Mărturia mincinoasă și favorizarea făptuitorului: specialitate unilaterală sau bilaterală?

Abstract

The specialty principle is the most popular principle used to settle situations bound by concurring criminal laws and the only one of the four principles that benefits from a universal recognition in both Romanian and foreign doctrine and being frequently applied in judicial practice. Moreover, the tendency of the Romanian criminal doctrine is that of exclusive use of the specialty principle for settling the concurrence of criminal provisions, especially if one of the concurring laws has an element of specialization in relation to the other. However, the effect of such a consistent approach did not take long to appear in judicial practice, with regard to the relationship between offenses of false testimony and aiding and abetting a perpetrator. In this study we aim to analyze whether indeed the offenses of false testimony and aiding and abetting a perpetrator are in a specialized relationship, as established by the supreme court or, conversely, the meaning of the principle of specialty should be restricted to what can be called a unilateral specialty.

Keywords

• false testimony
• aiding and abetting
• conflict of criminal laws
• concurrence of offenses
• specialty principle
• misleading judicial bodies