High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 15 May 2023, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Criminal Matters, lawfully established in the Case, considered three requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Decision 38 in Case 519/1/2023
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Constanţa- Criminal Chamber, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following points of law:
“1. Application of the provisions of Article 158 para. (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (with reference to the power of the prosecutor to authorise the continuation of the search in places adjacent to the place in respect of which the judge of rights and freedoms authorised the search) is or is not conditioned by the description of these adjacent places in the content of the decision authorising the search, or in the content of the search warrant, in relation to the provisions of Art. 158 para. (7) letter f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- The legality of the decision issued by the judge of rights and freedoms authorising the search may or may not be subject to verification of legality, in the preliminary chamber procedure having to resolve the legality of the administration of evidence, any irregularities in the decision issued by the judge of rights and freedoms authorising the search.”
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, 15 May 2023.
Decision 39 in Case 672/1/2023
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Bucharest- Second Criminal Chamber, in case 1120/122/2019, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following points of law:
“If the provisions of Article 10 para. 11 of Law No 241/2005 are applicable in the case of the recovery of damages as a result of a non-voluntary activity, i.e. a compulsory enforcement procedure?”
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, 15 May 2023.
Decision 40 in Case 677/1/2023
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the by the Court of Appeal of Constanța – Criminal, Juvenile and Family Chamber, in Case No 581/36/2022, and the Court of Appeal of Brasov, Criminal Chamber, in Case No 419/64/2022, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following points of law:
- “Whether the procedural error, consisting in the failure of the court of appeal to consider a ground for termination of the criminal proceedings, based on the incidence of the provisions relating to the limitation of criminal liability and the effects of the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Romania No 358/26.05.2022, may be examined as a ground for the appeal for annulment provided for by Article 426 point b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at the stage of admission in principle or after the completion of this stage, in relation to the existence of new circumstances, revealed after the final judgment of conviction on the cause for termination of the criminal proceedings and the provisions of Art.1 para. (5) and Art.147 para. (4) of the Romanian Constitution, in conjunction with the provisions of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 11 para. (3) of Law no.47/1992 on the organisation and functioning of the Constitutional Court, relating to the binding and future effects of the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Romania in cases finally decided”.
- In interpreting the provisions of Article 426 point (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, does it constitute a procedural error for the court of appeal to fail to consider, in accordance with Article 5 of the Criminal Code, the incidence in the case of a more favourable criminal law in relation to a ground for termination of the criminal proceedings, namely the expiry of the limitation period for criminal liability?
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, 15 May 2023.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.
High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 20 March 2023, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Criminal Matters, lawfully established in the Case, considered a request for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgment:
Decision 19 in Case 2413/1/2022
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Cluj- Criminal and Juvenile Chamber in case 1014/112/2019, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following points of law:
“If, in interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 105 para. (2) of the Criminal Code, the appellate court has the legal possibility, in finding that the conditions for the grant of conditional release are met in relation to the resulting sentence ordered by the first instance following the merger of the sentence imposed for the offence under trial and sentences previously imposed for concurrent offences by final judgments of conviction, to grant conditional release where the trial court did not consider such a possibility”.
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, 20 March 2023.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.
High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 13 February 2023, 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 two requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Decision 9 in Case 2545/1/2022
Sustains the request from Court of Appeal of Braşov- Criminal Chamber, by judgment of the session of 16 November 2022, delivered in Case No 1802/62/2019, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following points of law:
“If the military unit – military hospital is a public authority or a public institution, and if it is a public institution, if a public institution – military unit – can be an active subject as perpetrator of service and corruption offences, namely the offence of bribery, provided for in Art. 289 para. (1) of the Criminal Code and abuse of office, provided for in Art. 297 para. (1) of the Criminal Code, offences for which the qualified direct perpetrator is a civil servant or public official”, and establishes that:
The military hospital is a public institution within the meaning of Article 135 of the Criminal Code, and it cannot be the perpetrator of the offences of bribery provided for in Article 289 para. (1) of the Criminal Code and abuse of office, provided for in Article 297 para. (1) of the Criminal Code.
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, 13 February 2023.
Decision 10 in Case 2564/1/2022
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Galaţi – Criminal and Juvenile Chamber in case 2564/1/2022, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following points of law in criminal matter:
“If the phrase «where two or more final judgments cannot be reconciled », which constitutes the content of Article 453 para. (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as the phrase «all judgments which cannot be reconciled» which constitutes the content of Article 453 para. (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure also refers to the situation in which a state of irreconcilability has arisen between a final civil judgment of a punitive nature and, on the other hand, a final criminal judgment, where both final judgments relate to identical or related factual situations”.
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, 13 February 2023.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.
High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 19 December 2022, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Criminal Matters, lawfully established in the Case, considered a request for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgment:
Decision 82 in Case 1708/1/2022
Denies as inadmissible the requests brought by the Court of Appeal of Braşov- Criminal Chamber and the Court of Appeal of Bucharest – First Criminal Chamber, in cases no. 4334/2/2022 and no. 4382/2/2022, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following points of law:
- Are the provisions of Art. 426 point (b) and Art. 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be interpreted as meaning that the court deciding the appeal for annulment has the power, at the stage of admissibility in principle, to reconsider which of the successive criminal laws is more favourable where a ground for discontinuance of the criminal proceedings is pleaded in relation to a successive law which has not been held to be more favourable in the case?
- In application of the provisions of Article 426 point (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as interpreted by Decision No 10/2017 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Panel for Preliminary Ruling on Questions of Law, the court hearing the appeal for annulment, based on the effects of Constitutional Court Decisions No 297 of 26 April 2018 and No. 358 of 26 May 2022, be entitled to reconsider the limitation period for criminal liability, if the court of appeal examined the incidence of that cause of termination in relation to the expiry of the special limitation period, but failed to take into account the simple/extreme nature of Constitutional Court Decision No 297/2018, namely the non-existence of a cause of interruption of the limitation period for criminal liability in the period from 26 June 2018 to 30 May 2022?
- The failure of the court to take into account the absence of a cause for interrupting the limitation period for criminal liability in the period from 26 June 2018 to 30 May 2022 constitutes a procedural error within the meaning of Article 426 para. (1) point (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the case of cases judged finally during that period?
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, 19 December 2022.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.
High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 28 November 2022, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Criminal Matters, lawfully established in the Case, considered a request for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgment:
Decision 78 in Case 1418/1/2022
Sustains the request from the Court of Appeal of Alba Iulia, Criminal Chamber, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following points of law:
„Where, under Romanian law, it is compulsory for the person driving a vehicle on public roads to hold a driving licence, and that person holds only a provisional driving licence issued by the competent authority in the United Kingdom (Provisional Driving Licence), the mitigated form of the offence of driving a vehicle without a driving licence provided for in Article 335 para. (2) of the Criminal Code, that is to say, where the person is not entitled to drive a motor vehicle in Romania is retained?” and states that:
Under Romanian law, driving a vehicle on public roads by a person who holds a valid provisional driving licence issued by the competent authority in the United Kingdom (“Provisional Driving Licence”) constitutes the offence of driving a vehicle without a driving licence provided for in Article 335 para. (2) of the Criminal Code, where the person is not entitled to drive a motor vehicle in Romania.
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.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.
High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 11 November 2022, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Criminal Matters, lawfully established in the Case, considered a request for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgment:
Decision 74 in Case 1676/1/2023
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Bucharest- Second Criminal Chamber for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following points of law:
“If in interpreting Art. 6 and Art. 7 para. (2) of Law No. 78/2000 on the prevention, detection and punishment of corruption (as in force prior to the 2014 amendment), the aggravated form of the offence of bribery is conditional on the offence being committed against an official who exercises control functions in direct connection with those functions, or it is sufficient that the official has control functions, since the bribery committed against him is not directly related to those functions.”
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, 11 November 2022.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.
High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 25 October 2022 the High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law, lawfully established in each of the cases, considered two requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Decision #67 in Case #1341/1/2022
I Sustains the requests brought by the Bucharest Court of Appeals, Chamber II for Criminal Matters in Cases #1341/1/2022 (item I. 1), #1344/1/2022 (item IV.1.1), #1346/1/2022 (item IV.2.1), #1348/1/2022 (item IV.3.1), #1396/1/2022 (item IV.4) and #1495/1/2022 (item IV.10.2), and by the Braşov Court of Appeals, Criminal Chamber, in Case #1465/1/2022 (item IV.7. 1) for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law: “Are the rules that regulate the interruption of the statute of limitations on procedural acts considered as rules of substantive law, likely to be applied as the more favorable criminal law, or as rules of procedural law subject to the principle tempus regit actum” and “In applying the stipulations of Art. 426 lit. b) Criminal Procedure Code, as interpreted under Decision #10/2017 returned by the High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Criminal Law, can the court that considers the appeal for annulment, reliant on the effects of Constitutional Court Decisions #297/26.04.2018 and #358/26 May 2022, re-assess the statute of limitations on criminal liability in case the appellate court has already discussed and analyzed the applicability of such cause of termination of a criminal trial as part of the trial previous to this latter decision” and rules as follows:
- The rules that regulate the interruption of the statute of limitations are considered rules of substantive law, and in terms of their application they are subject to the principle of the active criminal law, as stipulated at Art. 3 in the Criminal Code, except for the more favorable stipulations, according to the principle mitior lex stipulated under Art. 15 para. (2) in the Constitution and Art. 5 in the Criminal Code.
- The court that considers the appeal on annulment, reliant on the effects of Constitutional Court Decisions #297/26.04.2018 and #358/26 May 2022, cannot re-assess the statute of limitations on criminal liability in case the appellate court has already discussed and analyzed the applicability of such cause of termination of a criminal trial as part of the trial previous to this latter decision.
II. Denies as inadmissible the requests brought in the following Cases:
– Cases #1344/1/2022 (item IV.1.2), 1346/1/2022 (item IV.2.2) and 1348/1/2022 (item IV.3.2) for the clarification of the following point of law: Is Art. 155 para. (1) in the Criminal Code, in its format applicable in the period between June 26, 2018 and May 30, 2022, likely to be applied as the more favorable criminal law;
– Case #1415/1/2022 (item IV.5.2) for the clarification of the following point of law: Based on the principle “tempus regit actum,” is Art. 155 para. 1 in the Criminal Code applicable to criminal violations committed before June 25, 2018; based on the same principle, does Art. 155 para. 1 in the Criminal Code become applicable, with the enactment of OUG #71/2022, also to criminal violations committed before that date;
– Case #1446/1/2022 (item IV.6) for the clarification of the following point of law: a) Does absence from the active fund of the law of cases making it possible to interrupt de course of the statute of limitations on criminal liability in the period 2018-2022, as under Decisions #297/2018 and 358/2022 of the Constitutional Court, cause applicability of Art. 5 in the Criminal Code; b) In the case of criminal violations committed before June 25, 2018, should we use only the general statute of limitations, without considering the causes for interruption occurred before that date, or should we use the special statute of limitations that considers the causes for interruption occurred before June 25, 2018 and after May 30, 2022;
– Case #1465/1/2022 (item IV.7.2) for the clarification of the following point of law: Is Art. 155 para. 1 in the Criminal Procedure Code to be interpreted in the sense that the effect of interrupting the statute of limitations remains in place in the format previous to Constitutional Court Decision #297/26.04.2018;
– Case #1490/1/2022 (item IV.8) for the clarification of the following point of law: In the case of a criminal activity consummated under the remit of the previous Criminal Code, and concerning which the indictment was filed after the entry into force of the New Criminal Code but before Constitutional Court Decision #297/26 April 2018 published in the Official Journal of 25 June 2018, does communication under Art.344 in the Criminal Procedure Code of the certified copy of the indictment and the decision of the Preliminary Chamber judge as under Art. 346 para. (1) and (2) in the Criminal Procedure Code constitute acts interrupting the statute of limitations as under Art. 155 para. 1 in the Criminal Code;
– Case #1492/1/2022 (item IV.9) for the clarification of the following point of law: In the case of a criminal activity consummated under the remit of the current Criminal Code, is the interview taken with the status of defendant, before a prosecutor, prior to Constitutional Court Decision #297/26 April 2018 published in the Official Journal of 25 June 2018, a procedural act that interrupts the statute of limitations as under Art. 155 para. 1 in the Criminal Code;
– Case #1495/1/2022 (item IV.10.1) for the clarification of the following point of law: Does a procedural act performed as under the law and Art. 155 para. 1 in the Criminal Code, with the text that was applicable at the date when the procedural act was performed, produce a definitive effect of interrupting the statute of limitations on criminal liability, or can that effect be removed following application of the principle of the more favorable criminal law in the case where the contents of Art. 155 para. 1 in the Criminal Code was amended after the performance of the procedural act;
– Case #1506/1/2022 (item IV.11) for the clarification of the following point of law: In the case of a criminal activity consummated under the remit of the current Criminal Code, and concerning which the indictment was filed prior to Constitutional Court Decision #297/26 April 2018 published in the Official Journal of 25 June 2018, does communication under Art.344 in the Criminal Procedure Code of the certified copy of the indictment and the decision of the Preliminary Chamber judge as under Art. 346 para. (1) and (2) in the Criminal Procedure Code constitute acts interrupting the statute of limitations as under Art. 155 para. 1 in the Criminal Code;
– Case #1554/1/2022 (item IV.12) for the clarification of the following point of law: Does absence from the law of cases making it possible to interrupt de course of the statute of limitations on criminal liability in the period 2018-2022(June 25, 2018 – May 30, 2022), as under Decisions #297/2018 and 358/2022 of the Constitutional Court, cause applicability of Art. 5 in the Criminal Code; In the case of criminal violations committed before June 25, 2018, should we use only the general statute of limitations, without considering the causes for interruption occurred before that date, or should we use the special statute of limitations that considers the causes for interruption occurred before June 25, 2018 and after May 30, 2022;
– Case #1576/1/2022 (item IV.13) for the clarification of the following point of law: In the case of a criminal activity consummated under the remit of the current Criminal Code, and concerning which the indictment was filed after Constitutional Court Decision #297/26 April 2018 published in the Official Journal of 25 June 2018, the letter informing the party of their status as defendant and then the defendant interview prior to entry into force of Constitutional Court Decision #297/26 April 2018 published in the Official Journal of 25 June 2018, do these constitute procedural acts that interrupt the statute of limitations as under Art. 155 para. 1 in the Criminal Code;
– Case #1577/1/2022 (item IV.14) for the clarification of the following point of law: In the case of a criminal activity consummated under the remit of the current Criminal Code, and concerning which the indictment was filed after Constitutional Court Decision #297/26 April 2018 published in the Official Journal of 25 June 201, is the Preliminary Chamber judge’s decision to sustain the challenge and revoke the prosecutor’s order, with the consequence of the case being sent back for the collection of additional evidence, a decision returned prior to entry into force of Constitutional Court Decision #297/26 April 2018 published in the Official Journal of 25 June 2018, a procedural act that interrupts the statute of limitations as under Art. 155 para. 1 in the Criminal Code;
– Case #1578/1/2022 (item IV.15) for the clarification of the following point of law: In the case of a criminal activity consummated under the remit of the previous Criminal Code, and concerning which the indictment was filed after the entry into force of the New Criminal Code but before Constitutional Court Decision #297/26 April 2018 published in the Official Journal of 25 June 2018, do the letter informing the party of their status as defendant, the defendant interview and communication under Art.344 in the Criminal Procedure Code of the certified copy of the indictment constitute acts interrupting the statute of limitations as under Art. 155 para. 1 in the Criminal Code;
– Case #1415/1/2022 (item IV.5.1) for the clarification of the following point of law: In establishing which is the more favorable criminal law as under Art. 5 in the Criminal Code, correlated with Constitutional Court Decisions #297/26.04.2018 and #258/26 May 2022, can Art. 154 para. 1 in the Criminal Code correlated with Art. 16 para. 1 letter f in the Criminal Procedure Code, be applied independently from the stipulations in Art. 155 para. 1 in the Criminal Code for criminal violations committed before 9 June 2022, and do these Constitutional Court Decisions become inapplicable in this matter in regards to crimes affecting the financial interests of the European Union, according to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice;
– Case #1604/1/2022 (item IV.16) for the clarification of the following point of law: Are the rules that regulate the interruption of the statute of limitations on procedural acts as under Art. 155 para. 1 in the Criminal Code considered as rules of substantive law, likely to be applied as the more favorable criminal law and whose application as under Art. 5 Criminal Code takes place irrespective of the object of the crime, or is it that in case of violations affecting the financial interests of the European Union it is necessary to perform a specific analysis of the need to apply or not apply such stipulations, in correlation with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice developed based on Art. 325 in TFUE and of its Decision of 21 December 2021 in joined Cases C-357/19 Euro Box Promotion et al, C-379/19DNA-Oradea Territorial Service, C-547/19 Association the Forum of Judges in Romania, C-811/19 FQ et al, and C-840/19 NC.
Obligatory 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, the 25th of October 2022.
Decision #68 in Case #1422/1/2022
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Timişoara Court of Appeals – Criminal Chamber for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
„I. In case a criminal violation (A) (not tried yet) is concurrent with violation (B) which is a second strike of reoffending and also with violation (C) which is a third strike of reoffending after serving a sentence, and before the trial is complete with a final judgment for violation (A) the sentence for violation (B) is served in full, the calculations to establish the resulting sentence involve:
I.1 Applying the rules for multiple offenses to the sentencing for violations (A) and (B), and amending the subsequent result by applying the rules for post-conviction reoffending; the resulting sentence will be merged with the sentence for violation (C) (if following the merging of sentences for multiple offenses a state of recidivism arises); it will be deemed that the arising of a state of recidivism breaks the connection between violations (A) and (C) and thus it is irrelevant whether the sentence for violation (B) has been served in full, or
I.2. Applying the rules for multiple offenses to the sentencing for violations (A) and (C), without subsequently subtracting the part of the sentence for violation (B) that has been served, or
I.3. Applying the rules for multiple offenses to the sentencing for violations (A), (B) and (C), and subsequently subtracting the duration of sentences already served as resulting from the structure of the resulting sentence.
II.In the hypothesis of merging the sentences as under option I.1 above, the nature of the reoffending (after serving a sentence) standing as res judicata in considering violation (C) remains unchanged, with the consequence of also unchanged charges and sentencing, the only difference is that the treatment in establishing the resulting sentence for violations (A), (B) and (C) will be the one specific to post-conviction reoffending; or it is necessary to amend the charges for violation (C), it being therefore possible to amend the sentence applied for this violation; this will be the task of the court of law that tries violation (A).”
Obligatory 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, the 25th of October 2022.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.
OFFICE FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION AND RELATIONS
High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 19 October 2022 the High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law, lawfully established in the case, considered a request for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgment:
Decision #64 in Case #1266/1/2022
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Bucharest Court of Appeals, Chamber I for Criminal Matters, in Case #2209/2/2022 (981/2022) for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following points of law:
- Given the stipulations at Art. 2502 in the Criminal Procedure Code, what is the maximum duration within which the Preliminary Chamber judge can establish the persistence of the grounds for issuing or maintaining an order to seize.
- Given the stipulations at Art. 2502 in the Criminal Procedure Code, what is the nature of the maximum duration within which the Preliminary Chamber judge can establish the persistence of the grounds for issuing or maintaining an order to seize.
Obligatory 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, the 19th of October 2022.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.
OFFICE FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION AND RELATIONS
High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 28 September 2022 the High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law, lawfully established in each of the cases, considered three requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Decision #51 in Case #1002/1/2022
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Galați Tribunal for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
Will the days that qualify as served, under Law #169/2017, and thus considered for the completion of the penalty fraction needed for the granting of parole, and mentioned as earned within the judicial decision that settled the motion for parole, remain earned even after the return of the Constitutional Court Decision # 242 of 8 April 2021, published in the Official Journal of Romania, issue #677 of 8 July 2021, and are thus deducted from the penalty resulting from the merging regulated under Art. 40 corroborated with Art. 38 in the Criminal Code.
Obligatory 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, the 28th of September 2022.
Decision #52 in Case #1219/1/2022
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Craiova Court of Appeals, Chamber for Criminal and Juvenile Matters, in Case # 387/181/2020, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
“Clarify the way to interpret and apply the stipulations of Art. 78 para. (2) in Emergency Government Order #195/2002 on Circulation on Public Roads, in the sense of establishing whether the typicality elements are met of the violation stipulated under Art. 336 in the Criminal Code, specifically the condition that an alcoholic imbibition must exist of over 0.80 g/l pure alcohol in the bloodstream.”
Obligatory 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, the 28th of September 2022.
Decision #53 in Case #1242/1/2022
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Bucharest Court of Appeals – Chamber I for Criminal Matters, in Case # 29758/3/2021(1148/2022) for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
“Does the unlawful use of a bank card at a POS terminal, in contactless mode, to pay for certain items, meet the constitutive elements of either two criminal violations, namely: accessing a computer system as under Art. 360 para. (1) in the Criminal Code; and performing fraudulent financial operations as under Art. 250 para. (1) in the Criminal Code (in attempted or consummated mode, depending on the performance of the actual transaction) or only the constitutive elements of the criminal violation of performing fraudulent financial operations as under Art. 250 para. (1) in the Criminal Code (in attempted or consummated mode, depending on the performance of the actual transaction).”
Obligatory 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, the 28th of September 2022.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.
OFFICE FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION AND RELATIONS
High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 19 September 2022, the High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in criminal matter, lawfully established in the case, considered a request for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgment:
Decision #44 in Case #1004/1/2022
Denies as inadmissible the requests brought by the by the Court of Appeal Târgu Mureș – Criminal Chamber, by judgment of 13 April 2022, delivered in Case No. 2.221/102/2018/a1.20*, requesting a preliminary ruling on the following question of law:
Does the term “damage” in Article 249 para. (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, concerning the imposition of the precautionary measure of seizure in respect of the offense provided for in Article 10 of Law No 241/2005 for the prevention and combating of tax evasion, as amended and supplemented by Law No 55/2021, cover only the actual calculated damage, i.e. the basis of calculation, or does it also include accessory damages (interest and penalties).
Obligatory under Art 477 para. (3) in the Criminal Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 19th of September 2022.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.
OFFICE FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION AND RELATIONS
