Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_148195 AI generated

Eligibility of a separately adjudicated co-participant as a witness for perjury liability in bifurcated criminal proceedings

Case Number ICCJ_148195
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, acting through its Full Bench for Resolving Legal Questions in Criminal Matters, issued a uniform interpretation establishing that a participant in a criminal offense who is separately adjudicated and subsequently summoned as a witness in the bifurcated proceedings against other co-participants lacks the status of a valid subject for the crime of perjury, thereby resolving the referred question in favor of the exclusion of such liability. The dispute, initiated by the Bucharest Court of Appeal, centered on whether a co-defendant in a separated criminal trial could be prosecuted for false testimony when providing statements as a witness in the remaining case. The decisive legal basis is the interpretation that such a person does not meet the statutory definition of a witness under Article 273 of the Criminal Code for the purpose of perjury, a ruling that is mandatory and binding from the date of its publication in the Official Monitor.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 273 din Codul penal, art. 477 alin.(3) din Codul de procedură penală; Eligibility of a separately adjudicated co-participant as a witness for perjury liability in bifurcated criminal proceedings: The dispute, initiated by the Bucharest Court of Appeal, centered on whether a co-defendant in a separated criminal trial could be prosecuted for false testimony when providing statements as a witness in the remaining case. The decisive legal basis is the interpretation that such a person does not meet the statutory definition of a witness under Article 273 of the Criminal Code for the purpose of perjury, a ruling that is mandatory and binding from the date of its publication in the Official Monitor.

Keywords

AI generated
exclusion of witness criminal offense basis of liability summons party to proceedings legal status

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 273 din Codul penal
Identifies the specific criminal offense of perjury regarding which the court determined the subject's eligibility.
art. 477 alin.(3) din Codul de procedură penală
Establishes the procedural rule that the decision is mandatory from the date of its publication in the Official Monitor.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 10/2019
Eligibility of severed co-defendants as witnesses for perjury purposes in Romanian criminal proceedings
ICCJ_147646
Perjury versus Aiding an Offender: Exclusion of Formal Concurrence Where False Testimony Constitutes a Special Form of Favoring the Perpetrator
Decizia nr. 114/RC/2020
Perjury conviction validity where cohabiting witness was informed of refusal right and ratified testimony post-Constitutional Court decision
Decizia nr. 3175/2013
Perjury vs. organized crime support and offender facilitation: constitutional limits on false witness testimony as criminal liability
Decizia nr. 400/2019
Perjury conviction upheld for one defendant, punishment waived for other on appeal.

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 273 din Codul penal

Identifies the specific criminal offense of perjury regarding which the court determined the subject's eligibility.

art. 477 alin.(3) din Codul de procedură penală

Establishes the procedural rule that the decision is mandatory from the date of its publication in the Official Monitor.

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.10 Dosar nr.377/1/2019

Şedinţa din data de 17 aprilie 2019

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E:

Admite sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Bucureşti – Secţia a II-a penală, în dosarul nr.17643/4/2017 (3018/2018), prin care se solicită pronunţarea unei hotărâri prealabile pentru dezlegarea de principiu a următoarei chestiuni de drept: „Poate fi subiect activ al infracţiunii de mărturie mincinoasă participantul la comiterea unei infracţiuni care a fost judecat separat de ceilalţi participanţi şi audiat ulterior ca martor în cauza disjunsă cu privire la aceşti din urmă participanţi?”

Stabileşte că participantul la comiterea unei infracţiuni care a fost judecat separat de ceilalţi participanţi şi audiat ulterior ca martor, în cauza disjunsă, nu poate avea calitatea de subiect activ al infracţiunii de mărturie mincinoasă prevăzută de art.273 din Codul penal.

Obligatorie de la data publicării în Monitorul Oficial al României, Partea I, potrivit art.477 alin.(3) din Codul de procedură penală.

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică, astăzi, 17 aprilie 2019.