Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_134825 AI generated

Application timing of speedometer measurement tolerance norms under legal metrology standards in contravention proceedings

Case Number ICCJ_134825
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Cassation and Justice rejected as inadmissible the referral of a preliminary question of law submitted by the Bacău Court of Appeal. The dispute concerned a contravention for speeding, specifically whether the speed measurement tolerance standards under Legal Metrology Norm NML 021-05 apply at the moment of the traffic stop or the court hearing, or exclusively at the time of the radar device's official calibration and certification. The highest court ruled that the referral was procedurally inadmissible, thereby denying the lower court's request for a binding interpretation of the metrological norms to determine the validity of the traffic violation evidence.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Application timing of speedometer measurement tolerance norms under legal metrology standards in contravention proceedings: The dispute concerned a contravention for speeding, specifically whether the speed measurement tolerance standards under Legal Metrology Norm NML 021-05 apply at the moment of the traffic stop or the court hearing, or exclusively at the time of the radar device's official calibration and certification. The highest court ruled that the referral was procedurally inadmissible, thereby denying the lower court's request for a binding interpretation of the metrological norms to determine the validity of the traffic violation evidence.

Keywords

AI generated
speeding violation compliance with technical standards interpretation of the law road traffic safety regulations compliance with time-limits preliminary proceedings

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Cited in the dispositive to establish the binding nature of the decision made by the Full Court for resolving questions of law.
AI generated
ICCJ_142113
Temporal application of speedometer error margins: limits on metrological verification versus individual traffic offense detection
Decizia nr. 50/2017
Application of radar speed margin of error: Preliminary ruling request dismissed as inadmissible due to lack of novelty
Decizia nr. 3168/2014
Validity of abrogating legal metrology usage requirements for speed-measuring devices: necessity of socio-economic analysis and procedural transparency
Decizia nr. 2933/2010
Interpretation of metrological tolerance norms in traffic enforcement: classification of an administrative agency's opinion as a non-binding proof rather than a unilateral administrative act
Decizia nr. 885/2008
Illegality of traffic violation report content requirements under specific road traffic regulations versus general contraventions law

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă

Cited in the dispositive to establish the binding nature of the decision made by the Full Court for resolving questions of law.

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

ROMÂNIA

ÎNALTA CURTE DE CASAŢIE ŞI JUSTIŢIE

Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept

Minuta deciziei nr. 50 Dosar nr. 932/1/2017

Şedinţa de la 26 iunie 2017

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Tribunalul Bacău – Secția a II-a civilă, de contencios administrativ și fiscal, în dosarul nr. 6158/180/2016, în vederea pronunţării unei hotărâri prealabile pentru dezlegarea următoarei chestiuni de drept:

„Dispozițiile art. 3.1.1. lit. c) din Norma de metrologie legală NML 021-05 <<Aparate pentru măsurarea vitezei de circulație a autovehiculelor (cinemometre)>>, aprobată prin Ordinul directorului general al Biroului Român de Metrologie Legală nr. 301 din 23 noiembrie 2005, cu modificările și completările ulterioare, trebuie interpretate în sensul că se aplică la momentul constatării contravenției, în urma măsurării vitezei de către operatorul radar, respectiv de către instanța de judecată, în cursul soluționării plângerii contravenționale, ori se aplică doar la momentul verificării și omologării aparatului radar de către serviciul de metrologie legală ?”

Obligatorie, potrivit dispoziţiilor art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă.

Pronunţată în şedinţa publică din data de 26 iunie 2017.