Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_164753 AI generated

Standing of Chief Prosecutor to reopen criminal investigations under Art. 335(1) CPP following annulment by subordinate prosecutors

Case Number ICCJ_164753
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 admitted the appeal in the interest of the law filed by the Chief Prosecutor, establishing as binding law that the Chief Prosecutor does not automatically possess the standing of the "hierarchically superior prosecutor" under Article 335(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code when seeking to reopen a criminal investigation following the annulment of a decision issued by a subordinate prosecutor or specialized investigative body. This decision resolved a dispute regarding the interpretation of the authority to resume criminal proceedings in specific hierarchical scenarios, determining that the statutory qualification applies only in situations where the initial decision was made by a direct subordinate to the Chief Prosecutor, rather than in all instances of infirmation by lower-level prosecutors. The ruling relies on the mandatory interpretation of Article 335(1) and Article 474(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code to define the precise scope of the Chief Prosecutor's power to trigger the reopening of penal investigations.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 335 alin. (1) din Codul de procedură penală, art. 474 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură penală; Standing of Chief Prosecutor to reopen criminal investigations under Art. 335(1) CPP following annulment by subordinate prosecutors: This decision resolved a dispute regarding the interpretation of the authority to resume criminal proceedings in specific hierarchical scenarios, determining that the statutory qualification applies only in situations where the initial decision was made by a direct subordinate to the Chief Prosecutor, rather than in all instances of infirmation by lower-level prosecutors. The ruling relies on the mandatory interpretation of Article 335(1) and Article 474(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code to define the precise scope of the Chief Prosecutor's power to trigger the reopening of penal investigations.

Keywords

AI generated
reopening of the investigation code of criminal procedure annulment proceedings statutory power standing of public prosecutor standing to appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 335 alin. (1) din Codul de procedură penală
The main ground for the decision, cited in the dispositive to establish the specific interpretation of the prosecutor's qualification for reopening criminal investigations.
art. 474 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură penală
Procedural rule cited in the dispositive to declare the interpretation mandatory and binding on all judicial bodies.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 18/2020
Scope of "hierarchically superior prosecutor" for reopening criminal investigations under Article 335(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
ICCJ_170763
Prosecutor General’s power to reopen prosecution limited to immediate hierarchical superior—appeal in the interest of the law admitted.
ICCJ_149445
Prosecutor standing to challenge superior’s order dismissing criminal prosecution: limitation of Art. 340 CPP to victims of legitimate interests
ICCJ_123199
Mandatory preliminary chamber judge confirmation of prosecutor's order reopening criminal prosecution
Decizia nr. 1969/2009
Judicial review of prosecutorial termination and non-initiation orders: procedural distinction between initiating and reopening criminal investigations under Art. 278/1 CPP

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 335 alin. (1) din Codul de procedură penală

The main ground for the decision, cited in the dispositive to establish the specific interpretation of the prosecutor's qualification for reopening criminal investigations.

art. 474 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură penală

Procedural rule cited in the dispositive to declare the interpretation mandatory and binding on all judicial bodies.

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 soluționarea recursului în interesul legii

Minuta deciziei nr. 23 Dosar nr. 1468/1/2020

Ședința din data de 14 septembrie 2020

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E :

Admite recursul în interesul legii formulat de procurorul general al Parchetului de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie.

În interpretarea şi aplicarea unitară a dispoziţiilor art. 335 alin. (1) din Codul de procedură penală privind reluarea în caz de redeschidere a urmăririi penale stabileşte că:

Procurorul general al Parchetului de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie, în cazul infirmării unei soluţii dispuse de către un procuror din cadrul parchetelor din subordine ori structurilor specializate ale Parchetului de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie (Direcţia Naţională Anticorupţie, Direcţia de Investigare a Infracţiunilor de Criminalitate Organizată şi Terorism), nu are în toate situaţiile calitatea expres prevăzută de art. 335 alin. (1) din Codul de procedură penală în care se face referire la „procurorul ierarhic superior celui care a dispus soluţia”.

Obligatorie, potrivit dispozițiilor art. 474 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură penală.

Pronunțată în ședință publică, astăzi 14 septembrie 2020.