Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
ICCJ_86899 KI-generiert

Scope of the most favorable penal law: global application versus per-institution selection

Geschäftsnummer ICCJ_86899
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Rumänien (RO)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Nichteintreten / Unzulässig (Inadmissible)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the referral for an advance decision as inadmissible, thereby upholding the procedural status quo and leaving the lower court's handling of the case without new guiding interpretive rules. The dispute originated from the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, which sought clarification on whether the application of the more favorable penal law under Article 5 of the Penal Code requires the global application of a single legislative text to the entire criminal case or the selective application of the most favorable provisions for each distinct legal institution (such as the continued offense, concurrence of offenses, and statutes of limitation). The decisive legal basis was the procedural admissibility framework of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, specifically Article 477(3), which governed the validity of the referral and the requirement for the final decision to be published in the Official Monitor to become binding.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

art. 5 C.pen, art. 41 alin. (2) C.pen, art. 35 alin.(1) C.pen, art. 33 C.pen, art. 38 C.pen, art. 124 C.pen; Scope of the most favorable penal law: global application versus per-institution selection: The dispute originated from the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, which sought clarification on whether the application of the more favorable penal law under Article 5 of the Penal Code requires the global application of a single legislative text to the entire criminal case or the selective application of the most favorable provisions for each distinct legal institution (such as the continued offense, concurrence of offenses, and statutes of limitation). The decisive legal basis was the procedural admissibility framework of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, specifically Article 477(3), which governed the validity of the referral and the requirement for the final decision to be published in the Official Monitor to become binding.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Strafprozessordnung Verfahrensbeschränkungen Einladungsverfahren Vorschriften über die Organe Rahmenbeschluss Verjährungsfristen

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
art. 5 C.pen
art. 41 alin. (2) C.pen
art. 35 alin.(1) C.pen
1969, art. 35 alin.(1) C.pen.), concursul de infracţiuni (art.
art. 33 C.pen
35 alin.(1) C.pen.), concursul de infracţiuni (art. 33 C.pen.
art. 38 C.pen
1969, art. 38 C.pen.), prescripţia şi prescripţia specială a răspunderii penale (art.
art. 124 C.pen
121 - 122, art. 124 C.pen.
art. 155 alin. (4) C.pen
153 -154, art. 155 alin. (4) C.pen.).
art. 477 alin 3 din Codul de procedură penală
Procedural basis cited for the mandatory effect of the decision upon its publication in the Official Monitor.
KI-generiert
ICCJ_86933
Retrospective application of the more favorable criminal law for continued offenses: global assessment of the entire code versus autonomous institution approach
ICCJ_86958
Determining the Most Favorable Penal Law Under Article 5: Global Assessment Versus Institution-by-Institution Application During Codic Transitions
ICCJ_87086
Referral inadmissible for lack of pertinence and existing precedent on global application of more favorable criminal law in concurrence of offenses.
ICCJ_87088
Inadmissible preliminary referral on renewed favorable criminal law application after prior rejection.
ICCJ_86896
Application of favorable criminal law post-final judgment: excluding specific aggravating circumstances from new statutory maximum comparison

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
art. 477 alin 3 din Codul de procedură penală

Procedural basis cited for the mandatory effect of the decision upon its publication in the Official Monitor.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

ROMÂNIA

Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie

Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept în materie penală

Minuta deciziei nr. 9 Dosar nr. 7/1/2014/HP/P

IN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Bucureşti - Secţia a II a penală în dosarul nr. 2390/2/2013, pentru a se pronunţa o hotărâre prealabilă în sensul de a stabili dacă, în aplicarea art. 5 C.pen., determinarea legii penale mai favorabile se face prin alegerea uneia dintre legile penale succesive, ce se va aplica global întregului litigiu penal, în funcţie de diferite criterii (cum ar fi limite de pedeapsă, tratament sancţionator, aplicat pluralităţii de infracţiuni, prescripţie etc), ori prin alegerea pentru fiecare aşa-numită - instituţie juridică autonomă a dispoziţiei legale mai favorabile dintre legile penale succesive: spre exemplu, pentru infracţiunea tip dispoziţia mai favorabilă, pentru tratamentul aplicat pluralităţii de infracţiuni dispoziţia mai favorabilă etc.) iar, în măsura în care se stabileşte că legea penală mai favorabilă se determină folosind criteriul instituţiilor juridice autonome, dacă reprezintă instituţii de drept penal autonome în raport de infracţiunea tip forma continuată a infracţiunii (art. 41 alin. (2) C.pen. 1969, art. 35 alin.(1) C.pen.), concursul de infracţiuni (art. 33 C.pen. 1969, art. 38 C.pen.), prescripţia şi prescripţia specială a răspunderii penale (art. 121 - 122, art. 124 C.pen. 1969 forma în vigoare la data săvârşirii faptelor, art. 153 -154, art. 155 alin. (4) C.pen.).

Obligatorie.de la data publicării în Monitorul Oficial al României, Partea 1, potrivit art.477 alin3:din Codul de procedură penală.

Pronunţată, în şedinţă publică, astăzi 2 iunie 2014.