Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 524/2006 AI generated

Recusal refusal upheld; appeal against non-appealable recusal order inadmissible, costs imposed.

Case Number Decizia nr. 524/2006
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 court (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Criminal Section) dismissed the petitioner's appeal as inadmissible and ordered the petitioner to pay 60 RON in state costs; the underlying ruling—the lower court's refusal of the petitioner's request to recuse all judges of the Tribunal—remains final and in force. The petitioner had challenged a lower court order rejecting his recusal request for failure to specify a concrete ground of incompatibility for each judge. The decisive legal basis is that, under Article 52(7) of the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code, as amended by Government Emergency Ordinance No. 55/2004, an order denying a recusal request cannot be separately appealed, rendering the appeal inadmissible.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 52 alin. (2) C. proc. pen, art. 52 alin. (7) C. proc. pen; Recusal refusal upheld; appeal against non-appealable recusal order inadmissible, costs imposed: The petitioner had challenged a lower court order rejecting his recusal request for failure to specify a concrete ground of incompatibility for each judge. The decisive legal basis is that, under Article 52(7) of the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code, as amended by Government Emergency Ordinance No. 55/2004, an order denying a recusal request cannot be separately appealed, rendering the appeal inadmissible.

Keywords

AI generated
procedural costs motion for recusal grounds for cassation code of criminal procedure appealable interlocutory decision order to pay

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 52 alin. (2) C. proc. pen
80/ CC/F din 20 decembrie 2005, Curtea de Apel Pitești, secția penală, a respins cererea petentului M.I., prin care a solicitat recuzarea tuturor judecătorilor Tribunalului Argeș, reținând că acesta nu a indicat concret cazul de incompatibilitate pentru fiecare judecător, așa cum prevede art. 52 alin.
art. 52 alin. (7) C. proc. pen
The Court based its decision to dismiss the appeal as inadmissible on this provision, which states that the interlocutory order rejecting a recusal request cannot be appealed separately.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 250/A/2020
Appeal against recusal denial inadmissible; judicial costs imposed on appellant
Încheierea nr. 388/2025
Recusal ruling non-appealable; challenge against it inadmissible, costs imposed.
Decizia nr. 144/2020
Appeal against final recusal ruling dismissed as inadmissible with costs.
Decizia nr. 1032/2009
Recusal order appeal inadmissible; separate appeal barred after repeal, costs awarded.
Decizia nr. 388/2020
Inadmissibility of appeal against judicial recusal order under non-appealable interlocutory rulings

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 52 alin. (7) C. proc. pen.

The Court based its decision to dismiss the appeal as inadmissible on this provision, which states that the interlocutory order rejecting a recusal request cannot be appealed separately.

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 încheierea nr. 80/ CC/F din 20 decembrie 2005, Curtea de Apel Pitești, secția penală, a respins cererea petentului M.I., prin care a solicitat recuzarea tuturor judecătorilor Tribunalului Argeș, reținând că acesta nu a indicat concret cazul de incompatibilitate pentru fiecare judecător, așa cum prevede art. 52 alin. (2) C. proc. pen.

Recursul declarat de petent este inadmisibil.

Potrivit modificărilor intervenite asupra textului art. 52 alin. (7) C. proc. pen., prin O.U.G. nr. 55/2004, încheierea prin care s-a respins cererea de recuzare nu poate fi atacată separat cu recurs.

Așa fiind, recursul petentului urmează a fi respins, ca inadmisibil, încheierea atacată fiind definitivă.

Petentul va fi obligat la cheltuieli judiciare către stat.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E

Respinge, ca inadmisibil, recursul declarat de petiționarul M.I. împotriva încheierii nr. 80/CC/F/2005 din 20 decembrie 2005 a Curții de Apel Pitești, secția penală.

Obligă pe recurent la plata cheltuielilor judiciare către stat, în sumă de 60 RON (600.000 lei).

Definitivă.

Pronunțată în ședință publică, azi 26 ianuarie 2006.