Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_230716 AI generated

Referral interpreted "investigated" in traffic ordinance to cover only personal criminal prosecution

Case Number ICCJ_230716
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 referral submitted by the Oradea Court of Appeal and issued a binding interpretation, establishing that the term "investigated" (cercetat) under Article 114(1)(f) of Emergency Government Ordinance No. 195/2002 regarding public road circulation refers exclusively to the conduct of personal criminal prosecution. This ruling resolves a legal uncertainty concerning the scope of administrative sanctions in traffic cases by clarifying the procedural threshold for imposing penalties, thereby defining the material facts relevant to determining whether a driver is subject to specific liability provisions during the pendency of criminal proceedings. The decisive legal basis relies on the interpretation of Article 114(1)(f) of EGO 195/2002, read in conjunction with the binding effect of Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, which mandates compliance with the Court's clarification across all pending and future similar cases.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Referral interpreted "investigated" in traffic ordinance to cover only personal criminal prosecution: 195/2002 regarding public road circulation refers exclusively to the conduct of personal criminal prosecution. This ruling resolves a legal uncertainty concerning the scope of administrative sanctions in traffic cases by clarifying the procedural threshold for imposing penalties, thereby defining the material facts relevant to determining whether a driver is subject to specific liability provisions during the pendency of criminal proceedings. The decisive legal basis relies on the interpretation of Article 114(1)(f) of EGO 195/2002, read in conjunction with the binding effect of Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, which mandates compliance with the Court's clarification across all pending and future similar cases.

Keywords

AI generated
road traffic penalty criminal prosecution personal liability emergency government ordinance interpretation of laws pending proceedings

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
The procedural provision cited in the dispositive to establish the binding force of the court's interpretation.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 414/2025
Licence annulment quashed: "under investigation" in road-traffic law requires suspect status, not in rem inquiry.
ICCJ_226598
Scope of "traffic accident" in criminal liability: culpability vs. intentional acts under Penal Code and Road Traffic Ordinance
Decizia nr. 188/2025
Scope of "traffic accident" in Penal Code art. 338(1): exclusion of intentional acts under Emergency Ordinance 195/2002 art. 75
Decizia nr. 374/2025
Precedential reference on vehicle driver identification requests: refusal of interpretation due to existing non-unitary judicial practice on communication by posting
ICCJ_147235
Interpretation of jurisdictional norms for complementary contraventional sanctions in inter-county traffic violations under Romanian road circulation regulations

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 114 alin. (1) lit. f) din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 195/2002

The substantive provision whose interpretation the court defined in its final order.

art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă

The procedural provision cited in the dispositive to establish the binding force of the court's interpretation.

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 dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept

Minuta deciziei nr. 414 Dosar nr. 1536/1/2025

Ședința din 24 noiembrie 2025

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Admite sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Oradea - Secţia de contencios administrativ şi fiscal în Dosarul nr. 3.342/111/CA/2024 – R şi, în consecinţă, stabileşte că:

În interpretarea dispoziţiilor art. 114 alin. (1) lit. f) din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 195/2002 privind circulaţia pe drumurile publice, republicată, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, înţelesul noţiunii de «cercetat» se referă doar la desfăşurarea urmăririi penale in personam.

Obligatorie, potrivit dispoziţiilor art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă.

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 24 noiembrie 2025.