Post by account_disabled on Dec 30, 2023 23:05:29 GMT -5
Acan ask the court to ascertain the evidence that it intends to use in the trial. Or the civil procedural norm is applicable regardless of the nationality ethnicity language of the parties in the process under equal conditions. In addition the provision of evidence is not equivalent to the free service provided by the courts being justified for the persons who address the judicial authority to contribute to covering the expenses occasioned by the execution of the act of justice under conditions of equality regardless of nationality ethnicity language. Moreover if the administration of documents and evidence were done free of charge for persons belonging to national minorities then it would violate art. of the.
Constitution since majority persons for whom the service Country Email List provided by justice administration of documents and evidence is not free would be discriminated against. The establishment of such a legislative solution would appear as a privilege granted by the legislator to persons belonging to national minorities and as a disadvantage unjustified objectively or rationally in the case of the majority which is obliged to present legalized translations of documents drawn up in a language other than Romanian. . In addition the Peoples.
Advocate considers that the criticized legal provisions also comply with the European Charter of Regional or Minority Languages and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. . of Deputies did not communicate their points of view regarding the exception of unconstitutionality. COURT examining the referral conclusion the report drawn up by the judgerapporteur the prosecutors conclusions the criticized legal provisions related to the provisions of the Constitution as well as Law no. notes the following . The Court was legally notified and is competent according to the provisions of art. lit. d from the Constitution as well as from art. paragraph of art. and of Law no.
Constitution since majority persons for whom the service Country Email List provided by justice administration of documents and evidence is not free would be discriminated against. The establishment of such a legislative solution would appear as a privilege granted by the legislator to persons belonging to national minorities and as a disadvantage unjustified objectively or rationally in the case of the majority which is obliged to present legalized translations of documents drawn up in a language other than Romanian. . In addition the Peoples.
Advocate considers that the criticized legal provisions also comply with the European Charter of Regional or Minority Languages and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. . of Deputies did not communicate their points of view regarding the exception of unconstitutionality. COURT examining the referral conclusion the report drawn up by the judgerapporteur the prosecutors conclusions the criticized legal provisions related to the provisions of the Constitution as well as Law no. notes the following . The Court was legally notified and is competent according to the provisions of art. lit. d from the Constitution as well as from art. paragraph of art. and of Law no.