Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sentința nr. 972/2010 AI generated

Prison director's magistrate status triggers referral of inmate abuse complaint to competent prosecutor.

Case Number Sentința nr. 972/2010
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice (Criminal Section) granted the petition only to the extent of declining jurisdiction: it ordered the criminal complaint filed by petitioner C.M. against the director of Penitenciarul Codlea, the chief physician, and a prison guard (alleging abuses in administering prisoners' medication and food) to be forwarded to the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Brașov Court of Appeal for competent resolution, since the prison director holds the status of magistrate; the court found the complaint was wrongly addressed to it. The decision is subject to appeal (recurs). Legal basis: arts. 209(3) and 281(1)(b) of the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code (mandatory prosecution by prosecutor where the suspect is a magistrate), and art. 222(7) C. pr. pen. (referral to the competent prosecutor's office). No final merits ruling was made on the alleged abuses.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 209 alin. (3) C. proc. pen, art. 281 pct. 1 lit. b) C. proc. pen, art. 222 alin. (7) C. proc. pen; Prison director's magistrate status triggers referral of inmate abuse complaint to competent prosecutor: against the director of Penitenciarul Codlea, the chief physician, and a prison guard (alleging abuses in administering prisoners' medication and food) to be forwarded to the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Brașov Court of Appeal for competent resolution, since the prison director holds the status of magistrate; the court found the complaint was wrongly addressed to it. The decision is subject to appeal (recurs). Legal basis: arts. 209(3) and 281(1)(b) of the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code (mandatory prosecution by prosecutor where the suspect is a magistrate), and art. 222(7) C. pr. pen. (referral to the competent prosecutor's office). No final merits ruling was made on the alleged abuses.

Keywords

AI generated
criminal complaint magistrate prisoner referral order declining of jurisdiction abuse of authority

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 209 alin. (3) C. proc. pen
Conform art. 209 alin. (3) C. proc. pen.
art. 281 pct. 1 lit. b) C. proc. pen
urmărirea penală se efectuează în mod obligatoriu de către procuror, printre altele, în cazul arătat de art. 281 pct. 1 lit. b) C. proc. pen.
art. 222 alin. (7) C. proc. pen
Used as the legal basis for sending the complaint to the competent prosecutor's office.
AI generated
Sentința nr. 1740/2010
Complaint against magistrates for abuse in office remitted to prosecutor for failure to challenge non-prosecution decision
Sentința nr. 475/2010
Prison officer complaint misfiled with Supreme Court; jurisdictional referral to appellate prosecution under Law 293/2004
Decizia nr. 1393/2009
Jurisdictional referral for administrative labor claims of special-status prison director judge
Decizia nr. 733/2007
Prison abuse complaint erroneously filed with court; sentence quashed and case remanded to competent prosecutor's office
Încheierea nr. 567/2013
Abusive conduct complaint over prosecutors referred to prosecutor's office for competent resolution.

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 222 alin. (7) C. proc. pen.

Used as the legal basis for sending the complaint to the competent prosecutor's office.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Asupra plângerii de față ;

În baza lucrărilor din dosar, constată următoarele :

Prin cererea introdusă la data de 26 aprilie 2010 la Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție petiționarul C.M. a formulat plângere penală împotriva directorului Penitenciarului Codlea, a medicului șef Mareș Carmen și a unui lucrător de la paza penitenciarului în legătură cu unele pretinse abuzuri săvârșite de aceștia în administrarea medicamentelor și alimentelor destinate deținuților.

Examinând plângerea formulată, Înalta Curte constată că a fost greșit îndreptată.

Conform art. 209 alin. (3) C. proc. pen. urmărirea penală se efectuează în mod obligatoriu de către procuror, printre altele, în cazul arătat de art. 281 pct. 1 lit. b) C. proc. pen.

Cum directorul Penitenciarului Codlea are calitatea de magistrat, plângerea va fi trimisă, în temeiul art. 222 alin. (7) C. proc. pen. la Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Brașov pentru competentă soluționare.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

H O T Ă R Ă Ș T E

Trimite plângerea formulată de petiționarul C.M. la Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Brașov.

Cu recurs.

Pronunțată în ședință publică, azi 7 iunie 2010