Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_171878 AI generated

Cross-reference on whether "with the same punishment" in Penal Code Art. 335(3) refers to the prior paragraph or to alternative statutory penalties

Case Number ICCJ_171878
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed as inadmissible the request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Bucharest Court of Appeal, meaning the lower court's pending case proceeds without a binding interpretation from the supreme court. The dispute arose from a criminal matter concerning the interpretation of Article 335 of the Penal Code, specifically whether the phrase "with the same punishment" in paragraph 3 refers to the penalty in paragraph 2 or to the penalty in paragraph 1 or Article 336, depending on the alternative material element of the committed act. The decisive legal basis for the decision was the inadmissibility of the reference, rejecting the need for a principle-level disambiguation under Article 477(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which renders the interpretation mandatory only from the date of publication in the Official Gazette if the request were admitted.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art.477 alin.(3) din Codul de procedură penală; Cross-reference on whether "with the same punishment" in Penal Code Art. 335(3) refers to the prior paragraph or to alternative statutory penalties: The dispute arose from a criminal matter concerning the interpretation of Article 335 of the Penal Code, specifically whether the phrase "with the same punishment" in paragraph 3 refers to the penalty in paragraph 2 or to the penalty in paragraph 1 or Article 336, depending on the alternative material element of the committed act. The decisive legal basis for the decision was the inadmissibility of the reference, rejecting the need for a principle-level disambiguation under Article 477(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which renders the interpretation mandatory only from the date of publication in the Official Gazette if the request were admitted.

Keywords

AI generated
reference for a preliminary ruling code of criminal procedure statutory basis alternative sentence matter in dispute e-justice

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art.477 alin.(3) din Codul de procedură penală
Cited in the dispositive to establish the binding effect and date of application of the court's decision following the rejection of the reference.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 11/2021
Preliminary ruling referral inadmissible; "with the same penalty" in Article 335(3) unambiguously refers to preceding paragraph.
Decizia nr. 15/2016
Applicability of the New Penal Code’s Mandatory Concurrence Penalty to Offenses Committed Under Prior Law When Individual Sentences Were Already Fixed Under the New Regime
Decizia nr. 69/2020
Sequencing of penalty combination for concurrent offenses and post-execution recidivism under Article 79(2) of the Criminal Code
Decizia nr. 631/2018
Post-conviction modification of sentence based on Constitutional Court ruling decriminalizing the "same passive subject" element of continued crime
Decizia nr. 428/2025
Merging sentences under mixed old-new Penal Codes: Mandatory application of stricter 2014 concurrence rules despite higher resultant penalty

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art.477 alin.(3) din Codul de procedură penală

Cited in the dispositive to establish the binding effect and date of application of the court's decision following the rejection of the reference.

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 DEZLEGAREA UNOR CHESTIUNI DE DREPT ÎN MATERIE PENALĂ

Minuta deciziei nr.11 Dosar nr.3104/1/2020

Şedinţa din data de 18 februarie 2021

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Bucureşti – Secţia a II-a Penală, în dosarul nr.6396/740/2019 (1993/2020), prin care se solicită pronunţarea unei hotărâri prealabile pentru dezlegarea de principiu a următoarei chestiuni de drept: dacă formularea cuprinsă în art.335 alin.(3) din Codul penal, respectiv „cu aceeaşi pedeapsă”, face trimitere la pedeapsa prevăzută de art.335 alin.(2) din Codul penal sau face trimitere la pedeapsa prevăzută de art.335 alin.(1) din Codul penal, art.335 alin.(2) din Codul penal sau art.336 din Codul penal, în funcţie de elementul material alternativ al faptei comise.

Obligatorie de la data publicării în Monitorul Oficial al României, Partea I, potrivit art.477 alin.(3) din Codul de procedură penală.

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică, astăzi, 18 februarie 2021.