Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 876/2005 AI generated

Inadmissibility of recourse against jurisdictional declination in criminal proceedings under Article 42(4) CPP

Case Number Decizia nr. 876/2005
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 Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the appeal as inadmissible and ordered the appellant to pay 600,000 lei in judicial costs to the state. The dispute concerned a criminal procedural challenge where a petitioner appealed a sentence by the Bucharest Court of Appeal that had declined jurisdiction over a complaint against a prosecutor's resolution not to initiate criminal investigation, referring the case to the Sector 6 Court. The decisive legal basis was Article 42(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which explicitly provides that jurisdictional declination decisions are not subject to appeal or cassation, rendering the recourse inadmissible under Article 385(1)(1)(a).

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 42 alin. (4) C. proc. pen, art. 192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen, art. 385^15 alin. (1) pct. 1 lit. a) teza a II-a; Inadmissibility of recourse against jurisdictional declination in criminal proceedings under Article 42(4) CPP: The dispute concerned a criminal procedural challenge where a petitioner appealed a sentence by the Bucharest Court of Appeal that had declined jurisdiction over a complaint against a prosecutor's resolution not to initiate criminal investigation, referring the case to the Sector 6 Court. The decisive legal basis was Article 42(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which explicitly provides that jurisdictional declination decisions are not subject to appeal or cassation, rendering the recourse inadmissible under Article 385(1)(1)(a).

Keywords

AI generated
jurisdictional matters code of criminal procedure judicial investigation e-justice appealability of remand decision procedural costs

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 42 alin. (4) C. proc. pen
Establishes that jurisdictional declination decisions are not subject to appeal or cassation, serving as the main ground for declaring the recourse inadmissible.
art. 192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen
Legal basis for imposing the payment of judicial costs on the appellant.
art. 385^15 alin. (1) pct. 1 lit. a) teza a II-a
Procedural basis for the dismissal of the appeal as inadmissible.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 3484/2010
Inadmissibility of cassation against final jurisdictional declination ruling
Decizia nr. 65/2005
Inadmissibility of appeal against jurisdictional declination order in criminal complaint
Decizia nr. 2125/2005
Inadmissibility of cassation against jurisdictional declination under Art. 42(4) CPC
Decizia nr. 1242/2012
Inadmissibility of cassation against a declination of jurisdiction decision under Article 42(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Decizia nr. 30/2011
Inadmissibility of appeal against final jurisdictional declination in criminal procedural review

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 42 alin. (4) C. proc. pen.

Establishes that jurisdictional declination decisions are not subject to appeal or cassation, serving as the main ground for declaring the recourse inadmissible.

art. 385^15 alin. (1) pct. 1 lit. a) teza a II-a

Procedural basis for the dismissal of the appeal as inadmissible.

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

Legal basis for imposing the payment of judicial costs on the appellant.

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;

În baza lucrărilor din dosar, constată următoarele:

Prin sentința penală nr. 132 din 24 noiembrie 2004, Curtea de Apel București, secția a II-a penală, a declinat competența soluționării cauzei privind plângerea formulată de petiționarul P.M. împotriva rezoluției de neîncepere a urmăririi penale nr. 2045/P/2003 a Parchetului de pe lângă Curtea de Apel București, în favoarea Judecătoriei sector 6 București.

Împotriva acestei hotărâri a declarat recurs petiționarul.

Văzând dispozițiile art. 42 alin. (4) C. proc. pen., potrivit cărora hotărârea de declinare nu este supusă apelului și nici recursului, instanța, în baza dispozițiilor art. 38515 alin. (1) pct. 1 lit. a) teza a II-a, va respinge, ca inadmisibil, recursul declarat.

În baza dispozițiilor art. 192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen., va fi obligat recurentul petiționar la plata cheltuielilor judiciare către stat.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E

Respinge, ca inadmisibil, recursul declarat de petiționarul P.M. împotriva sentinței penale nr. 132 din 24 noiembrie 2004 a Curții de Apel București, secția a II-a penală.

Obligă recurentul petiționar la plata cheltuielilor judiciare către stat, în sumă de 600.000 lei.

Definitivă.

Pronunțată în ședință publică, azi 7 februarie 2005.