Post by account_disabled on Dec 20, 2023 19:01:58 GMT 8
A of the same normative act with reference to the crime of abuse of office are unconstitutional. The Court held that the premise situation underlying the offense provided for by the provisions of art. of Law no. always requires the finding of the meeting of the constitutive elements of the offense of abuse of office in its standard form with the additional element of undue benefit being added to it. Next the Court held that the material element of the standard version of the offense of abuse of office consists either in an inaction the failure to perform an act or in an action the performance of the act by violating the law.
Starting from these premisesof art. of Law no. provide that country email list the attempt at the crime provided for in art. of the same normative act is punished without making any distinction according to the ways of committing the crime of abuse of office. Applying the principles ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus and actus interpretandus est potius ut valeat quam ut pereat the Court found that the legislator by regulating the provisions of art.
Of Law no. pursued an incrimination and a sanctioning of the offense provided for in art. of the same normative act in the attempted form even in the manner of its execution through an inaction. However a fundamental admitted truth is that of the impossibility of committing an attempt in the case of a crime committed in the manner of inaction this being contradicted by the normative prescription. Therefore the Court found that the method of regulating the provisions of art. of Law no. creates the necessary normative premise for its application to involve resorting to arbitrary procedures which contravenes the provisions of art.
Starting from these premisesof art. of Law no. provide that country email list the attempt at the crime provided for in art. of the same normative act is punished without making any distinction according to the ways of committing the crime of abuse of office. Applying the principles ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus and actus interpretandus est potius ut valeat quam ut pereat the Court found that the legislator by regulating the provisions of art.
Of Law no. pursued an incrimination and a sanctioning of the offense provided for in art. of the same normative act in the attempted form even in the manner of its execution through an inaction. However a fundamental admitted truth is that of the impossibility of committing an attempt in the case of a crime committed in the manner of inaction this being contradicted by the normative prescription. Therefore the Court found that the method of regulating the provisions of art. of Law no. creates the necessary normative premise for its application to involve resorting to arbitrary procedures which contravenes the provisions of art.
