Suchergebnisse

Within the European Union, framework decisions have been developing at a steady pace since the year 2000. Obligations ensue from these framework decisions for the Member States, if necessary, to adjust their own national laws and regulations in the manner prescribed by the framework decisions. The obligation to make the necessary adjustments to national regulations is enshrined in Article 34(2)(b) TEU. When it comes to implementation, framework decisions show similarities to directives. According to Article 249(3) EC, directives are also binding as to the result to be achieved, but the choice of the form and methods of implementation is left to the Member States. In the case law of the European Court of Justice, relatively detailed rules have been developed on implementing directives. This case law defines the freedom of choice that Article 249(3) EC allows the Member States in more detail. This article centres on the question whether norms (or principles) – similar or not to the rules developed for directives – can also be identified which the Member States must observe in implementing framework decisions.

In Romania, the national provisions transposing EU Framework Decision 2008/909 / JHA
on the application of the principle of mutual recognition in the case of judgments
in criminal matters which impose punishments or custodial measures for the purpose
their execution in the European Union are found in Title VI of Law no. 302/2004, regarding the judicial cooperation
Those provisions must be interpreted in the light of the text and the purpose of the Framework Decision, according to the principle of conforming interpretation, and also taking into account the jurisprudence of the CJEU in interpreting the same Framework Decision. The article presents national case law regarding practical issues on different aspects of the application of Framework Decision 2008/909 /JHA and CJEU case law.

This report, which addresses a literature review above the Council Framework Decision (FD) 2008/947/JHA and Council Framework Decision (FD) 2009/829/JHA, forms part of the Probation Observatory. Training and Network (PONT) project. This European project is funded by the Directorate General of Justice, coordinated by the University of Bucharest (coordinated by Ioan Durnescu) and implemented in partnership with University Loyola Andalucía, University of Latvia, Bremen Ministry of Justice and Constitution and the Confederation of European Probation (CEP). The main objectives of this project are to offer training to the competent authorities on the two FDs and to create a sustainable network of experts in this field2. To this end, the project team has produced this report to conduct a literature review on the above-mentioned FDs, covering academic papers, grey literature and previous training content. This review has focused on collecting interesting data and information related to the implementation of the mentioned FDs (947 and 829) in order to highlight the most important learning points. From here, PONT will develop an e-manual on good practices and to develop a training package, our project goals. Therefore, articles, books, project reports and other kind of documentation have been taken into account, paying special attention to the training materials developed in prior projects or reports coming from international entities (organisations and EU institutions) related to the practical implementation of the FDs 947 and 829.

Working in research institutes as geodesist and working in geodesy companies produces always the same question: Is there the "right" decision? Do we have to choose always the way right or left or is there some kind of "grey value", changing from right to left and from the left to the right? In geodesy there are a lot of examples where the "right" decision is not objectively given - it always depends on the usage. Examples in geodesy (research) like QGIS vs. ArcGIS or Open Street Map vs. Google Maps show how difficult decisions are and that we are always looking for the "grey value" to switch from the left to the right side. In geodesy research and research in general we have to consider that it is always political. The "right" objective decision of a developer is often not concordant with the "right" political statement. For example open software and source code is better than close blackboxes to allow reproducibility and transparency, but proprietary software might be faster or more convinient to use. This paper will focus on searching the "grey value" and "right" decision in version control software in software development, here especially Git, because between GitHub and GitLab you always have to make two main decisions: visibility vs. open source and community vs. ethics of science.

The application of the principle of mutual recognition in the case of court decisions in criminal matters represents one of the important aims of the European Union, not only in the matter of punishments or custodial measures but also of suspended sentences or alternative sanctions to detention and decisions on conditional release. This study aims to present the way in which Romania transposed Framework Decision No. 2008/947/JAI of the Council dated November 27th, 2008 in the national legislation, Law no. 302/2004 on international judicial cooperation in criminal matters, with regard to probation measures and alternative sanctions must be mandatorily supervised, during the execution phase of the sentence, even if it is executed in another (requested) state than the one of conviction (applicant), in order to increase the chances of social reintegration of the convicted person. The study will also analyze some of the solutions of the Romanian courts, the jurisprudence in the application of these provisions being in an early stage.