Facultatea de Drept / Faculty of Law

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://msuir.usm.md/handle/123456789/6

Browse

Filters

20212

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Guidea, PetruSubject: search.filters.subject.criminal liability

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    UNELE ASPECTE DE DREPT COMPARAT ALE REGLEMENTARII RĂSPUNDERII PENALE PENTRU MUNCA FORŢATA
    (CEP USM, 2021) Guidea, Petru
    The object of this study is the analysis of the criminal legislation of several states on the regulation of forced labor. As a conclusion, there is no consensus on the regulation of forced labor in various criminal laws. In some legislation there are incriminating norms of nomen iuris type regarding forced labor (Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova, Criminal Code of France, Criminal Code of Romania, Criminal Code of Azerbaijan, etc.). In other laws forced labor describes the objective side of rules that criminalize human exploitation (Criminal Code of Sweden, Criminal Code of Lithuania), or implicitly emerges from the content of norms set in sections dedicated to the protection of workers’ rights (Criminal Code of Spain). At the same time, it is found that not all states have provided criminal liability for forced labor, although in most laws, is criminalized human trafficking (trafficking in human beings / trafficking in children) for the purpose of exploitation through forced labor. At the same time, all states enshrine the right to work and prohibit forced labor through extra-criminal rules.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    UNELE CONSIDERAŢII ASUPRA PRACTICII APLICĂRII RĂSPUNDERII PENALE PENTRU MUNCA FORŢATĂ (art.168 CP RM)
    (CEP USM, 2021) Guidea, Petru
    In this article is analyzed the case law of the crime provided in art.168 of the Criminal Code of Republic of Moldova. In particular, it is dedicated to the criminal law problems in the practice of enforcing the crime of forced labor. As a result of the empirical study, the conclusion is reached about the erroneous judicial practice of framing the actions of the perpetrator according to letter a) paragraph (2) art.168 CC RM. We also established that in practice it is often omitted to specify the intensity of violence applied in the context of coercion – a situation that may lead to questioning the legality of the qualification solution.