Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 3504/2009 AI generated

Admissibility of appeals against definitive appellate decisions and procedural standing in annulment proceedings

Case Number Decizia nr. 3504/2009
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

**Final Operative Outcome:** The High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed as inadmissible the appeals filed by two convicted defendants and ordered each to pay 400 lei in judicial costs, thereby leaving the prior appellate decision rejecting the annulment claim in force as definitive. **Dispute and Material Facts:** The case involved procedural appeals against a final criminal decision (Decision No. 1015/2009) issued by the Bucharest Court of Appeal, which had previously rejected an annulment request filed by one defendant; the current appeal was filed by both that defendant and a second convicted individual. **Decisive Legal Basis:** The court applied Article 385/15(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to establish inadmissibility, reasoning that the first appellant challenged a definitive decision rendered by a court of appeal (prohibited by procedural law), and the second appellant lacked procedural standing (legal interest) in the specific annulment proceedings initiated solely by the first defendant, with Article 192(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure cited for the cost award.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen, art. 385/15 pct. l lit. a) C. proc. pen; Admissibility of appeals against definitive appellate decisions and procedural standing in annulment proceedings: **Dispute and Material Facts:** The case involved procedural appeals against a final criminal decision (Decision No. 1015/2009) issued by the Bucharest Court of Appeal, which had previously rejected an annulment request filed by one defendant; the current appeal was filed by both that defendant and a second convicted individual. **Decisive Legal Basis:** The court applied Article 385/15(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to establish inadmissibility, reasoning that the first appellant challenged a definitive decision rendered by a court of appeal (prohibited by procedural law), and the second appellant lacked procedural standing (legal interest) in the specific annulment proceedings initiated solely by the first defendant, with Article 192(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure cited for the cost award.

Keywords

AI generated
annulment proceedings standing to appeal procedural interpretation of judgment judicial law code of criminal procedure procedural costs

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen
Basis for ordering the appellants to pay judicial costs.
art. 385/15 pct. l lit. a) C. proc. pen
Main ground for dismissing the appeals as inadmissible due to procedural defects.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 3108/2012
Inadmissibility of appeal against final annulment contestation decision under criminal procedure
Decizia nr. 77/2013
Inadmissibility of appeal against final decision dismissing petition for annulment as not meeting statutory admissibility conditions
Decizia nr. 337/A/2020
Inadmissibility of appeal against final decision rejecting plea for annulment for principial non-admissibility
Decizia nr. 2476/2009
Inadmissibility of appeal against definitive annulment contestation decision
Decizia nr. 1282/2011
Inadmissibility of appeal against decision on motion for annulment based on finality of first-instance ruling

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 385/15 pct. l lit. a) C. proc. pen.

Main ground for dismissing the appeals as inadmissible due to procedural defects.

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

Basis for ordering the appellants to pay judicial costs.

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 recursurilor de față;

În baza lucrărilor din dosar, constată următoarele:

Prin decizia penală nr. 1015 din 9 iulie 2009, Curtea de Apel București, secția penală, a respins ca nefondată contestația în anulare formulată de condamnatul M.G.N. împotriva deciziei penale nr. 447 din 27 martie 2009 pronunțată de Curtea de Apel București, secția I-a penală, ca instanță de recurs.

Împotriva acestei decizii au declarat prezentele recursuri contestatorul condamnat M.G.N. și condamnatul M.I.G.

Motivele de recurs sunt cele menționate în partea introductivă a prezentei hotărâri.

Recursurile sunt inadmisibile pentru motivele ce se vor arăta:

1) contestatorul condamnat M.G.N. a exercitat o cale de atac (recursul) împotriva unei decizii definitive, decizia penală nr. 1015 din 9 iulie 2009 a Curții de Apel București, secția I-a penală, fiind pronunțată de către o instanță de recurs și, deci, fiind definitivă.

2) condamnatul M.I.G. nu a avut nici-o calitate procesuală în dosarul în care a fost soluționată contestația în anulare formulată exclusiv de către contestatorul condamnat M.G.N. (fil. 1-2, dosar instanță de recurs).

În consecință, față de cele constatate, Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție - în temeiul art. 385/15 pct. l lit. a) C. proc. pen. - va respinge ca inadmisibile prezentele recursuri.

Conform art. 192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen., fiecare recurent va fi obligat la plata către stat a cheltuielilor judiciare ocazionate de soluționarea recursurilor.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E

Respinge, ca inadmisibile, recursurile declarate de condamnații M.G.N. și M.I.G. împotriva deciziei penale nr. 1015 din 9 iulie 2009 a Curții de Apel București, secția I penală.

Obligă recurenții condamnați la plata sumei de câte 400 lei cheltuieli judiciare către stat.

Definitivă.

Pronunțată în ședință publică, azi 29 octombrie 2009.