Member States”, with regard to adopting a solution to the situation. In this context, given the complexity of the cases, the specific circumstances of the crimes, as well as other elements, the two judicial authorities involved will have to ascertain the incidence of another European institution, namely the transfer of proceedings in criminal matters.

Elements of comparative criminal law regarding the crime of creating a criminal organization with a terrorist character

Lately, the international community is facing serious threats to security and world order, which is expressed through new forms of crime, especially in its organized and terrorist aspect. According to the criminal legislation of the Republic of Moldova, the purpose of committing one or more terrorist offenses determines the aggravation of criminal liability for the creation or management of a criminal organization, which contrasts against the background of the legislative provisions of other states. In the study, the comparative method of examining the criminal laws of other states was used as a priority. At the same time, in addition to the method of logical analysis and case study, the prospective method of studying law with reference to current trends in the evolution of legal and criminal norms has been widely applied. The study is oriented towards the comparative analysis of the norm stipulated in article 284, para. (2) Penal Code, in the light of the criminal laws of the neighboring states (Russian Federation, Ukraine, Romania), which allows highlighting the existing gaps, general tendencies of incrimination and the possibilities of perfecting the national normative framework. In addition, the improvement of the national normative framework, harmonized with that of the neighboring states, offers wide possibilities in the field of international legal cooperation in criminal matters, which determines repercussions on all areas of social life in the state.

Dotcom's mega mess: New Zealand's role in a foreign search warrant request

<p>In January 2012, the United States requested the assistance of the New Zealand government under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 (MACMA) to execute a search warrant at Kim Dotcom’s residence. A few months later, the High Court held that this warrant was invalid and its execution unlawful. The case illustrates the importance of effective cooperation between two executive authorities. This article will build on the case and argue that the flexibility of MACMA provisions must be used by domestic authorities to ensure that a request accords with domestic law and fulfils the purpose of the Act. The flexibility of these provisions are even more important to utilise under the new landscape of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, enacted after Dotcom v Attorney-General, to ensure that New Zealand can register and enforce a foreign search warrant request.</p>

Dotcom's mega mess: New Zealand's role in a foreign search warrant request

<p>In January 2012, the United States requested the assistance of the New Zealand government under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 (MACMA) to execute a search warrant at Kim Dotcom’s residence. A few months later, the High Court held that this warrant was invalid and its execution unlawful. The case illustrates the importance of effective cooperation between two executive authorities. This article will build on the case and argue that the flexibility of MACMA provisions must be used by domestic authorities to ensure that a request accords with domestic law and fulfils the purpose of the Act. The flexibility of these provisions are even more important to utilise under the new landscape of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, enacted after Dotcom v Attorney-General, to ensure that New Zealand can register and enforce a foreign search warrant request.</p>

Limits to Measures of Confiscation of Property Linked to Serious Criminal Offences in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

In the past thirty years, a growing number of international agreements and acts of international institutions has resorted to different kinds of confiscation (“direct confiscation”, “value confiscation”, “enlarged confiscation” or “nonconviction based confiscation”) to contrast and suppress international and transnational crimes. It can be considered that the flexibility – in terms of variety of measures and functions – of confiscation, together with the forced and permanent deprivation of property to which it always leads, significantly affect the favor towards this measure by States and international organisations. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), taking into account the aforementioned proliferation of international acts and agreements concerning the fight to criminal activities, maintains that common “European and even universal legal standards” can be said to exist which encourage the confiscation of property linked to serious criminal offences. Moreover, the Court has gone so far as to maintain that, in accordance with such “universal legal standards”, States Parties to the European Convention of Human Rights must be given “a wide margin of appreciation with regard to what constitutes the appropriate means of applying measures to control the use of property such as the confiscation of all types of proceeds of crime”. However, the implementation of such measures by States authorities must conform with human rights guarantees – inter alia the principle of legality in criminal matters, due process rights and property rights – provided for in customary and conventional international law. This essay seeks to examine the relevant case law of the ECtHR and to focus on the possibility of reconciling, on the one hand, international obligations on the protection of human rights and, on the other hand, international agreements and acts – concerning the fight against criminal activities – that provide for the various types of confiscation measures.

Judicial Cooperation with Foreign Authorities in Criminal Matters in Albania

The Code of Criminal Procedure is the basic law that regulates jurisdictional relations with foreign authorities in criminal matters in Albania. This Code defines the instruments of judicial cooperation, the manner and procedure of how judicial cooperation is carried out and what are the authorities for the implementation of judicial cooperation. According article 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is guaranteed the compliance of international agreements, principles and norms of international law, accepted by the Albanian state, in accordance with the constitutional principle stipulated by Article 116 of the Constitution of the Republic of Albania. This paper will analyze extradition as a traditional means of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, legal provisions, domestic judicial practice, but also the latest extradition agreement concluded between Albania and the United States of America. Received: 27 September 2021 / Accepted: 29 October 2021 / Published: 5 November 2021