Abstract: In judicial practice, criminal preventive measures attract attention that could be used for better purposes, moving away from their complementary role in per se criminal proceedings and deepening the sensitive border crack between private and societal interests. The current Code of Criminal Proceedure establish a series of criteria that must be observed by the judge, criteria developed over a decade of national jurisprudence and augmented by the supervision of the Council of Europe and European Union judicial institutions. The study hereby analyzes these criteria and follows up with a few reasonable conclusions, observing the balance between the fracture of contemporary jus puniendi: individual freedom and public security. The risk of automatic judicial sentencing regarding preventive measures is a concrete and current phenomenon exposing Romania to breaches of conventional rights. Obviously, these conclusions can be challenged using the same reasoning applied to judicial rulings: subjectivity, discretionary power and unpredictibility.
Keywords: preventive arrest, house arrest, the measure of judicial control, proportionality, necessity, subsidiarity.
References:
***, Repertoriu practică judiciară neunitară – Drept procesual penal penal, on‑line.
Herring J., Criminal Law. Text, cases and materials, 9th Edition, Oxford University Press, 2020.
Ivan M.‑C., Ivan Gh., Executarea mandatului de arestare preventivă emis în lipsa inculpatului, on‑line.
Kadare I., Firida Ruşinii, traducere din albaneză de M. Dobrescu, Editura Humanitas Fiction, Bucureşti, 2023.
Theodoru G. Gr., Chiş I.‑P., Tratat de Drept procesual penal, ed. a IV‑a, Editura Hamangiu, Bucureşti, 2020.
Trancă A., Măsurile preventive. Practică judiciară, Editura Hamangiu, Bucureşti, 2017.
2024_3_9.pdf