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
High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 11 March 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 #14 in Case #3088/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Bucharest – Chamber II for Criminal Matters, in Case #1.778/116/2016 (332/2020), for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
In case of the crime of tax evasion, stipulated by Art. 9 para. (1) letter c) in Law #241/2005 to Prevent and Combat Tax Evasion, as amended and supplemented, in such conditions as those under Art. 14 in Law #241/2005, in the calculation of profit tax calculated additionally is it possible to include an estimate of expenditures for which no evidentiary documents exist?
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 11th of March 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 31 March 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 #17 in Case #88/1/2022
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Mureş Tribunal – Criminal Chamber, in Case #10972/320/2021 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
“In the interpretation and application of Art. 5 para. (3) in Law #255/2013 for the enactment of Law #135/2010 on the Criminal Procedure Code and to amend and supplement certain regulatory acts that include criminal procedure stipulations, does the concept of ‘cases, proposals, challenges, complaints or other motions where the criminal investigation was performed by the National Anticorruption Department’ also include dealing with motions for conditional release from service of a criminal sentence that was ordered on conviction for such charges?”
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 31st of March 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 23 February 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 two requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Decision #11 in Case #3007/1/2021
Sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeals Cluj – Chamber for Criminal and Juvenile Matters, in Case #8337/190/2020, where they request a preliminary ruling for the following point of law: “Does the action of a person driving a vehicle on public roads, who on being tested revealed an alcoholic imbibition of over 0.80 g/l of pure alcohol in their blood and was also under the influence of psychoactive substances, meet the elements that define the specificity of the criminal violation with an alternative content stipulated by Art. 336 para. (1) and (2) in the Criminal Code, meet the elements that define the specificity of two criminal violations with an alternative content in an ideal concurrence, as stipulated by Art. 336 para. (1) in the Criminal Code and Art. 336 para. (2) in the Criminal Code, also with application of Art. 38 para. (2) in the Criminal Code?” and consequently returns this Judgment:
The action of a person driving a vehicle on public roads, who has an alcoholic imbibition of over 0.80 g/l of pure alcohol in their blood and is also under the influence of psychoactive substances, meets the elements that define the specificity of the criminal violation stipulated by Art. 336 para. (1) and (2) in the Criminal Code, single violation.
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 23rd of February 2022.
Decision #12 in Case #3090/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Bucharest – Chamber I for Criminal Matters, in Case #29254/94/2020, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
The Decree issued by the President of Romania under number 195 of 16 March 2020, on instating a state of emergency on the territory of Romania, published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I, issue #212 of 16 March 2020, approved by Romanian Parliament Decision #3 of 19 March 2020 to Approve the Measure of the Romanian President to Instate a State of Emergency in the Entire Territory of Romania, published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I, issue #224 of 19 March 2020 and the Decree issued by the President of Romania under number 240 of 14 April 2020 to extend the duration of the state of emergency on the territory of Romania, published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I, issue #311 of 14 April 2020, approved by Romanian Parliament Decision #4 of 16 April 2020 to Approve the Measure of the Romanian President to Extend the Duration of the State of Emergency in the Entire Territory of Romania published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I, issue #320 of 16 April 2020, constitute grounds to suspend the statute of limitations of criminal liability as stipulated by Art. 156 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 23rd of February 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 27 January 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 #1 in Case #2737/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Oradea – Chamber for Criminal and Juvenile Matters, in its session report of 19 October 2021, in Case # 9633/296/2017*, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
“As regards the regime of conditional suspension of sentence service, in terms of its revocation, is it the one stipulated by the 1969 Criminal Code, in application of Art. 15 para. (2) in Law #187/2012, in the situation where the main punishment for a criminal violation committed before 01 February 2014 was established according to the current Criminal Code and the manner of serving the sentence was ordered according to the 1969 Criminal Code, as an effect of applying the more favorable criminal law per autonomous institutions, in the circumstances where Constitutional Court Decision #265 of 06 May 2014, published in the Official Journal of Romania Issue #372/20 May 2014, states that the stipulations of Art. 5 in the Criminal Code are constitutional insofar as they do not allow combining stipulations from successive laws in establishing and enforcing the application of the more favorable criminal law?”
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 27th of January 2022.
Decision #2 in Case #2749/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Timișoara, Criminal Chamber, in Case # 392/30/2021 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
“In the interpretation of Art. 452 para. (1) in the Criminal Procedure Code, can a motion for review reliant on Art. 453 para. (1) letter e) in the Criminal Procedure Code also be directed against a criminal judgment that is final but does not deal with the merits of the criminal action?”
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 27th of January 2022.
Decision #3 in Case #2763/1/2021
Sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeals Cluj, Criminal Chamber, in its session report of 14 October 2021, in Case #2259/117/2019, and rules that:
In the interpretation of Art. 3 in Law #143/2000, in the situation where a person travels in Romania by plane and carries drugs, the latter shall be construed as introduced in the country (with the consequence of the action being considered as consummated) at the moment when the person on board the aircraft crosses the border, thus entering the airspace located inside the national borders, without the performance of a customs inspection presenting any relevance in terms of consummation of the criminal violation.”
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 27th of January 2022.
Decision #4 in Case #2813/1/2021
Sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeals București – Chamber II for Criminal Matters, in Case # 16037/301/2021, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
“In the situation where a crime of theft is committed by an individual wearing a mask in a space where wearing a mask is mandatory, the court shall consider the aggravated form of the crime of theft as described under Art. 228 para. (1) – Art. 229 para. (1) letter c) in the Criminal Code” and consequently rules that:
Compliance with the obligation to wear a protective mask that has the ability to conceal one’s physiognomy, in public spaces where applicable law mandates wearing such a mask, causes applicability of the aggravating circumstance element stipulated by Art. 229 para. (1) letter c) in the Criminal Code in regards to a crime of theft committed by an individual wearing a mask.
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 27th of January 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
