Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 3151/2011 AI generated

Appeal against refusal to open criminal case for judicial abuse declared inadmissible as against a final judgment

Case Number Decizia nr. 3151/2011
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 appellant's appeal as inadmissible, leaving the Court of Appeal's decision on the side of the public prosecutor and state authorities, and ordered the appellant to pay 200 RON in judicial costs. The dispute concerned a criminal complaint for prevarication (abuse of power), where a private individual alleged that a judge committed the offense by failing to use specific evidence submitted by the complainant, leading to a decision by the prosecution not to initiate criminal proceedings which was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal. The appellate court ruled that the lower court's judgment resolving the complaint against the non-initiation of proceedings was final and unchallengeable, a standard reinforced by the dismissal of the cassation appeal. The decisive legal basis for the inadmissibility was Article 3851 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which restricts cassation appeals to non-final judicial decisions, and Article 2781(10) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (as amended by Law no. 202/2010), which expressly designates judgments on complaints against non-initiation decisions as final and definitive, thereby barring any further appeal.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 246 C. pen, art. 3851 C. proc. pen, art. 2781 alin. (10) C. proc. pen, art. 192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen, art. 38515 alin. (1) pct. 1 lit. a), teza a II-a C. proc. pen; Appeal against refusal to open criminal case for judicial abuse declared inadmissible as against a final judgment: The dispute concerned a criminal complaint for prevarication (abuse of power), where a private individual alleged that a judge committed the offense by failing to use specific evidence submitted by the complainant, leading to a decision by the prosecution not to initiate criminal proceedings which was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal. The appellate court ruled that the lower court's judgment resolving the complaint against the non-initiation of proceedings was final and unchallengeable, a standard reinforced by the dismissal of the cassation appeal. The decisive legal basis for the inadmissibility was Article 3851 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which restricts cassation appeals to non-final judicial decisions, and Article 2781(10) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (as amended by Law no. 202/2010), which expressly designates judgments on complaints against non-initiation decisions as final and definitive, thereby barring any further appeal.

Keywords

AI generated
judicial law abuse of power criminal complaint opening of proceedings open procedure private criminal prosecution
AI generated
ICCJ_88431
Inadmissibility of appeal against final decision rejecting complaint against non-initiation of criminal proceedings for judicial abuse in service
ICCJ_88597
Inadmissibility of appeal against final judicial control decision regarding refusal to initiate criminal proceedings
ICCJ_73410
Appeal against judicial refusal to prosecute judges for abuse in service declared inadmissible due to finality of investigation judge's decision
ICCJ_68443
Challenge to non-initiation of criminal prosecution for alleged judicial abuse; inadmissibility of appeal against final judgment dismissing complaint.
ICCJ_110959
Inadmissibility of appeal against final judgment in civil challenge to prosecutor's refusal to prosecute magistrates for abuse of office

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 38515 alin. (1) pct. 1 lit. a), teza a II-a C. proc. pen.

Ground for dismissing the appeal as inadmissible because it was directed against a final judgment.

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

Basis for ordering the appellant to pay judicial costs to the state.

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:

Petentul R.V. a formulat plângere împotriva numitului B.A. sub aspectul săvârșirii infracțiunii prev. de art. 246 C. pen., întrucât acesta în calitate de judecător, nu a folosit probele depuse de acesta în apărare.

Prin rezoluția din 18 ianuarie 2011, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia a dispus neînceperea urmăririi penale, soluție menținută de procurorul ierarhic superior prin rezoluția din 28 ianuarie 2011, în Dosarul nr. 101/II/2/2011.

Împotriva acestor rezoluții petentul a formulat plângere la instanță.

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia prin Sentința penală nr. 35 din 8 martie 2011, analizând actele și lucrările dosarului a stabilit că actele depuse de petent nu sunt în măsură a dovedi acuzația adusă magistratului, acesta motivând soluția pe ansamblul probator administrat în cauză, a dispus respingerea plângerii ca nefondată.

Nemulțumit de soluția pronunțată de instanța de fond, hotărâre definitivă, a formulat recurs, recurs înregistrat la Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, la data de 15 iunie 2011.

Recursul este inadmisibil.

În raport de disp. art. 3851 C. proc. pen., sunt susceptibile de a fi atacate cu recurs, hotărârile judecătorești, sentințe sau decizii, după caz nedefinitive.

Potrivit disp. art. 2781 alin. (10) C. proc. pen., astfel cum au fost modificate prin Legea nr. 202/2010, hotărârea judecătorului, pronunțată potrivit alin. (8) este definitivă.

În consecință, petentul a exercitat calea de atac a recursului împotriva unei hotărâri definitive.

Pentru considerentele expuse, Înalta Curte, în baza art. 38515 alin. (1) pct. 1 lit. a), teza a II-a C. proc. pen., va respinge ca inadmisibil, recursul declarat de petentul R.V. împotriva Sentinței penale nr. 35 din 8 martie 2011 a Curții de Apel Alba Iulia, secția penală.

Totodată, în baza art. 192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen., recurentul va fi obligat la plata cheltuielilor judiciare, conform dispozitivului.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E

Respinge, ca inadmisibil, recursul declarat de petentul R.V. împotriva Sentinței penale nr. 35 din 8 martie 2011 a Curții de Apel Alba Iulia, secția penală.

Obligă recurentul petent la plata sumei de 200 RON, cu titlu de cheltuieli judiciare către stat.

Definitivă.

Pronunțată, în ședință publică, azi 20 septembrie 2011.