Search

Search Results

• Is the New Regulation Justified? Applicability of the New Rules of Self-defense in Case-law

  129-147

  Viktória Deák

  Views:

  288

  In the history of the regulation of self-defense, Act C of 2012 has resulted in the most substantial change. The greatest innovation in the act is the introduction of the situational self-defense, which creates an irrebuttable presumption that the unlawful attacks carried out under certain circumstances shall be considered as attacks against life. The new regulation has been criticized a lot, mostly because there are fears that the new rules of law will be misused. Through the case-law of the Supreme Court relating to self-defense in the last ten years, this study intends to reveal whether it was justified to include the situational self-defense in the new law or whether the concerns in connection with situational self-defense can be considered legitimate.

• Less is Sometimes More? The Guaranteeing Role of the Scope of the Second Instance Review in the first Hungarian Code of Criminal Procedure (Act XXXIII of 1896)

  Bálint Csaba Kelemen

  Views:

  28

  At the time of the codification of first Hungarian Code of Criminal Procedure, the legal literature regarded the limited scope of second-instance revision as a limitation of appeal in favour of the defendant, and placed it in this sense inside the procedural doctrinal system. This idea, which is quite alien to contemporary procedural thinking, which focuses on speeding up and facilitating proceedings, raises the question: what are the principles on which the limited scope of review is considered as a guarantee for the defendant? In order to answer this question, my aim in the present study is to explore the system of principles that shaped the turn-of-the-century jurisprudence concerning the legal power of the second instance to grant review.

• Basic Trial Rights and Trial Ethics in Criminal Proceedings

  32-55

  Viktor Bérces

  Views:

  194

  The number of criminal court trials is constantly decreasing, as the domestic legislature has introduced a number of legal institutions aimed at diverting criminal cases from the court system, or avoiding charging. Nevertheless, there will always be crimes, the adjudication of which cannot dispense with impeachment based on direct judicial investigation. The trial is undoubtedly the "highlight" of the criminal proceedings, since it is here that the adversarial process takes place in its entirety, and here the defense counsel and the prosecutor have the opportunity to form opinions on factual and legal issues in each other's personal presence. The amendment of the Criminal Procedure Act naturally raised many questions, such as who in the near future will actually control the evidence taken in court proceedings, and what basic procedural rights should be provided to the participants of the proceedings. In this study, I would like to reflect primarily on these questions, based on some ECtHR decisions.