Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 2667/2010 AI generated

Tardiness of cassation appeal against preventive detention verification

Case Number Decizia nr. 2667/2010
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 High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the defendant’s appeal as time-barred, leaving in force the Court of Appeal of Ploiești’s order to maintain the preventive detention measure imposed on the accused. The dispute arose from the defendant’s challenge to a June 3, 2010 decision verifying the legality and necessity of his preventive detention, which was initiated by a recusal or appeal filed on June 24, 2010. The court determined that the appeal was inadmissible because the statutory 10-day deadline for lodging a cassation appeal had expired, as the underlying decision was communicated to the defendant on June 7, 2010, and he had noted on that date that he would not appeal. The court relied on Article 385(1) point 1 letter a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to reject the untimely appeal and ordered the appellant to pay 300 lei in judicial fees to the state, with 100 lei advanced from the state fund for the official counsel.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 3853 C. proc. pen, art. 38515 pct. 1 lit. a) C. proc. pen, art. 192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen; Tardiness of cassation appeal against preventive detention verification: The dispute arose from the defendant’s challenge to a June 3, 2010 decision verifying the legality and necessity of his preventive detention, which was initiated by a recusal or appeal filed on June 24, 2010. The court determined that the appeal was inadmissible because the statutory 10-day deadline for lodging a cassation appeal had expired, as the underlying decision was communicated to the defendant on June 7, 2010, and he had noted on that date that he would not appeal. The court relied on Article 385(1) point 1 letter a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to reject the untimely appeal and ordered the appellant to pay 300 lei in judicial fees to the state, with 100 lei advanced from the state fund for the official counsel.

Keywords

AI generated
preventive detention deadline for communication code of criminal procedure stay of proceedings order to pay grounds for cassation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 3853 C. proc. pen
Cum la data de 7 iunie 2010, încheierea prin care i s-a menținut măsura arestării i-a fost comunicată inculpatului pe care a menționat „nu fac recurs”, iar cererea de recurs este din data de 24 iunie 2010, termenul de 10 zile stabilit de legiuitor potrivit art. 3853 C. proc. pen.
art. 38515 pct. 1 lit. a) C. proc. pen
Legal basis for dismissing the appeal as untimely, which constitutes the main ground for the verdict.
art. 192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen
Procedural rule applied in the dispositive to determine the obligation to pay judicial costs.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 2905/2007
Inadmissibility of appeal against preventive detention decision rendered during cassation proceedings
Decizia nr. 65/2009
Inadmissibility of cassation appeal against appellate decision maintaining preventive detention
Decizia nr. 140/2004
Timeliness of appeal against preventive detention: strict 24-hour deadline for present accused
Decizia nr. 3848/2004
Preventive detention validity review ex officio on un-motivated appeal
Decizia nr. 531/2003
Inadmissibility of cassation appeal against preventive detention extension due to lack of legal remedy for appellate court orders

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Legal basis for dismissing the appeal as untimely, which constitutes the main ground for the verdict.

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

Procedural rule applied in the dispositive to determine the obligation 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 recursului de față;

În baza lucrărilor din dosar, constată următoarele:

Prin încheierea din 3 iunie 2010 Curtea de Apel Ploiești, secția penală și pentru cauze cu minori și de familie, verificând conform art. 3002 raportat la art. 160b alin. (1) și (3) C. proc. pen., legalitatea și temeinicia măsurii arestării preventive a inculpatului M.D. - fiul lui H. și E. - în prezent aflat în Penitenciarul Mărgineni, județul Dâmbovița a dispus menținerea acestei măsuri după o analiză a temeiurilor ce au stat la baza luării acestei măsuri.

La data de 24 iunie 2010 inculpatul a formulat cerere de recurs împotriva încheierii sus-menționate cerere înregistrată sub nr. 7021/ R la Dosarul nr. 5517/120/2008.

Cum la data de 7 iunie 2010, încheierea prin care i s-a menținut măsura arestării i-a fost comunicată inculpatului pe care a menționat „nu fac recurs”, iar cererea de recurs este din data de 24 iunie 2010, termenul de 10 zile stabilit de legiuitor potrivit art. 3853 C. proc. pen. este depășit, recursul inculpatului va fi respins, ca tardiv, în temeiul art. 38515 pct. 1 lit. a) C. proc. pen.

Văzând și dispozițiile art. 192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen.;

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E

Respinge, ca tardiv, recursul declarat de inculpatul M.D. împotriva încheierii din 3 iunie 2010 a Curții de Apel Ploiești, secția penală și pentru cauze cu minori și de familie, pronunțată în Dosarul nr. 5517/120/2008.

Obligă recurentul inculpat la plata sumei de 300 lei, cu titlu de cheltuieli judiciare către stat, din care suma de 100 lei, reprezentând onorariul apărătorului desemnat din oficiu, se va avansa din fondul M.J.

Definitivă.