Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_114069 AI generated

Embezzlement by public official: Article 308 as mitigated variant of Article 295 and resulting eight-year statute of limitations

Case Number ICCJ_114069
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice issued a binding precedent, admitting the reference from the Oradea Court of Appeal and ruling that Article 308 of the Penal Code constitutes a mitigated variant of the offense of embezzlement under Article 295, not an autonomous crime or a cause for reducing penalty limits. In resolving the dispute regarding the applicable statute of limitations for embezzlement committed by a public official, the court determined that the eight-year limitation period applies under Article 154(1)(c) of the Penal Code, based on the penalty limits for the base offense in Article 295 read in relation to Article 308(2), rather than the five-year period applicable to lesser offenses. This decision establishes that the statutory limitations for liability are calculated using the upper and lower limits of the principal embezzlement offense, effectively rejecting the argument for a shorter five-year limitation period.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art.308 din Codul penal, art.295 din Codul penal, art.477 alin. 3 C. pr. pen; Embezzlement by public official: Article 308 as mitigated variant of Article 295 and resulting eight-year statute of limitations: In resolving the dispute regarding the applicable statute of limitations for embezzlement committed by a public official, the court determined that the eight-year limitation period applies under Article 154(1)(c) of the Penal Code, based on the penalty limits for the base offense in Article 295 read in relation to Article 308(2), rather than the five-year period applicable to lesser offenses. This decision establishes that the statutory limitations for liability are calculated using the upper and lower limits of the principal embezzlement offense, effectively rejecting the argument for a shorter five-year limitation period.

Keywords

AI generated
statute of limitations embezzlement liability of public officials statutory limits grounds for cassation result crime

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art.308 din Codul penal
The substantive provision interpreted by the court to establish that it constitutes a mitigated variant of embezzlement, forming the main ground for the ruling.
art.295 din Codul penal
The substantive provision identified as the base offense for which the penalty limits determine the statute of limitations calculation.
art.477 alin. 3 C. pr. pen
The procedural rule cited in the dispositive to establish the binding nature and effective date of the decision upon publication.
AI generated
ICCJ_114121
Embezzlement limitation period set at 5 years based on attenuated offense variant's reduced sentence limits; preliminary ruling upheld.
ICCJ_119901
Embezzlement by non-public official: Inter-temporal application of Penal Code and expiry of special statute of limitations
Decizia nr. 408/RC/2024
Criminal statute of limitations in corruption cases and the scope of EU financial interest protections under CJUE jurisprudence
Decizia nr. 624/RC/2023
Statute of limitations versus constitutive elements of tax evasion and embezzlement in cassation review of criminal dismissal
Decizia nr. 727/RC/2023
Abuse of office statute of limitations and the inapplicability of EU financial fraud jurisprudence to domestic criminal acts

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art.308 din Codul penal

The substantive provision interpreted by the court to establish that it constitutes a mitigated variant of embezzlement, forming the main ground for the ruling.

art.295 din Codul penal

The substantive provision identified as the base offense for which the penalty limits determine the statute of limitations calculation.

art.477 alin. 3 C. pr. pen.

The procedural rule cited in the dispositive to establish the binding nature and effective date of the decision upon publication.

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

R O M Â N I A

ÎNALTA CURTE DE CASAŢIE ŞI JUSTIŢIE

COMPLETUL PENTRU DEZLEGAREA UNOR CHESTIUNI DE DREPT ÎN MATERIE PENALĂ

Minuta deciziei nr.1 Dosar nr.29/1/2014/HP/P

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E:

Admite sesizarea formulată de către Curtea de Apel Oradea – Secţia penală şi pentru cauze cu minori în dosarul nr. 1819/271/2009* prin care se solicită pronunţarea unei hotărâri prealabile pentru dezlegarea de principiu a problemelor de drept, respectiv: dacă infracţiunea prevăzută de art.308 Cod penal este o infracţiune autonomă, o cauză de reducere a limitelor de pedeapsă sau o formă atenuată a infracţiunii prevăzute de art.295 Cod penal şi dacă, pentru infracţiunea prevăzută de art.308 Cod penal, termenul de prescripţie a răspunderii penale este de 5 ani, potrivit art.154 alin.1 lit. d din Codul penal, corespunzător limitelor de pedeapsă reduse şi cuprinse între 1 an 4 luni închisoare şi 4 ani 8 luni închisoare sau este de 8 ani, potrivit art.154 alin.1 lit. c din acelaşi cod, corespunzător limitelor de pedeapsă stipulate de lege pentru forma de bază, respectiv între 2 ani şi 7 ani închisoare.

Stabileşte că dispoziţiile art.308 din Codul penal reprezintă o variantă atenuată a infracţiunii de delapidare prev. de art.295 din Codul penal.

La calcularea termenului de prescripţie a răspunderii penale se ţine seama de pedeapsa prevăzută de art.295 din Codul penal rap. la art.308 alin. 2 din Codul penal.

Obligatorie de la data publicării în Monitorul Oficial al României, Partea I, potrivit art.477 alin. 3 C. pr. pen.

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 19 ianuarie 2015.