High Court of Cassation and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 17 June 2024, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Criminal Matters, lawfully established in each Case, considered three requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgment:
Decision 36 in Case 516/1/2024
Sustains the request from the Court of Appeal of Bucharest – The 2nd Criminal Chamber, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
Whether the business premises, within the meaning of Article 229 paragraph (2) letter b) of the Criminal Code, represents a professional headquarters – which constitutes the place of business of a legal person – during the hours in which public access is not allowed and establishes that:
The business premises – which constitutes the working point of a legal person – is a professional headquarters as defined by Article 229 paragraph (2) b) of the Criminal Code, if a private corporate life is conducted there.
Mandatory as of the date of publication in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I under Art 477 para. (3) in the Criminal Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, 17 June 2024.
Decision 37 in Case 681/1/2024
Sustains the request from the Court of Appeal of Târgu Mureş – Chamber for Criminal Matters and for Juveniles and Family Matters, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
Are the courts obliged to disregard the settlement of the point of law concerning the application of the mitior lex principle to the interruption of the statute of limitations, rendered by Decision No 67/2022 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Criminal Matters, within the limits resulting from the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered on July 24, 2023 in Case C-107/23 PPU? and establishes that:
- The courts may not disregard the settlement of the point of law on the application of the mitior lex principle to the interruption of the statute of limitations of criminal liability, rendered by Decision No 67/2022 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Criminal Matters, within the limits resulting from the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered on July 24, 2023 in Case C-107/23 PPU (limits set out in the operative part of the judgment in paragraph 1, second sentence).
- The settlement given by Decision No. 67/2022 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Criminal Matters shall apply, under the conditions therein established, to procedural acts conducted before June 25, 2018, which is the date of publication of Decision No. 297/2018 of the Constitutional Court.
Mandatory as of the date of publication in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I under Art 477 para. (3) in the Criminal Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, 17 June 2024.
Decision 38 in Case 908/1/2024
Sustains the request from the Court of Appeal of Cluj – Chamber for Criminal and Juvenile Matters, requesting preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law: “When a person perpetrates actions at different intervals of time, on the basis of the same criminal resolution, which may constitute the constituent element of both the offense covered by Article 16 para. 1 of the Law No. 194/2011 and the offense covered by Article 2 of Law No. 143/2000, actions which relate to the same type of prohibited substance (the same substance), which, prior to the entry into force of Law No. 77/2023, was covered by Law No. 194/2011 and, after the entry into force of the aforementioned normative act, by Law No. 143/2000 (thus added to the table annexed to Law No. 143/2000 as a high-risk drug), is there a concurrence of criminal offenses between the acts committed prior to the entry into force of Law No 77/2023 and those committed after that time, or is there a continuing criminal offense whose classification is based on the exhaustion of the alleged criminal activity?” and establishes that:
When a person perpetrates actions at different intervals of time, on the basis of the same criminal resolution, which may constitute the constituent element of both the offense covered by Article 16 para (1) of Law No. 194/2011 and the offense covered by Article 2 of Law No. 143/2000, actions which relate to the same type of prohibited substance (the same substance), which, prior to the entry into force of Law No. 77/2023, was covered by Law No. 194/2011 and, after the entry into force of the aforementioned normative act, by Law No. 143/2000, their activity amounts to a single legal unit in the form of a continuing offence, to which shall apply the criminal law in force at the time when the last action was committed.
Mandatory as of the date of publication in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I under Art 477 para (3) in the Criminal Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, 17 June 2024.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.