Post by account_disabled on Jan 8, 2024 10:07:18 GMT
A claims that if the violator considers himself innocent and reports to the court he has the procedural status of appellant and the body that applied the sanction has the status of respondent so that the task of overturning the presumption of legality and validity of the infraction report so the burden of proof rests with the violator and not with the body that applies the sanction. In relation to this claim the Court observes that although the legislator decriminalized contraventions according to art. of Government Ordinance no. approved with amendments and additions by Law no.
The competent court to resolve the complaint directed against the Country Email List record of finding and sanctioning the contravention is obliged to follow certain procedural rules distinct from those of the civil procedural law by virtue of which as the author of the exception claims the burden of proof belongs to the one who assert something in court. Thus paragraph of the mentioned legal text establishes without distinctions that the competent court to resolve the complaint verifies whether it was introduced within the deadline listens to the one who made it and the other cited persons among whom according to art. of the ordinance and the body that applied the sanction.
Administers any other evidence provided by law necessary to verify the legality and validity of the minutes and decides on the sanction the established compensation as well as on the measure of confiscation. The provisions of para. of art. ofdecision by which the complaint was resolved can be challenged with an appeal without its reasoning being mandatory. That being the case and under this aspect the criticized legal provisions are in full agreement with the requirements of art. of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Convention and the procedure for resolving the complaint against.
The competent court to resolve the complaint directed against the Country Email List record of finding and sanctioning the contravention is obliged to follow certain procedural rules distinct from those of the civil procedural law by virtue of which as the author of the exception claims the burden of proof belongs to the one who assert something in court. Thus paragraph of the mentioned legal text establishes without distinctions that the competent court to resolve the complaint verifies whether it was introduced within the deadline listens to the one who made it and the other cited persons among whom according to art. of the ordinance and the body that applied the sanction.
Administers any other evidence provided by law necessary to verify the legality and validity of the minutes and decides on the sanction the established compensation as well as on the measure of confiscation. The provisions of para. of art. ofdecision by which the complaint was resolved can be challenged with an appeal without its reasoning being mandatory. That being the case and under this aspect the criticized legal provisions are in full agreement with the requirements of art. of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Convention and the procedure for resolving the complaint against.