Request for Revision Declared Inadmissible in Principle, after the Constitutional Court Admitted the Exception of Unconstitutionality Invoked in That Case. Consequences in Terms of the Right of Access to the Court

• Published in: Perspectives of Law and Public Administration Vol. 12; no. 1; pp. 99 - 110
• Main Author: Roşu, Angelica
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Bucharest Society of Juridical and Administrative Sciences 01.03.2023; Societatea de Stiinte Juridice si Administrative; Societatea de Stiinte Juridice si Administrative (the Society of Juridical and Administrative Sciences); ADJURIS – International Academic Publisher
• Subjects: Access; Constitutional courts; Court case; Court decisions; Court hearings & proceedings; Criminal Law; Criminal procedure; criminal sentence; Criminal sentences; Evidence; exception of unconstitutionality; Inadmissible; Interdependence; Judicial reviews; Provisions; request for revision; the constitutional court; Validity; criminal sentence; request for revision; the Constitutional Court; exception of unconstitutionality
• ISSN: 2601-7830; 2601-7830

This article aims to analyze the limits of the judgment of the admissibility in principle of the extraordinary appeal of the revision of a criminal sentence and the delimitation of the judgment of the merits of such an appeal; we will emphasize, despite some jurisprudential interpretations, that between these two stages there is a link of interdependence, in the sense that the court cannot re-judge the merits of the case in the absence of a solution to admit in principle the review request, but it cannot also reject as inadmissible basically an application for review, with arguments that prejudge the merits of this application, much less the merits of the case. Another interpretation inevitably leads to the violation of a fundamental right, that of the right of access to the court.