Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 4609/2004 AI generated

Recusal appeal inadmissible under abrogated provision; costs awarded to petitioner

Case Number Decizia nr. 4609/2004
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 the petitioner's appeal as inadmissible and ordered him to pay 400,000 lei in court costs, thereby leaving in force the lower court's ruling of 1 September 2004 that had rejected his recusal request as inadmissible. The petitioner had sought to recuse judges of the Tribunal Buzău, but the Court of Appeal Ploiești found the request failed to specify, for each judge, the statutory incompatibility grounds required by art. 52(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code; the petitioner argued on appeal that he was not summoned to the hearing where the request was rejected and could have provided the specifics. The decisive legal basis is that art. 52(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which had allowed a separate appeal against a decision rejecting recusal, was abrogated by Emergency Ordinance No. 55 of 25 June 2004, so no separate legal remedy existed against the challenged order, rendering the appeal inadmissible.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 52 alin. (5) C. proc. pen, art. 48 C. proc. pen, art. 52 alin. (7) C. proc. pen; Recusal appeal inadmissible under abrogated provision; costs awarded to petitioner: The petitioner had sought to recuse judges of the Tribunal Buzău, but the Court of Appeal Ploiești found the request failed to specify, for each judge, the statutory incompatibility grounds required by art. 52(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code; the petitioner argued on appeal that he was not summoned to the hearing where the request was rejected and could have provided the specifics. The decisive legal basis is that art. 52(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which had allowed a separate appeal against a decision rejecting recusal, was abrogated by Emergency Ordinance No. 55 of 25 June 2004, so no separate legal remedy existed against the challenged order, rendering the appeal inadmissible.

Keywords

AI generated
statutory grounds code of criminal procedure untimely recusal request summons appealability of remand decision objection of unconstitutionality

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 52 alin. (5) C. proc. pen
S-a reținut, că, în cauză, nu sunt îndeplinite cerințele prevăzute de art. 52 alin. (5) C. proc. pen., în sensul indicării pentru fiecare judecător, a cazului de incompatibilitate din cele prevăzute de art.
art. 48 C. proc. pen
pen., în sensul indicării pentru fiecare judecător, a cazului de incompatibilitate din cele prevăzute de art. 48 C. proc. pen.
art. 52 alin. (7) C. proc. pen
The appeal was declared inadmissible because this article, which previously allowed a separate appeal against the dismissal of a recusal request, was abrogated, leaving no legal avenue of appeal.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 68/2005
Recusal appeal inadmissible after abrogation of separate remedy; defendant ordered to pay costs.
Decizia nr. 1809/2006
Inadmissibility of appeal against recusal ruling due to abrogation of separate appeal provision in criminal proceedings
Decizia nr. 195/2005
Inadmissibility of separate appeal against recusal rejection under abrogated criminal procedure provision
Decizia nr. 2325/2005
Recusal order appeal inadmissible after remedy abrogated; costs awarded.
Decizia nr. 296/2004
Inadmissibility of separate appeal against recusal rejection after statutory abrogation requiring joinder with final judgment

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 52 alin. (7) C. proc. pen.

The appeal was declared inadmissible because this article, which previously allowed a separate appeal against the dismissal of a recusal request, was abrogated, leaving no legal avenue of appeal.

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

Camera de Consiliu

Asupra recursului de față;

În baza lucrărilor din dosar, constată următoarele:

Prin încheierea din 1 septembrie 2004, Curtea de Apel Ploiești a respins ca inadmisibilă, cererea de recuzare formulată de petentul B.P., privind pe magistrații din cadrul Tribunalului Buzău.

S-a reținut, că, în cauză, nu sunt îndeplinite cerințele prevăzute de art. 52 alin. (5) C. proc. pen., în sensul indicării pentru fiecare judecător, a cazului de incompatibilitate din cele prevăzute de art. 48 C. proc. pen.

Prin recursul declarat, petentul a solicitat casarea încheierii și admiterea cererii de recuzare, întrucât nu a fost citat la termenul de judecată la care i s-a respins cererea și la care ar fi putut indica, concret, cazurile de incompatibilitate în care se afla fiecare judecător.

Recursul inculpatului este inadmisibil.

Dispozițiile art. 52 alin. (7) C. proc. pen., care prevedea posibilitatea atacării în mod separat cu recurs a încheierii prin care s-a respins cererea de recuzare au fost abrogate prin O.U.G. nr. 55 din 25 iunie 2004.

Așa fiind, neexistând prevăzută de lege o cale de atac separată împotriva încheierii atacate, urmează ca recursul să fie respins ca inadmisibil cu obligarea recurentului la cheltuieli judiciare.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E

Respinge recursul declarat de petiționarul B.P., împotriva încheierii pronunțată în Camera de Consiliu la data de 1 septembrie 2004 de către Curtea de Apel Ploiești în dosarul nr. 6861/2004 al acelei instanțe, ca inadmisibil.

Obligă pe recurent să plătească statului 400.000 lei cheltuieli judiciare.

Definitivă.

Pronunțată în ședință publică, azi 16 septembrie 2004.