Press releases – preliminary rulings on questions of law in criminal matter

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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 9 June 2022, the High Court of Review and Justice – Panels 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 Judgments:

 

Decision #38 in Case #782/1/2022 

Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Alba Iulia – Criminal Chamber, in Case #4184/107/2017/a9.1, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

“In the interpretation of Art. 2502 in the Criminal Procedure Code, what is the legal nature of the 6-month deadline in the matter of criminal investigations, and respectively 1 year during trial, within which it is necessary to perform a periodical check of the continued applicability of the of the grounds that causes the taking or maintaining of the seizure order.”

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 9th of June 2022. 

 

Decision #39 in Case #854/1/2022

Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Târgu Mureş, Chamber for Criminal Matters and Juvenile and Family Cases, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

“In the situation where a juvenile, who was previously sentenced to a term of deprivation of freedom based on the procedure of admission of guilt, is subsequently on trial for a concurrent charge, also under the simplified procedure, are the limits within which the educational deprivation of freedom can be extended to be established as under Art. 396 para. (10) Final Thesis in the Criminal Procedure Code, or as under Art. 125 para. (2) in the 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 9th of June 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 8 June 2022, the High Court of Review and Justice – Panels 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 Judgments:

 

Decision #37 in Case #584/1/2022

            Sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeals Braşov, Criminal Chamber, with its session conclusion of 11 March 2022, pronounced in Case #6067/62/2016, and rules that:

            “A person who holds a managerial position within a political party has the capacity of public servant as under Art. 147 para. (1) in the Criminal Code of 1968.

            A person who holds a managerial position within a political party does not have the capacity of public servant as under Art. 175 para. (1) letter b) Thesis II and Art. 175 para. (2) 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  8th of June 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 6 June 2022, the High Court of Review and Justice – Panels 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 Judgments:

Decision #32 in Case #661/1/2022

Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Piteşti – Chamber of Criminal Matters and Juvenile and Family Cases, in Case #842/109/2020, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

“Whether failure to report income, with the jurisdictional tax authority (National Tax Administration, General Department for Public Finances), as derived from selling second-hand vehicles and recorded in primary accounting documents, in the circumstances of having reported such income with the local division for taxes and duties, can be construed as part of the objective side of the criminal violation stipulated by Art. 9 para. (1) letter a) in Law #241/2005 to Prevent and Combat Tax Evasion, as subsequently amended and supplemented (concealing a taxable asset of source of income) or is it consistent with the administrative violation stipulated by Art. 219 para. (1) letter b) combined with Art. 219 para. (3) in Government Order #92/2003 on the Tax Procedure Code, as republished with subsequent amendments and supplements (failure to comply with legal reporting obligations within the mandatory term, to report taxable assets of sources of income or, as the case may be, of taxes, contributions and other duties).”

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 6th of June 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 25 May 2022, the High Court of Review and Justice – Panels 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 #30 in Case #664/1/2022 

Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Cluj Tribunal, Criminal Chamber, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

“In the sense of Art. 89 para. (1) in the Criminal Code, is it possible to cancel a postponing of sentence enforcement in the hypothesis where the violation discovered during the supervision period has received a decision of sentence postponement.”

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 May 2022. 

 

Decision #31 in Case #675/1/2022 

Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Craiova – Chamber for Criminal and Juvenile Matters, in Case # 1497/215/2018, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

”A clarification of the interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 295 para. (1) in the Criminal Code corroborated with Art. 308 in the Criminal Code, in the sense of establishing whether the de facto administrator of an apartment owners’ or tenants’ association can be the active subject of the crime of embezzlement and, respectively, establishing whether a person providing services for an apartment owners’ or tenants’ association, based on a service contract, can be considered a person who exercises, permanently or temporarily, with or without pay, tasks of any nature within the association, in the sense of Art. 308 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 25th of May 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 4 May 2022, the High Court of Review and Justice – Panels 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 #21 in Case #240/1/2022 

Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Bacău Tribunal, Criminal Chamber, in Case # 7717/180/2021, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

In the interpretation and application of Art. 469 para. (5) and para. (7) in the Criminal Procedure Code on sustaining an avenue of appeal against the decision to admit reopening of a criminal trial, quashing such decision has the effect of re-acquisition of res judicata status and of the enforceable character of the judgment based on which the motion was filed to reopen the criminal trial.

In the affirmative case it is necessary to issue new forms of enforcement.

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 4th of May 2022.

 

Decision #22 in Case #241/1/2022

            Sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeals Bucharest – Chamber II for Criminal Matters, in Case # 4091/229/2018 (1518/2021) for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

            “Whether in the interpretation and application of Art. 338 para. (2) in the Criminal Code, the actions of an individual of tampering with the crime scene also include changing the position of the vehicle that was involved in a traffic accident, a phrase distinctly stipulated in Art. 77 para. (3) in Government Emergency Order #195/2002 on Circulation of Public Roads” and consequently rules that:

            In the interpretation and application of Art. 338 para. (2) in the Criminal Code concerning the crime of leaving the scene of a vehicle accident or tampering with or removing of evidence thereof, the Court rules that “the actions of an individual of tampering with the crime scene also include changing the position of the vehicle that was involved in a traffic accident.”

            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 4th of May 2022.

 

 

Decision #23 in Case #470/1/2022

            Sustains the request brought by the Brașov Tribunal – Criminal Chamber in Case #13117/197/2019/a1 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law: “Whether the document should be verified in terms of lawfulness and solid grounds by the hierarchically superior prosecutor, and what is the maximum term within which such verification can take place” and consequently rules that:

            The document whereby a prosecutor corrects flaws in an indictment, in the conditions stipulated by Art. 345 para. (3) in the Criminal Procedure Code, is not subject to verification in terms of lawfulness and solid grounds by the hierarchically superior prosecutor.

            Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Brașov Tribunal – Criminal Chamber in Case #13117/197/2019/a1 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

            “What is the legal nature of the 5-day deadline within which a prosecutor can corrects flaws in an indictment; what kind of procedural act should be used to perform the correction.”

            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 4th of May 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 13 April 2022, the High Court of Review and Justice – Panels 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 #20 in Case #196/1/2022

            Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Bacău, Chamber for Criminal Matters and Juvenile and Family Cases, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

            “If a technical surveillance warrant has already been issued for video, audio or photographic surveillance, is the prosecutor under an obligation to report to the Judge for Rights and Liberties, as under Art. 148 para. (10) in the Criminal Procedure Code corroborated with Art. 148 para. (3) in the Criminal Procedure Code, when he/she considers it necessary that the law enforcement operative should be able to use technical devices in order to obtain photographs or audio and video recordings.” 

            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 13th or April 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

Loading...