Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 906/2006 AI generated

Inadmissibility of appeal against preventive detention order issued by appellate court

Case Number Decizia nr. 906/2006
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed as inadmissible the appeal filed by the defendant against the Court of Appeal's decision to maintain his preventive detention. The dispute concerned the procedural admissibility of an appeal against a ruling issued by a second-instance court during the pending appeal on the merits; the defendant had challenged the Court of Appeal's February 2006 decision to keep him in preventive detention, which was rendered after his original appeal against the first-instance conviction was filed. Relying on Article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court held that only preventive detention rulings issued by courts of first instance or on appeal (second instance) are subject to a specific separate appeal within 24 hours; because the challenged ruling was issued by the Court of Appeal, which acts as a court of appeal for such matters in the context of the pending case, no further "appeal on appeal" is permissible. Consequently, the court applied Articles 38515(1)(a) and 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to reject the admissibility of the motion, leaving the preventive detention order in force.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 160b C. proc. pen, art. 141 C. proc. pen, art. 38515 pct. 1 lit. a) C. proc. pen, art. 192 C. proc. pen; Inadmissibility of appeal against preventive detention order issued by appellate court: The dispute concerned the procedural admissibility of an appeal against a ruling issued by a second-instance court during the pending appeal on the merits; the defendant had challenged the Court of Appeal's February 2006 decision to keep him in preventive detention, which was rendered after his original appeal against the first-instance conviction was filed. Relying on Article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court held that only preventive detention rulings issued by courts of first instance or on appeal (second instance) are subject to a specific separate appeal within 24 hours; because the challenged ruling was issued by the Court of Appeal, which acts as a court of appeal for such matters in the context of the pending case, no further "appeal on appeal" is permissible. Consequently, the court applied Articles 38515(1)(a) and 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to reject the admissibility of the motion, leaving the preventive detention order in force.

Keywords

AI generated
preventive detention code of criminal procedure appealability of remand decision procedural issues judicial review matter in dispute

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 160b C. proc. pen
521/ A din 7 decembrie 2005 a Tribunalului Neamț, s-a dispus în baza art. 160b C. proc. pen., menținerea stării de arest preventiv, a acestuia respectiv prin încheierea ședinței publice din 2 februarie 2006 a Curții de Apel Bacău.
art. 141 C. proc. pen
Deci, văzând că încheierea atacată, din 2 februarie 2006, a Curții de Apel Bacău, a fost dată de o instanță de recurs, dispozițiile textului sus indicat, respectiv art. 141 C. proc. pen., nu pot fi aplicate, inexistând recurs la recurs, după legea procesual penală în vigoare.
art. 38515 pct. 1 lit. a) C. proc. pen
Main ground for dismissing the appeal as inadmissible.
art. 192 C. proc. pen
Procedural rule regarding the effects of rejecting the appeal.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 3309/2009
Inadmissibility of appeal against preventive detention order issued during appellate proceedings
Decizia nr. 1284/2006
Inadmissibility of separate appeal against appellate court's order maintaining preventive detention
Decizia nr. 766/2007
Inadmissibility of cassation appeal against preventive detention decision issued during appellate proceedings
Decizia nr. 3492/2010
Inadmissibility of appeal against interim ruling on preventive detention issued during appellate proceedings
Decizia nr. 4124/2010
Admissibility of cassation appeal against appellate court's preventive detention ruling

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Main ground for dismissing the appeal as inadmissible.

art. 192 C. proc. pen.

Procedural rule regarding the effects of rejecting the appeal.

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. 906 din 10 februarie 2006

Pe timpul soluționării recursului declarat de inculpatul N.G.C., împotriva deciziei penale nr. 521/ A din 7 decembrie 2005 a Tribunalului Neamț, s-a dispus în baza art. 160b C. proc. pen., menținerea stării de arest preventiv, a acestuia respectiv prin încheierea ședinței publice din 2 februarie 2006 a Curții de Apel Bacău.

Inculpatul nemulțumit, a declarat recurs împotriva acestei dispoziții luată împotriva sa în ședința publică din 2 februarie 2006.

Recursul este inadmisibil.

Examinându-se actele dosarului precum și încheierea atacată în raport de prevederile art. 141 C. proc. pen., Curtea reține că, doar „încheierile date în primă instanță și în apel și prin care se dispune luarea, revocarea, înlocuirea, încetarea sau menținerea unei măsuri preventive, pot fi atacate separat cu recurs în 24 de ore”.

Deci, văzând că încheierea atacată, din 2 februarie 2006, a Curții de Apel Bacău, a fost dată de o instanță de recurs, dispozițiile textului sus indicat, respectiv art. 141 C. proc. pen., nu pot fi aplicate, inexistând recurs la recurs, după legea procesual penală în vigoare.

În consecință, recursul declarat urmează a fi respins, ca inadmisibil, în baza art. 38515 pct. 1 lit. a) C. proc. pen.

Au fost aplicate și prevederile art. 192 C. proc. pen.