Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 4160/2004 AI generated

Criminal recourse against Court of Appeal decision in recourse capacity inadmissible; prior rulings stand.

Case Number Decizia nr. 4160/2004
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Court Costs Borne by appellant
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed as inadmissible the defendant's appeal against a decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, thereby leaving the prior appellate and trial rulings in force and ordering the defendant to pay court costs. The case involved a criminal matter in which the defendant had already exhausted his single appeal before the Court of Appeal, which had rejected his earlier appeal against the trial court's conviction and the intermediate appellate decision. The decisive legal basis was Article 385¹(1)(e) of the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code, which permits recourse only against decisions rendered by courts of appeal acting as appellate courts; because the challenged decision had been issued by the Court of Appeal in its capacity as a recourse court, no further appeal was available, making the defendant's recourse inadmissible.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 3851 alin. (1) lit. e) C. proc. pen, art. 192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen; Criminal recourse against Court of Appeal decision in recourse capacity inadmissible; prior rulings stand: The case involved a criminal matter in which the defendant had already exhausted his single appeal before the Court of Appeal, which had rejected his earlier appeal against the trial court's conviction and the intermediate appellate decision. The decisive legal basis was Article 385¹(1)(e) of the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code, which permits recourse only against decisions rendered by courts of appeal acting as appellate courts; because the challenged decision had been issued by the Court of Appeal in its capacity as a recourse court, no further appeal was available, making the defendant's recourse inadmissible.

Keywords

AI generated
standing to appeal code of criminal procedure legal capacity statutory basis exhaustion of remedies forfeiture of recourse rights

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 3851 alin. (1) lit. e) C. proc. pen
Basis for declaring the appeal inadmissible because the decision was rendered by the court of appeal in a second appeal, not in an appeal.
art. 192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen
Used to order the appellant to pay judicial expenses to the state.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 3584/2011
Inadmissibility of a "recourse to recourse" against a final appellate decision in a criminal revision procedure
Decizia nr. 2153/2006
Criminal appeal against final appellate decision declared inadmissible for lack of statutory recourse
Decizia nr. 880/2012
Appeal against appellate court ruling in criminal case declared inadmissible as decision final.
Decizia nr. 2341/2011
Recourse against appellate decision held inadmissible due to finality of appeal court rulings under criminal procedure
Decizia nr. 2119/2009
Criminal appeal against Court of Appeal review decision inadmissible; conviction upheld, costs imposed.

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 3851 alin. (1) lit. e) C. proc. pen.

Basis for declaring the appeal inadmissible because the decision was rendered by the court of appeal in a second appeal, not in an appeal.

Art. 192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen.

Used to order the appellant to pay judicial expenses to the state.

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

Asupra recursului de față,

Examinând actele dosarului constată următoarele:

Prin decizia penală nr. 1193/ R din 25 iunie 2004, pronunțată în dosarul nr. 1912/2004, Curtea de Apel București, secția a II-a penală, a respins, ca nefondat, recursul declarat de inculpatul M.V.A. împotriva sentinței penale nr. 739 din 8 martie 2004 a Judecătoriei sectorului 4 București și a deciziei penale nr. 504/ A din 28 aprilie 2004, pronunțată de Tribunalul București, secția I penală.

Împotriva acestei decizii, a declarat recurs inculpatul M.V.A.

Înalta Curte constată, că recursul declarat de inculpat este inadmisibil, pentru următoarele argumente:

Potrivit art. 3851 alin. (1) lit. e) C. proc. pen., pot fi atacate cu recurs deciziile pronunțate, ca instanțe de apel, de curțile de apel.

În speță, decizia atacată a fost pronunțată de curtea de apel, ca instanță de recurs, iar nu ca instanță de apel.

Așadar, nefiind prevăzută de lege calea recursului împotriva unor astfel de decizii (pronunțate în recurs), recursul declarat de inculpat este inadmisibil și urmează a fi respins pentru acest considerent.

Conform art. 192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen., recurentul inculpat va fi obligat la plata cheltuielilor judiciare către stat, în sumă de 1.600.000 lei, din care onorariul apărătorului din oficiu, în sumă de 400.000 lei, se va avansa din fondul Ministerului Justiției.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E

Respinge, ca inadmisibil, recursul declarat de inculpatul M.V.A. împotriva deciziei penale nr. 1193/ R din 25 iunie 2004 a Curții de Apel București, secția a II-a penală.

Obligă pe recurentul inculpat la plata sumei de 1.600.000 lei cheltuieli judiciare către stat, din care suma de 400.000 lei, reprezentând onorariul de avocat pentru apărarea din oficiu, se va avansa din fondul Ministerului Justiției.

Definitivă.

Pronunțată în ședință publică, azi 17 august 2004.