Legislator Case Law & Legislation
ICCJ_202028 AI generated

Jurisdiction for annulment of penitentiary detention placement and transfer refusals

Case Number ICCJ_202028
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice, through its Panel for Deciding Recourse in the Interest of Law, admitted the recourse filed by the Presiding Council of the Iași Court of Appeal and established that the appellate courts, specifically through their administrative litigation sections, hold the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate requests for the annulment of decisions by the National Penitentiary Administration concerning the assignment of the place of detention or the refusal of transfer to another penitentiary. The dispute concerned a jurisdictional conflict regarding the proper forum for challenging administrative decisions issued by the prison administration, requiring a definitive ruling on whether such matters fall under the purview of civil or administrative courts. Relying on Article 9(2)(a) and Article 56(2) of Law No. 254/2013 regarding the execution of penalties, in conjunction with Article 5(2) and Article 10(1) of Law No. 554/2004 on administrative litigation, the Court determined that these issues are subject to judicial review within the administrative justice system, thereby mandating that all such cases be processed by the competent administrative litigation sections of the Court of Appeal.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 56 alin. (2) din Legea nr. 254/2013, art. 10 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 554/2004, art. 9 alin. (2) lit. a, art. 56 alin. (2, art. 5 alin. (2, art. 10 alin. (1; Jurisdiction for annulment of penitentiary detention placement and transfer refusals: The dispute concerned a jurisdictional conflict regarding the proper forum for challenging administrative decisions issued by the prison administration, requiring a definitive ruling on whether such matters fall under the purview of civil or administrative courts. Relying on Article 9(2)(a) and Article 56(2) of Law No. 254/2013 regarding the execution of penalties, in conjunction with Article 5(2) and Article 10(1) of Law No. 554/2004 on administrative litigation, the Court determined that these issues are subject to judicial review within the administrative justice system, thereby mandating that all such cases be processed by the competent administrative litigation sections of the Court of Appeal.

Keywords

AI generated
prison administration jurisdictional matters detention for transfer civil annulment legal systems judicial review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 56 alin. (2) din Legea nr. 254/2013
a) și art. 56 alin. (2) din Legea nr. 254/2013 privind executarea pedepselor și a măsurilor privative de libertate dispuse de organele judiciare în cursul procesului penal, precum şi a art.
art. 10 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 554/2004
art. 9 alin. (2) lit. a
În interpretarea şi aplicarea art. 9 alin. (2) lit. a) și art.
art. 56 alin. (2
a) și art. 56 alin. (2) din Legea nr.
art. 5 alin. (2
254/2013 privind executarea pedepselor și a măsurilor privative de libertate dispuse de organele judiciare în cursul procesului penal, precum şi a art. 5 alin. (2) şi art.
art. 10 alin. (1
(2) şi art. 10 alin. (1) din Legea nr.
art. 517 alin. (4
Obligatorie, potrivit dispozițiilor art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă.
AI generated

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 9 alin. (2) lit. a)

Cited in the operative order to define the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal for annulling decisions on the place of detention.

art. 56 alin. (2)

Cited in the operative order to establish the legal basis for challenging detention location or transfer decisions.

art. 5 alin. (2)

Cited in the operative order to support the jurisdictional assignment to the administrative litigation sections.

art. 10 alin. (1)

Cited in the operative order to define the scope of administrative litigation claims regarding prison administration decisions.

art. 517 alin. (4)

Cited to specify that the decision is obligatory in the terms provided by the Civil Procedure Code.

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

ROMÂNIA

ÎNALTA CURTE DE CASAŢIE ŞI JUSTIŢIE

Completul pentru soluționarea recursului în interesul legii

Minuta deciziei nr. 3 Dosar nr. 516/1/2023

Şedinţa din 24 aprilie 2023

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Admite recursul în interesul legii formulat de Colegiul de conducere al Curții de Apel Iași şi, în consecință, stabilește că:

În interpretarea şi aplicarea art. 9 alin. (2) lit. a) și art. 56 alin. (2) din Legea nr. 254/2013 privind executarea pedepselor și a măsurilor privative de libertate dispuse de organele judiciare în cursul procesului penal, precum şi a art. 5 alin. (2) şi art. 10 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 554/2004 a contenciosului administrativ, stabilește că revine curții de apel, prin secția de contencios administrativ sau completurile specializate în litigii de contencios administrativ competența de soluționare a cererilor privind anularea deciziei directorului Administrației Naționale a Penitenciarelor de stabilire a locului de detenție pentru executarea pedepsei sau a deciziei de respingere a cererii de transfer la alt penitenciar.

Obligatorie, potrivit dispozițiilor art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă.

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 24 aprilie 2023.