28 / 56
CENTRE OF EXPERTISE IN JUDICIARY @ TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL ROMANIA
26
MERIT TEST
This phase is dedicated to matching the alleged facts with the applicable legal provisions to make an
initial determination as to the commission of a crime. By the end of the inspection of a case, each
of the facts presented will get a legal meaning and the respective legal treatment applicable will be
determined
.
GAPS AND loopholes
•
Limits of the legal texts, which prevent real
facts from being legally qualified (lack of
up-dated legislation in accordance with the
actual corruption practices)
•
Restrictive legal requirements regarding
the gathering of evidence or proof relating
to corruption crimes (i.e. to be charged with
corruption, the defendant must be caught
in the act of committing the alleged offence
ie
bribery-
in flagrante delicto
)
•
Lack of common understanding and
equal treatment of corruption cases and
procedural requirements
•
Discretionary power regarding the solutions
adopted
•
Limited accountability for the solutions
adopted
Reccomendations to
counter THEM
•
Clear definitions of corruption crimes,
corruption related crimes and jurisdictional
abilities
•
Un-fragmented judicial practice regarding
the admissibility of evidence in corruption
cases.
•
Legal obligation for judicial decision
makers to provide complete explanation of
decision. Sentencing guidelines should be
drawn up.
•
The possibility for appeal against / review
of the dismissal / rejection first decision of
the case – before it becomes final
•
The possibility for public interest litigants,
such as NGOs to challenge dismissal/
rejection decisions
•
Appropriate and long statute of limitations
•
Inapplicability of the opportunity principle in
cases of corruption