Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 744/2006 AI generated

Criminal complaint against magistrate for insult and defamation remitted to prosecutors; appeal rejected with costs.

Case Number Decizia nr. 744/2006
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
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 petitioner's appeal and upheld the lower court's decision, which had removed the case from its docket and referred the petitioner's complaint to the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal. The dispute involved a criminal complaint filed by the petitioner against a magistrate for the offenses of insult and defamation. The Court ruled that the appeal was unfounded because, under the applicable procedural rules, for offenses requiring a prior complaint—such as insult and defamation—when the complaint targets a judge, it must be addressed to the competent prosecution body, which in this instance is the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal. The petitioner was ordered to pay judicial costs to the state.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 295 C. proc. pen, art. 279 alin. (2) lit. c) C. proc. pen, art. 3856 alin. (3) C. proc. pen, art. 209 alin. (3) C. proc. pen, art. 281 alin. (1) lit. b) C. proc. pen, art. 38515 pct. 1 lit. b) C. proc. pen; Criminal complaint against magistrate for insult and defamation remitted to prosecutors; appeal rejected with costs: The dispute involved a criminal complaint filed by the petitioner against a magistrate for the offenses of insult and defamation. The Court ruled that the appeal was unfounded because, under the applicable procedural rules, for offenses requiring a prior complaint—such as insult and defamation—when the complaint targets a judge, it must be addressed to the competent prosecution body, which in this instance is the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal. The petitioner was ordered to pay judicial costs to the state.

Keywords

AI generated
criminal prosecution for defamation magistrate insult e-justice withdrawal of criminal complaint procedural costs

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 295 C. proc. pen
Instanța a constatat că nu este legal sesizată în raport de calitatea persoanei față de care s-a formulat plângerea și a făcut aplicarea art. 295 C. proc. pen., raportat la art.
art. 279 alin. (2) lit. c) C. proc. pen
Applied in the dispositive as the basis for the preliminary complaint in cases involving a judge, leading to the case's transmission to the prosecutor.
art. 3856 alin. (3) C. proc. pen
Examinând din oficiu cauza potrivit art. 3856 alin. (3) C. proc. pen., Curtea, constată că recursul nu este fondat.
art. 209 alin. (3) C. proc. pen
Cited in the final orders as the legal basis for the prosecutor's jurisdiction over the complaint against a judge.
art. 281 alin. (1) lit. b) C. proc. pen
Ruled on in the dispositive, together with Art. 209, to establish the competent prosecutorial authority.
art. 38515 pct. 1 lit. b) C. proc. pen
Used to dismiss the appeal as unfounded, confirming the lower court's decision.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 1329/2008
Threat and insult complaint rejected for insufficient evidence; appeal dismissed with costs.
Decizia nr. 5058/2006
Insult complaint against judge upheld as rightly referred to prosecutor's office; appeal dismissed with costs.
Decizia nr. 702/2010
Criminal complaint for lawyer's insulting statements in filings rejected; appeal dismissed, costs awarded.
Decizia nr. 2173/2009
Petitioner's appeal over criminal complaint against magistrates dismissed as unfounded; abuse-of-office claims fail absent bad faith
Decizia nr. 485/2011
Criminal complaint against magistrate for abuse of office rejected as unfounded, appeal dismissed with costs

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 38515 pct. 1 lit. b) C. proc. pen.

Used to dismiss the appeal as unfounded, confirming the lower court's decision.

Art. 209 alin. (3) C. proc. pen.

Cited in the final orders as the legal basis for the prosecutor's jurisdiction over the complaint against a judge.

Art. 281 alin. (1) lit. b) C. proc. pen.

Ruled on in the dispositive, together with Art. 209, to establish the competent prosecutorial authority.

Art. 279 alin. (2) lit. c) C. proc. pen.

Applied in the dispositive as the basis for the preliminary complaint in cases involving a judge, leading to the case's transmission to the prosecutor.

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. 744 din 3 februarie 2006

Prin sentința penală nr. 157 din 17 noiembrie 2005, Curtea de Apel București a dispus scoaterea cauzei de pe rol și trimiterea plângerii lui M.N. la Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel București.

Pentru a hotărî astfel, instanța a reținut că petentul M.N. a formulat plângere împotriva magistratului I.S., pentru infracțiunile de insultă și calomnie prevăzute de art. 205 și 206 C. pen.

Instanța a constatat că nu este legal sesizată în raport de calitatea persoanei față de care s-a formulat plângerea și a făcut aplicarea art. 295 C. proc. pen., raportat la art. 279 alin. (2) lit. c) C. proc. pen.

Împotriva hotărârii menționate a declarat recurs petentul fără să-l motiveze.

Examinând din oficiu cauza potrivit art. 3856 alin. (3) C. proc. pen., Curtea, constată că recursul nu este fondat.

Potrivit art. 279 alin. (2) lit. c) C. proc. pen., în cazul infracțiunilor pentru care acțiunea penală se pune în mișcare la plângerea prealabilă, cum sunt insulta și calomnia, această plângere se adresează organului competent să efectueze urmărirea penală când plângerea este îndreptată contra unui judecător.

Or potrivit art. 209 alin. (3) C. proc. pen., raportat la art. 281 alin. (1) lit. b) C. proc. pen., urmărirea penală se efectuează în acest caz de Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel București așa cum a hotărât instanța de fond.

În baza art. 38515 pct. 1 lit. b) C. proc. pen., Curtea a respins recursul petiționarului și l-a obligat pe acesta la cheltuieli judiciare către stat.