Post by account_disabled on Jan 1, 2024 15:01:56 GMT 10
Athe principle of nonretroactivity is provided by art. of the Civil Code which stipulates that legal acts and deeds concluded or as the case may be committed or produced before the entry into force of the new law cannot generate other legal effects than those provided by the law in force on the date of conclusion or as the case may be of their execution or production. Therefore the commission of a culpable act constitutes the element of appreciation of the date on which the legal report was born because the sanction of termination of the capacity of notary is applied for the commission of acts with intention and in this case they were.
Committed before the appearance of the new text of the law. . For this reason the Country Email List author of the exception considers that the application of a sanction based on a legal text issued after the commission of the act constitutes a violation of the principle of nonretroactivity and under this aspect the provisions of art. para. lit. f and para. from Law no. are unconstitutional. Changing the law and applying a sanction that was not foreseen at the time of the of foreseeability and.
Predictability of the law because the subject of law cannot know which acts or omissions respectively which facts can constitute grounds for engaging his liability in a different manner of the existing one at the time of committing the acts. From this point of view the criticized legal text also violates the principle of equality in the face of the law and of nondiscrimination provided by art. of the Constitution . Thus if the criminal case had been resolved within a reasonable and shorter term the issue regarding the applicability of art. of Law no. and the author of the deed cannot be blamed for the.
Committed before the appearance of the new text of the law. . For this reason the Country Email List author of the exception considers that the application of a sanction based on a legal text issued after the commission of the act constitutes a violation of the principle of nonretroactivity and under this aspect the provisions of art. para. lit. f and para. from Law no. are unconstitutional. Changing the law and applying a sanction that was not foreseen at the time of the of foreseeability and.
Predictability of the law because the subject of law cannot know which acts or omissions respectively which facts can constitute grounds for engaging his liability in a different manner of the existing one at the time of committing the acts. From this point of view the criticized legal text also violates the principle of equality in the face of the law and of nondiscrimination provided by art. of the Constitution . Thus if the criminal case had been resolved within a reasonable and shorter term the issue regarding the applicability of art. of Law no. and the author of the deed cannot be blamed for the.