Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 595/2012 AI generated

Criminal appeal admissibility: Inadmissibility of further appeal against final Court of Appeal decision under Code of Criminal Procedure

Case Number Decizia nr. 595/2012
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 defendant against a penal decision, thereby leaving the Court of Appeal’s prior ruling, which had previously dismissed the defendant’s appeal against the first-instance conviction, in force; the defendant was also ordered to pay 100 lei in state judicial costs. The dispute concerned the procedural admissibility of an appeal in a criminal matter, where the defendant attempted to challenge a final decision of the Court of Appeal that had already reviewed the case on the merits. The court’s decision relied on the procedural doctrine that decisions of Courts of Appeal, acting as instances of appeal, are not subject to further appeal to the High Court under Article 3851(1)(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, leading to the rejection of the challenge under Article 38515(1)(a).

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 3851 lit. e) C. proc. pen, art. 192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen, art. 38515 păct.1 lit. a) C. proc. pen; Criminal appeal admissibility: Inadmissibility of further appeal against final Court of Appeal decision under Code of Criminal Procedure: The dispute concerned the procedural admissibility of an appeal in a criminal matter, where the defendant attempted to challenge a final decision of the Court of Appeal that had already reviewed the case on the merits. The court’s decision relied on the procedural doctrine that decisions of Courts of Appeal, acting as instances of appeal, are not subject to further appeal to the High Court under Article 3851(1)(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, leading to the rejection of the challenge under Article 38515(1)(a).

Keywords

AI generated
code of criminal procedure judicial review appealability of remand decision procedural rights cassation review matter in dispute

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 3851 lit. e) C. proc. pen
art. 3851 lit. e) C. proc. pen.
art. 192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen
Applied in the dispositive to impose judicial costs on the recurrent.
art. 38515 păct.1 lit. a) C. proc. pen
Basis for dismissing the appeal as inadmissible because the Court of Appeal's decision was final and not subject to further appeal under the specified circumstances.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 160/2013
Criminal appeal inadmissible due to absence of appealability against final appellate decision
Decizia nr. 1024/2009
Admissibility of appeal against final penal decision under exhaustive list of Art. 385^1 Code of Criminal Procedure
Decizia nr. 135/2021
Inadmissibility of appeal against definitive penal decision under legality of appellate routes and Article 4251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Decizia nr. 1925/2009
Inadmissibility of second cassation appeal against final Court of Appeal decision under Code of Criminal Procedure
Decizia nr. 2139/2013
Inadmissibility of appeal against appellate court decision under Code of Criminal Procedure

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Basis for dismissing the appeal as inadmissible because the Court of Appeal's decision was final and not subject to further appeal under the specified circumstances.

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

Applied in the dispositive to impose judicial costs on the recurrent.

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 decizia penală nr. 1348 din 8 septembrie 2011, Curtea de Apel Craiova – Secția penală și pentru cauze cu minori, a respins ca nefondat, recursul declarat de inculpatul I.V. împotriva sentinței penale nr. 15 din 2 martie 2011 pronunțată de Judecătoria Baia de Aramă.

A obligat recurentul la plata sumei de 15 lei cheltuieli judiciare statului.

Împotriva acestei decizii a declarat recurs inculpatul I.V.

Analizând actele și lucrările dosarului Înalta Curte reține că recursul declarat de inculpat este inadmisibil, urmând a-l respinge ca atare, pentru următoarele considerente:

Potrivit disp. art. 3851 lit. e) C. proc. pen. pot fi atacate cu recurs deciziile pronunțate, ca instanțe de apel, de curți de apel și Curtea Militară de Apel.

Rezultă din actele dosarului că inculpatul a beneficiat de calea de atac a recursului, Curtea de Apel Craiova fiind instanța de recurs care s-a pronunțat asupra acestei căi de atac prin decizia penală nr. 1348 din 8 septembrie 2011, aceasta fiind definitivă.

Față de aceste Înalta Curte, urmează ca în baza art. 38515 păct.1 lit. a) C. proc. pen., să respingă ca inadmisibil recursul declarat de inculpat.

Văzând și disp. 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 inculpatul I.V. împotriva deciziei penale nr. 1348 din 8 septembrie 2011 a Curții de Apel Craiova, Secția Penală și pentru Cauze cu Minori.

Obligă recurentul inculpat la plata sumei de 100 lei cu titlu de cheltuieli judiciare către stat.

Definitivă.

Pronunțată în ședință publică, azi 24 februarie 2012.