SJC Criminal College has published a recommendation on enforcement regarding settling the recusal request presented repeatedly. As a recommendation magistrates are cautioned that they may penalize the person who filed repeated requests for recusal order to delay the process.

SJC recommendation comes to Platon's lawyer, Gheorghe Malic, it filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court requesting the Court to expose whether Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code that complies with the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

The law prohibits the anticipated recusal of judges that still does not participate in the proceedings and the judge or panel of judges who deal with the challenge request, writes

The recommendation contains the following statements:

The application for recusal is inadmissible to be filed repeatedly if:

- The same person was recused for the same reasons for incompatibility and the fact known at the time of a previous request for recusal which was rejected;

- Focuses on other judges than those that form the panel that resolves the cause or the whole court or all the courts of the Republic of Moldova;

- Made by a person who is not a procedural matter;

- Brought against the judges called upon to examine the request for recusal.

Judges are encouraged to apply sanctions if the right to challenge transforms itself into a means of delaying the process.

"The court has the right and the possibility of imposing a financial sanction in the form of a fine to the party submitting this application if it finds that declared maliciously and wrongfully, adopting a separate procedural act in this regard. The ruling, which was sanctioned and was imposed a fine, can be appealed separately in a higher court, which does not lead to stay the case on the merits "reads the recommendation.

Comment article Add to bookmarks


No reviews