Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sentința nr. 879/2009 AI generated

Jurisdictional transfer of criminal complaint against Minister of Justice for alleged unlawful detention and forgery of arrest warrant

Case Number Sentința nr. 879/2009
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

**Final Operative Outcome:** The High Court of Cassation and Justice (Criminal Division) dismissed the petitioner’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction and referred it to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice for competent resolution. **Dispute and Material Facts:** The case involved a criminal complaint filed against a Minister of Justice for the alleged offenses of forgery and abuse of office, based on the claimant’s assertion that his detention order was forged and pertained to a different individual. **Decisive Legal Basis:** The court relied on Article 222(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that complaints directed to the wrong judicial body be transferred to the competent organ, interpreting Article 29(1)(b) and Article 209(3) of the same Code to determine that the initial prosecution of the alleged offenses falls under the exclusive competence of the specialized prosecutor’s office rather than the court itself.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 2481 C. pen, art. 189 C. pen, Art. 222 alin. (7) C. proc. pen, art. 209 alin. (3) C. proc. pen; Jurisdictional transfer of criminal complaint against Minister of Justice for alleged unlawful detention and forgery of arrest warrant: **Dispute and Material Facts:** The case involved a criminal complaint filed against a Minister of Justice for the alleged offenses of forgery and abuse of office, based on the claimant’s assertion that his detention order was forged and pertained to a different individual. **Decisive Legal Basis:** The court relied on Article 222(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that complaints directed to the wrong judicial body be transferred to the competent organ, interpreting Article 29(1)(b) and Article 209(3) of the same Code to determine that the initial prosecution of the alleged offenses falls under the exclusive competence of the specialized prosecutor’s office rather than the court itself.

Keywords

AI generated
criminal complaint minister of justice resolution of jurisdictional dispute detention for transfer e-justice referral order

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 2481 C. pen
pentru săvârșirea infracțiunilor prevăzute de art. 2481 C. pen.
art. 189 C. pen
26 raportat la art. 189 C. pen.
Art. 222 alin. (7) C. proc. pen
Basis for the court's decision to forward the complaint to the competent prosecutorial organ due to lack of jurisdiction.
art. 209 alin. (3) C. proc. pen
b) și ale art. 209 alin. (3) C. proc. pen., competența de a efectua urmărirea penală sub aspectul infracțiunilor reclamate revine Parchetului de pe lângă înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție.
AI generated
Sentința nr. 1640/2009
Jurisdictional transfer of criminal complaint against prosecutor from court to prosecution office
Sentința nr. 286/2008
Jurisdictional transfer of criminal complaint against prosecutors due to mandatory prosecutorial investigation jurisdiction
Sentința nr. 289/2010
Criminal complaint misdirected to appellate court; referral to prosecutor for jurisdiction over ministerial and judicial misconduct
Sentința nr. 19/2010
Criminal complaint against judicial authorities: jurisdictional referral of forgery charges from Supreme Court to Prosecutor's Office
Sentința nr. 667/2009
Misdirected complaint against judicial personnel; jurisdictional transfer to superior prosecution service under Code of Criminal Procedure

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 222 alin. (7) C. proc. pen.

Basis for the court's decision to forward the complaint to the competent prosecutorial organ due to lack of jurisdiction.

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

Deliberând asupra cauzei, se reține:

Din cererea înregistrată la această instanță la data de 7 martie 2009 numitul C.A. a formulat plângere împotriva ministrului justiției, C.P. pentru săvârșirea infracțiunilor prevăzute de art. 2481 C. pen. și art. 26 raportat la art. 189 C. pen. întrucât s-ar afla încarcerat în Penitenciarul Rahova, în mod nelegal, din moment ce mandatul de arestare emis pe numele său este fals, fiind pentru altă persoană.

Art. 222 alin. (7) C. proc. pen. arată că plângerea greșit îndreptată se trimite organului judiciar competent.

În raport cu dispozițiile art. 29 pct. 1 lit. b) și ale art. 209 alin. (3) C. proc. pen., competența de a efectua urmărirea penală sub aspectul infracțiunilor reclamate revine Parchetului de pe lângă înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție.

Prin urmare, în baza textului normativ indicat, plângerea va fi înaintată organului competent.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

H O T Ă R Ă Ș T E

În baza art. 222 alin. (7) C. proc. pen. trimite plângerea formulată de petiționarul C.A. la Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, spre competentă soluționare.

Cu recurs.

Pronunțată în ședință publică, azi 30 aprilie 2009.