Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sentința nr. 1545/2012 AI generated

Competence for execution appeals: remand to executing court under Art. 460, 461 CCP

Case Number Sentința nr. 1545/2012
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Court Costs Borne by public authority
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the prisoner's contention as incompetent and ordered the case remanded to the Brăila Court of Appeal for competent resolution, with judicial costs borne by the State. The dispute involved a prisoner serving a seven-year imprisonment sentence who filed an appeal against execution challenging the denial of his earlier appeal against the final sentence, alleging the imposed penalty was excessive; the Court of Appeal had previously rejected that appeal as unfounded. The decisive legal basis for the remand was Article 461 and Article 460 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which vests the competence to hear execution appeals in the executing court (the Court of Appeal whose decision became final), rather than the High Court.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 192 alin. (3) C. proc. pen; Competence for execution appeals: remand to executing court under Art. 460, 461 CCP: The dispute involved a prisoner serving a seven-year imprisonment sentence who filed an appeal against execution challenging the denial of his earlier appeal against the final sentence, alleging the imposed penalty was excessive; the Court of Appeal had previously rejected that appeal as unfounded. The decisive legal basis for the remand was Article 461 and Article 460 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which vests the competence to hear execution appeals in the executing court (the Court of Appeal whose decision became final), rather than the High Court.

Keywords

AI generated
code of criminal procedure appealability of remand decision prisoner lack of jurisdiction stay of execution of sentence e-justice

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 192 alin. (3) C. proc. pen
Văzând și dispozițiile art. 192 alin. (3) C. proc. pen.,
AI generated
Sentința nr. 887/2013
Competence for challenge to execution against first-instance High Court judgment: exclusive jurisdiction of Bucharest Court of Appeal under strict interpretation of Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 418(2) and 461(d)
Încheierea nr. 206/2020
Jurisdictional conflict over retrial appeal following merger of penalties: competency lies with court of appeal due to ordinary appeal route for execution proceedings under Art. 459(7) and 597(7) CCP
Încheierea nr. 1558/2012
Conflict of jurisdiction for execution appeals under Article 461(1)(c) CCP: competence of the rendering court versus the court at the place of detention.
Decizia nr. 3631/2005
Competent appellate jurisdiction for non-contentious execution authorization: remand to tribunal when first-instance decision issued by single judge
Decizia nr. 917/2021
Competence for execution objection to foreign sentence: district court vs. court of appeal jurisdiction

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 cauzei de față, reține următoarele:

Prin cererea înregistrată pe rolul ÎCCJ la data de 09 octombrie 2012, contestatorul condamnat Ț.B., aflat în executarea unei pedepse privative de libertate de 7 ani închisoare, aplicată prin Sentința penală nr. 2533 a Tribunalului Brăila, a formulat contestație la executare împotriva Deciziei penale nr. 3092 din 02 octombrie 2012, prin care a fost respins, ca nefondat, recursul promovat de contestator.

Contestația nu a fost motivată în scris, oral precizându-se că pedeapsa aplicată este prea mare.

Cum, în regulă generală, potrivit art. 461, 460, C. proc. pen., competența de soluționare a contestațiilor la executare aparține instanței de executare, care este, în speță, Tribunalul Brăila, instanță a cărei hotărâre a rămas definitivă prin respingerea recursului, Înalta Curte urmează a-i trimite astfel cauza, spre competentă soluționare.

Văzând și dispozițiile art. 192 alin. (3) C. proc. pen.,

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

H O T Ă R Ă Ș T E

Trimite cauza spre competentă soluționare Tribunalului Brăila.

Cheltuielile judiciare rămân în sarcina statului.

Onorariul avocatului din oficiu în sumă de 100 RON se va plăti din fondul Ministerului Justiției.

Definitivă.

Pronunțată în ședință publică, azi 20 noiembrie 2012.

Procesat de GGC - N