Post by account_disabled on Dec 31, 2023 2:05:09 GMT -5
Athe seizure or as the case may be the abolition of the seizure. In front of this court the seized third party can oppose to the pursuing creditor all the exceptions and all the means of defense that he could oppose to the debtor to the extent that they are based on a cause prior to the seizure. Thus the criticized provisions in conjunction with those that configure the legal regime of the institution of seizure validation establish procedural mechanisms designed to satisfy the requirements of the constitutional conventional and legal norms regarding the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and the right to defense.
The Presidents of the two Chambers of the Parliament and the Peoples Country Email List Advocate did not communicate their views on the exception of unconstitutionality. COURT examining the notification document the report drawn up by the judgerapporteur the Governments point of view the prosecutors conclusions the criticized legal provisions related to the provisions of the Constitution as well as Law no. notes the following . The Constitutional 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. to resolve the exception of unconstitutionality. . The object of the exception of unconstitutionality is the provisions of art. para. of the Code of The seized third party will not be able to appeal against the seizure. He will formulate his defenses in the validation court. . In the opinion of the authors of the exception the criticized legal provisions violate the constitutional provisions of art. regarding free access to justice and art. regarding the right to defense as well as the provisions of art. of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental.
The Presidents of the two Chambers of the Parliament and the Peoples Country Email List Advocate did not communicate their views on the exception of unconstitutionality. COURT examining the notification document the report drawn up by the judgerapporteur the Governments point of view the prosecutors conclusions the criticized legal provisions related to the provisions of the Constitution as well as Law no. notes the following . The Constitutional 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. to resolve the exception of unconstitutionality. . The object of the exception of unconstitutionality is the provisions of art. para. of the Code of The seized third party will not be able to appeal against the seizure. He will formulate his defenses in the validation court. . In the opinion of the authors of the exception the criticized legal provisions violate the constitutional provisions of art. regarding free access to justice and art. regarding the right to defense as well as the provisions of art. of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental.