Post by account_disabled on Jan 2, 2024 7:34:49 GMT
A and point of Law no. regarding the weapon and ammunition regime exception raised by Traian Sorinel Micuta in File no. . of the Arad Court Administrative and Fiscal Litigation Section and which forms the object of the Constitutional Court File no. .D. . At the roll call the absence of the parties is noted for which the subpoena procedure is legally fulfilled. . The case being in the state of trial the president gives the floor to the representative of the Public Ministry who puts forward conclusions rejecting as.
Unfounded the exception of unconstitutionality. In this sense it Country Email List shows that regarding the alleged violation of the provisions of art. of the Constitution the author of the exception of unconstitutionality believes that a discriminatory situation is created against the violator who formulates a contraventional complaint under art. para. from Government Ordinance no. regarding the legal regime of contraventions. Or according to the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court the examination of the constitutionality of a text of law involves reference to the principles and constitutional texts and not the examination by comparison of two legal texts and then the reference of the conclusion that.
Would result from this comparison to the constitutional provisions. Also not under the aspect of the alleged violation of art. of the Constitution the exception of unconstitutionality is not founded since the criticized provisions are rules of substantive law that regulate the punitive treatment in case of noncompliance with the legal regime for keeping lethal weapons. With regard to art. of the Constitution assesses that it has no incidence in the case because the right claimed to be violated has no constitutional protection. of the file states the following . By Civil Decision no. A of October issued in File no. . the Arad Court the Administrative and Fiscal.
Unfounded the exception of unconstitutionality. In this sense it Country Email List shows that regarding the alleged violation of the provisions of art. of the Constitution the author of the exception of unconstitutionality believes that a discriminatory situation is created against the violator who formulates a contraventional complaint under art. para. from Government Ordinance no. regarding the legal regime of contraventions. Or according to the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court the examination of the constitutionality of a text of law involves reference to the principles and constitutional texts and not the examination by comparison of two legal texts and then the reference of the conclusion that.
Would result from this comparison to the constitutional provisions. Also not under the aspect of the alleged violation of art. of the Constitution the exception of unconstitutionality is not founded since the criticized provisions are rules of substantive law that regulate the punitive treatment in case of noncompliance with the legal regime for keeping lethal weapons. With regard to art. of the Constitution assesses that it has no incidence in the case because the right claimed to be violated has no constitutional protection. of the file states the following . By Civil Decision no. A of October issued in File no. . the Arad Court the Administrative and Fiscal.
(