Preliminary referral on recidivism rehabilitation timing dismissed as inadmissible, no substantive ruling issued.

The High Court of Cassation and Justice, sitting as a panel for the preliminary ruling on questions of law in criminal matters, dismissed as inadmissible the referral from the Bucharest Court of Appeal (Second Criminal Section), thereby refusing to issue a preliminary ruling on whether, under art. 43(1) of the Criminal Code, in cases of multiple convictions, the verification of the rehabilitation period condition for post-execution recidivism should be made under art. 167(5) or separately for each conviction. The court ordered the decision to become binding from its publication in the Official Gazette, per art. 477(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and no substantive ruling was issued, leaving the underlying appellate case to proceed. The referral challenged statutory interpretation in criminal law; the decisive basis for the dismissal was inadmissibility, as the question posed did not meet the statutory requirements for a preliminary ruling, with the court finding the request improper rather than resolving the legal issue on the merits.