Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sentința nr. 23/2010 AI generated

Referral of criminal complaint against judges to prosecutor for lack of jurisdiction

Case Number Sentința nr. 23/2010
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 (Penal Section) ordered the referral of the petitioner’s complaint to the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court, effectively dismissing the direct petition for lack of jurisdiction and leaving the matter to be resolved by the competent investigative authority. The case involved a direct complaint filed by a private individual against three specific judges, alleging they committed multiple criminal offenses—including corruption, abuse of office, and forgery—while adjudicating three separate civil matters; the petitioner also attached a duplicate complaint addressed to the General Prosecutor. Relying on Article 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, specifically paragraph (7), the Court determined that initiating criminal proceedings and conducting preliminary acts fall exclusively within the competence of the public prosecutor, not the court, necessitating the transfer of the complaint for competent investigation.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 246 C. pen, art. 264 C. pen, art. 289 C. pen, art. 271 C. pen, art. 174 C. pen, art. 222 C. proc. pen; Referral of criminal complaint against judges to prosecutor for lack of jurisdiction: The case involved a direct complaint filed by a private individual against three specific judges, alleging they committed multiple criminal offenses—including corruption, abuse of office, and forgery—while adjudicating three separate civil matters; the petitioner also attached a duplicate complaint addressed to the General Prosecutor. Relying on Article 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, specifically paragraph (7), the Court determined that initiating criminal proceedings and conducting preliminary acts fall exclusively within the competence of the public prosecutor, not the court, necessitating the transfer of the complaint for competent investigation.

Keywords

AI generated
referral for lack of jurisdiction filing of criminal complaints abuse of authority prosecutorial jurisdiction criminal investigation article of civil procedure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 246 C. pen
5863/1/2009, 6949/1/2009 şi 7163/1/2009 pentru săvârşirea infracţiunilor prevăzute de art. 246 C. pen., art.
art. 264 C. pen
pen., art. 264 C. pen., art.
art. 289 C. pen
pen., art. 289 C. pen., art.
art. 271 C. pen
art. 174 C. pen
26 raportat la art. 174 C. pen.
art. 222 C. proc. pen
În raport cu dispoziţiile art. 222 C. proc. pen.
art. 222 alin. (7) C. proc. pen
Legal basis cited in the operative part to order the referral of the complaint to the Public Prosecutor's Office for competent resolution.
AI generated
Sentința nr. 770/2010
Criminal complaint against High Court judge: jurisdictional referral to competent prosecution office
Sentința nr. 2073/2009
Referral of criminal complaint against high-ranking magistrates to prosecutors due to exclusive investigative jurisdiction under Code of Criminal Procedure
Decizia nr. 5988/2006
Referral of direct criminal complaint against a judge to the prosecutor under mandatory prosecutorial jurisdiction
Sentința nr. 137/2013
Criminal complaint against judges referred to prosecutor for investigation; prior proceedings left intact.
Sentința nr. 1491/2009
Criminal complaint against appellate judges misfiled directly to the supreme court; mandatory referral to specialized prosecution under criminal procedure rules

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Legal basis cited in the operative part to order the referral of the complaint to the Public Prosecutor's Office for competent resolution.

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

Deliberând asupra cauzei, se reţine:

Petentul A.I., la data de 18 noiembrie 2009, a sesizat direct Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie, secţia penală, cu plângere împotriva judecătorilor P.R.A., I.M. şi I.G. care i-au soluţionat cauzele nr. 5863/1/2009, 6949/1/2009 şi 7163/1/2009 pentru săvârşirea infracţiunilor prevăzute de art. 246 C. pen., art. 264 C. pen., art. 289 C. pen., art. 271 C. pen. şi art. 26 raportat la art. 174 C. pen.

Petentul a mai anexat şi o plângere xerocopiată, cu acelaşi conţinut, împotriva aceloraşi persoane şi pentru aceleaşi infracţiuni, adresată Procurorului General al României.

În raport cu dispoziţiile art. 222 C. proc. pen. care reglementează unul din modurile de sesizare a organelor de urmărire penală şi faţă de aspectul potrivit căruia competenţa de a efectua acte premergătoare şi urmărirea penală aparţine exclusiv organului de urmărire penală, în baza alin. (7) din acelaşi text normativ plângerea va fi înaintată Parchetului de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie, spre competentă soluţionare.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

H O T Ă R Ă Ş T E

În baza art. 222 alin. (7) C. proc. pen., trimite plângerea formulată de petentul A.I. la Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie, spre competentă soluţionare.

Cu recurs.

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică, azi 14 ianuarie 2010.