Judicial control obligation to refrain from driving does not constitute suspension of driving right for criminal liability
Romania (RO)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court of Romania (High Court of Cassation and Justice) issued a binding preliminary ruling that resolved the referred legal question by determining that the preventive obligation imposed on an accused not to drive specific vehicles under judicial surveillance does not constitute a suspension of the driving right and therefore does not fulfill the elements of criminal intent required for the offense of driving while suspended. The dispute arose from a criminal case where the defendant allegedly violated the condition of not driving vehicles specified in a judicial control measure, with the lower court questioning whether such a breach automatically constituted the crime of driving with a suspended license. Citing Article 215(2)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 335(2) of the Penal Code, the court held that the specific obligation under preventive measures is distinct from an administrative suspension of the driving license; consequently, violating the preventive obligation does not meet the typicity requirements for the crime under Article 335(2) of the Penal Code.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedart. 477 alin. (3) Cod procedură penală; Judicial control obligation to refrain from driving does not constitute suspension of driving right for criminal liability: The dispute arose from a criminal case where the defendant allegedly violated the condition of not driving vehicles specified in a judicial control measure, with the lower court questioning whether such a breach automatically constituted the crime of driving with a suspended license. Citing Article 215(2)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 335(2) of the Penal Code, the court held that the specific obligation under preventive measures is distinct from an administrative suspension of the driving license; consequently, violating the preventive obligation does not meet the typicity requirements for the crime under Article 335(2) of the Penal Code.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedRelated Decisions
AI generatedKey legal questions extracted by Legislator
AI generatedProcedural basis cited in the dispositive to establish that the decision becomes mandatory from the date of its publication in the Official Monitor.
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. 18 Dosar nr. 1878/1/2019
Şedinţa din data de 29 octombrie 2019
ÎN NUMELE LEGII
D E C I D E:
Admite sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Suceava – Secția penală şi pentru cauze penale cu minori în dosarul nr.7322/285/2017, prin care se solicită pronunţarea unei hotărâri prealabile pentru dezlegarea chestiunii de drept: „Dacă obligaţia inculpatului de a nu conduce vehicule anume stabilite, impusă de organul judiciar pe timpul măsurii preventive a controlului judiciar conform art. 215 alin. (2) lit. i) din Codul de procedură penală, constituie o suspendare a exercitării dreptului de a conduce şi întruneşte elementele de tipicitate ale infracţiunii prevăzute de art. 335 alin. (2) din Codul penal” și stabilește că:
Obligaţia inculpatului de a nu conduce vehicule anume stabilite, impusă de organul judiciar pe timpul măsurii preventive a controlului judiciar conform art. 215 alin. (2) lit. i) din Codul de procedură penală, nu constituie o suspendare a exercitării dreptului de a conduce, iar încălcarea acesteia nu întruneşte elementele de tipicitate ale infracţiunii prevăzute de art. 335 alin. (2) din Codul penal.
Obligatorie de la data publicării în Monitorul Oficial al României, Partea I, potrivit art. 477 alin. (3) Cod procedură penală.
Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 29 octombrie 2019.