Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 3404/2003 AI generated

Jurisdiction for suspension of prison term assigned to court where detainee is held at filing; negative conflict resolved.

Case Number Decizia nr. 3404/2003
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Court Costs No costs imposed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Romanian High Court of Cassation and Justice resolved a negative jurisdictional conflict by assigning jurisdiction to the Giurgiu Court, which is therefore competent to hear the convicted person’s request for suspension of execution of a 3-year prison sentence; the Craiova Court’s declination is overridden and its earlier judgment remains otherwise unaffected. The dispute arose when the Craiova Court declined jurisdiction in favor of the Giurgiu Court (where the detainee was held at the time of filing), and Giurgiu in turn declined back to Craiova, triggering the conflict resolution under Article 43 of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court ruled that, pursuant to Article 456 of the same Code, jurisdiction over a request to suspend execution of punishment lies with the court in whose territorial jurisdiction the detention facility is located at the time the request is filed, namely the Giurgiu Court; it also ordered the court-appointed defense fee of 200,000 lei to be paid from the Ministry of Justice’s fund under Article 192(3).

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 43 C. proc. pen, art. 456 C. proc. pen, art. 192 alin. (3) C. proc. pen; Jurisdiction for suspension of prison term assigned to court where detainee is held at filing; negative conflict resolved: The dispute arose when the Craiova Court declined jurisdiction in favor of the Giurgiu Court (where the detainee was held at the time of filing), and Giurgiu in turn declined back to Craiova, triggering the conflict resolution under Article 43 of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court ruled that, pursuant to Article 456 of the same Code, jurisdiction over a request to suspend execution of punishment lies with the court in whose territorial jurisdiction the detention facility is located at the time the request is filed, namely the Giurgiu Court; it also ordered the court-appointed defense fee of 200,000 lei to be paid from the Ministry of Justice’s fund under Article 192(3).

Keywords

AI generated
suspension of prison sentence negative conflict of jurisdiction territorial jurisdiction code of criminal procedure concurrence of suspension grounds detention pending extradition

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 43 C. proc. pen
Examinând acest conflict negativ de competență, potrivit art. 43 C.
art. 456 C. proc. pen
Basis for establishing that the Giurgiu court, in whose territorial jurisdiction the place of detention was located, is the competent court to resolve the request for suspension of execution of the sentence.
art. 192 alin. (3) C. proc. pen
Used to rule that the lawyer's fee for ex officio defense is to be paid from the Ministry of Justice fund.
AI generated
Încheierea nr. 182/2019
Negative conflict of jurisdiction over suspension of prison sentence resolved by assigning competence to the detention location court
Încheierea nr. 67/2021
Negative jurisdictional conflict resolved: Giurgiu Tribunal to hear convict's sentence suspension request
Decizia nr. 2751/2004
Convicted person's suspension request assigned to court at place of detention when filed; jurisdictional conflict resolved in favor of Pitești Court.
Încheierea nr. 431/2023
Negative conflict of jurisdiction over prisoner's medical suspension of sentence resolved by assigning competence to Iași Court of Appeal based on detention location at filing
Încheierea nr. 507/2013
Negative jurisdictional conflict resolved in favor of Timișoara Court for prisoner's sentence suspension request.

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 456 C. proc. pen.

Basis for establishing that the Giurgiu court, in whose territorial jurisdiction the place of detention was located, is the competent court to resolve the request for suspension of execution of the sentence.

Art. 192 alin. (3) C. proc. pen.

Used to rule that the lawyer's fee for ex officio defense is to be paid from the Ministry of Justice fund.

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 conflictului negativ de competență de față,

Examinând actele dosarului constată următoarele:

Prin sentința penală nr. 4702 din 22 octombrie 2002, Judecătoria Craiova, județul Dolj, și-a declinat competența de soluționare a cererii formulată de condamnatul Ș.I.I., (având ca obiect întreruperea executării pedepsei de 3 ani închisoare, aplicată de Judecătoria Craiova prin sentința penală nr. 2461/2001), în favoarea Judecătoriei Giurgiu, instanță în a cărei rază teritorială se afla locul de deținere al condamnatului, la data formulării cererii.

Prin sentința penală nr. 636 din 24 martie 2003, Judecătoria Giurgiu a declinat competența de soluționare a aceleiași cereri în favoarea Judecătoriei Craiova și, constatând ivit conflictul negativ de competență, a dispus trimiterea dosarului nr. 192/2003 la Curtea Supremă de Justiție, în vederea soluționării acestui conflict.

Examinând acest conflict negativ de competență, potrivit art. 43 C. proc. pen., Curtea urmează a stabili competența de soluționare a cererii de întrerupere a executării pedepsei formulată de Ș.I.I., în favoarea Judecătoriei Giurgiu în a cărei rază teritorială se afla locul de deținere al condamnatului, la data formulării cererii, conform art. 456 C. proc. pen.

Conform art. 192 alin. (3) C. proc. pen., onorariul de avocat pentru apărarea din oficiu a condamnatului, în sumă de 200.000 lei, se va plăti din fondul Ministerului Justiției.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE

Stabilește că, Judecătoria Giurgiu este competentă să judece cauza privind pe inculpatul Ș.I.I.

Onorariul de avocat în sumă de 200.000 lei pentru apărarea din oficiu a inculpatului, se va plăti din fondul Ministerului Justiției.

Pronunțată în ședință publică, azi 31 iulie 2003.