Problems on legal qualification of criminal offense during precautionary measures

Author:

Nela Xharije1

Affiliation:

1. University “Aleksander Moisiu” Durres , Albania

Abstract

Abstract The court is the only constitutional body that delivers justice. One of the functional competences of the court is also giving justice through legal qualification of the criminal offense. The court has the right to make the legal qualification of the criminal offense and this is its exclusive competence. It is important for the court, when making the legal qualification of the criminal offense, gives the criminal fact, the qualification that results from the acts of the investigation file. The provision regarding the competence of the court to change the legal qualification of the criminal offense, has undergone constant changes, with the aim of guaranteeing the right to a fair legal process, the principles of this right such as effective protection, equality and contradiction in obtaining evidences. Appropriate legal qualification of the criminal offense is a very effective tool in terms of delivering justice during the trial at first instance and beyond. The situation becomes problematic in the legal qualification of the criminal offense during the precautionary measures, where the court cannot at this procedural moment make the appropriate legal qualification of the criminal offense, different from the one brought by the prosecutor. From the practice, we have seen the subjective attitudes of the prosecution body, in relation to the accusation raised during the request for the imposition of a precautionary measure. There are cases where the prosecution improperly facilitates the prosecution, in order to justify the search regarding the measure of security, but there are also cases when the prosecution has aggravated the prosecution, even though the criminal fact is not the one qualified by the prosecutor. These subjective qualifications of the prosecutor during the phase of imposing precautionary measures have led to violations of the freedoms and rights of individual, due to the lack of competence of the court to make the appropriate legal qualification of the criminal offense. These problems in practice must be solved by legal amendments or interpretations by the Supreme Court.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Reference11 articles.

1. Constitution of the Republic of Albania.

2. Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Albania.

3. Decision of Supreme Court, no. 55321-00747-00-2021 Reg. Fundamental 00-2021-858.

4. Decision no. 985, dated 15.04.2024 of Tirana Judicial District Court.

5. Hasneziri, L. (2024). Terms of exclusion or limitation of contractual liability under English civil law Academic Journal of Business, Administration, Law and Social Sciences, Vol. 10. No. 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ajbals-2024-0003

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3