Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 3192/2010 AI generated

Third-layer appellate review in criminal revision proceedings barred as inadmissible "recourse to the recourse to the recourse"

Case Number Decizia nr. 3192/2010
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 as inadmissible the appeal filed by the reviser against the Timișoara Court of Appeal’s decision, thereby upholding the appellate court’s prior rejection of the "recourse to the recourse to the recourse" and ordering the appellant to pay 100 RON in judicial costs. The dispute concerned a procedural challenge to a final criminal sentence, where the appellant attempted to file a third layer of appellate review following the dismissal of a late appeal by the Timiș Tribunal and the subsequent rejection of that dismissal by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that it constituted an unauthorized "recourse to the recourse." Relying on Article 3851 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which prohibits appealing decisions issued by a court of appeal in the same line of appeal, and Article 407, which excludes "recourse to the recourse to the recourse" even in the context of the extraordinary remedy of revision, the court determined that the procedural vehicle was legally non-existent, rendering the final decision definitive.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 3851 C. proc. pen, art. 407 C. proc. pen, art. 38515 pct. 1 lit. a) C. proc. pen, art. 192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen; Third-layer appellate review in criminal revision proceedings barred as inadmissible "recourse to the recourse to the recourse": The dispute concerned a procedural challenge to a final criminal sentence, where the appellant attempted to file a third layer of appellate review following the dismissal of a late appeal by the Timiș Tribunal and the subsequent rejection of that dismissal by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that it constituted an unauthorized "recourse to the recourse." Relying on Article 3851 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which prohibits appealing decisions issued by a court of appeal in the same line of appeal, and Article 407, which excludes "recourse to the recourse to the recourse" even in the context of the extraordinary remedy of revision, the court determined that the procedural vehicle was legally non-existent, rendering the final decision definitive.

Keywords

AI generated
criminal revision proceedings procedural review grounds for cassation appealability of remand decision extraordinary revision forfeiture of recourse rights
AI generated
ICCJ_78842
Inadmissibility of a "recourse to recourse" against a final appellate decision in a criminal revision procedure
ICCJ_68573
Inadmissibility of appeal against criminal revision decision due to statutory exclusion of recourse routes for revision instances
ICCJ_172250
Recourse against a final decision dismissing a revision petition: inadmissibility of appeals against non-appealable judgments under the criminal procedure code
ICCJ_121055
Inadmissibility of recours in criminal revision proceedings due to exhaustion of ordinary appeal routes
ICCJ_180852
Serial appeal against final review ruling struck out as inadmissible with costs.

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Procedural basis explicitly cited to justify dismissing the appeal as inadmissible.

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 recursului, se reține:

Prin Decizia penală nr. 479/R din 29 aprilie 2010, Curtea de Apel Timișoara, secția penală, a respins ca inadmisibil recursul revizuentului A.L. împotriva Deciziei penale nr. 155/R din 26 februarie 2010 a Tribunalului Timiș, motivat de aspectul că a uzat de o cale de atac ordinară neprevăzută de lege, fiind un recurs la recurs.

Revizuentul a mers și mai departe în demersul său judiciar și a promovat recurs la recurs la recurs, contrar tuturor normelor procesual penale.

Astfel, prin Decizia penală nr. 155/R din 26 februarie 2010, Tribunalul Timiș a respins ca nefondat recursul peste termen declarat de revizuentul A.L. împotriva Sentinței penale nr. 2307 din 7 decembrie 2009 a Judecătoriei Timișoara, care era definitivă.

Potrivit dispozițiilor art. 3851 C. proc. pen., nu pot fi atacate cu recurs deciziile pronunțate de instanța de recurs în calea respectivă de atac.

Chiar dacă în speță este în discuție calea extraordinară de atac a revizuirii, dispozițiile art. 407 C. proc. pen. nu permit utilizarea recursului la recurs la recurs.

Față de inadmisibilitatea recursului, în temeiul dispozițiilor art. 38515 pct. 1 lit. a) C. proc. pen., acesta va fi respins ca atare.

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

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E

Respinge, ca inadmisibil, recursul declarat de revizuentul A.L. împotriva Deciziei penale nr. 479/R din 29 aprilie 2010 a Curții de Apel Timișoara, secția penală.

Obligă recurentul revizuent la plata sumei de 100 RON cheltuieli judiciare către stat.

Definitivă.

Pronunțată în ședință publică, azi 16 septembrie 2010.