Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 1424/2006 AI generated

Inadmissibility of recourse against interlocutory order maintaining preventive arrest

Case Number Decizia nr. 1424/2006
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 defendant's appeal as inadmissible and ordered him to pay judicial fees, leaving the Court of Appeal's decision maintaining his pre-trial detention in force. The dispute arose from the defendant's challenge to a non-appealable order issued by the Court of Appeal that verified and maintained his preventive arrest status while his underlying conviction for aggravated theft was pending in a separate appeal proceeding. The decisive legal basis was the distinction between appealable judgments and interlocutory orders, specifically applying Article 385(15)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which excludes decisions on preventive arrest issued during appeal reviews from the scope of admissible appeals, thereby rendering the defendant's recourse procedurally void.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 3002 C. proc. pen, art. 160b alin. (3) C. proc. pen, art. 37 lit. b) C. pen, art. 38515 pct. 1 lit. a) C. proc. pen, art. 192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen; Inadmissibility of recourse against interlocutory order maintaining preventive arrest: The dispute arose from the defendant's challenge to a non-appealable order issued by the Court of Appeal that verified and maintained his preventive arrest status while his underlying conviction for aggravated theft was pending in a separate appeal proceeding. The decisive legal basis was the distinction between appealable judgments and interlocutory orders, specifically applying Article 385(15)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which excludes decisions on preventive arrest issued during appeal reviews from the scope of admissible appeals, thereby rendering the defendant's recourse procedurally void.

Keywords

AI generated
appealable interlocutory decision preventive detention judicial review code of criminal procedure dismissal for theft legal status

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 3002 C. proc. pen
1096/2006, în baza art. 3002 C. proc. pen., raportat la art.
art. 160b alin. (3) C. proc. pen
pen., raportat la art. 160b alin. (3) C. proc. pen., a fost menținută starea de arest a inculpatului R.Z.C., deținut în Penitenciarul Aiud.
art. 37 lit. b) C. pen
pen., cu aplicarea art. 37 lit. b) C. pen., hotărâre atacată cu apel și cu recurs.
art. 38515 pct. 1 lit. a) C. proc. pen
Basis for dismissing the recourse as inadmissible because it targeted a non-appealable order.
art. 192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen
Basis for ordering the appellant to pay judicial expenses to the state.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 159/2004
Inadmissibility of recourse against final cassation interlocutory order maintaining preventive detention
Decizia nr. 4060/2012
Preventive detention maintenance; inadmissibility of appeal against final appellate interlocutory order
Decizia nr. 528/2003
Inadmissibility of appeal against interlocutory order extending preventive arrest due to lack of statutory legal remedy
Decizia nr. 3713/2010
Inadmissibility of appeal against appellate court order maintaining preventive detention
Decizia nr. 443/2021
Inadmissibility of appeal against appellate order maintaining preventive detention during trial phase

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 38515 pct. 1 lit. a) C. proc. pen.

Basis for dismissing the recourse as inadmissible because it targeted a non-appealable order.

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

Basis for ordering the appellant to pay judicial expenses to the state.

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

I.C.C.J., secția penală, decizia nr. 1424 din 3 martie 2006

Prin încheierea pronunțată în ședință publică din 21 februarie 2006, Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia, în dosarul nr. 1096/2006, în baza art. 3002 C. proc. pen., raportat la art. 160b alin. (3) C. proc. pen., a fost menținută starea de arest a inculpatului R.Z.C., deținut în Penitenciarul Aiud.

Pentru a dispune astfel, instanța a reținut că subzistă și în prezent temeiurile care au determinat luarea măsurii arestării preventive a inculpatului.

Împotriva acestei încheieri a declarat recurs inculpatul criticând-o pentru netemeinicie.

Recursul este inadmisibil.

Prin sentința penală nr. 1535/2005 Judecătoria Alba Iulia l-a condamnat pe inculpat, la 3 ani închisoare, pentru săvârșirea infracțiunii de furt calificat, prevăzută de art. 208 alin. (1) și art. 209 alin. (1) lit. e), g) și i) C. pen., cu aplicarea art. 37 lit. b) C. pen., hotărâre atacată cu apel și cu recurs.

În cadrul recursului, prin încheierea sus-menționată, verificându-se arestarea inculpatului, conform art. 3002 C. proc. pen., a fost menținută măsura arestării preventive pe calea unei încheieri definitive.

În atare situație, în temeiul art. 38515 pct. 1 lit. a) C. proc. pen., va fi respins recursul ca inadmisibil.

Conform art. 192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen., a fost obligat recurentul la cheltuieli judiciare statului.