Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_181019 AI generated

Jurisdiction for abuse of service offenses with damage under EUR 200,000 threshold

Case Number ICCJ_181019
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ), in a decision binding all courts, admitted the appeal filed by the Chief Prosecutor to establish a uniform interpretation of the law. The dispute concerned the institutional jurisdiction for investigating the crime of abuse of office under Article 132 of Law No. 78/2000 in conjunction with Article 297 of the Penal Code, specifically whether such cases with material damage not exceeding the equivalent of EUR 200,000 fell under the specialized anticorruption department or the non-specialized prosecutor's office. Relying on Article 13(1)(a) of Emergency Government Ordinance No. 43/2002, the Court ruled that the specialized jurisdiction of the National Anticorruption Directorate does not apply to this specific offense if the perpetrator's status does not trigger the provisions of Article 13(1)(b) of the same Ordinance; consequently, such cases are within the competence of the non-specialized prosecutor's office, and the threshold regarding the value of the sum or object mentioned in the second sentence of Article 13(1)(a) is inapplicable to abuse of office charges.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 132 din Legea nr. 78/2000, art. 474 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură penală; Jurisdiction for abuse of service offenses with damage under EUR 200,000 threshold: The dispute concerned the institutional jurisdiction for investigating the crime of abuse of office under Article 132 of Law No. 78/2000 in conjunction with Article 297 of the Penal Code, specifically whether such cases with material damage not exceeding the equivalent of EUR 200,000 fell under the specialized anticorruption department or the non-specialized prosecutor's office. Relying on Article 13(1)(a) of Emergency Government Ordinance No. 43/2002, the Court ruled that the specialized jurisdiction of the National Anticorruption Directorate does not apply to this specific offense if the perpetrator's status does not trigger the provisions of Article 13(1)(b) of the same Ordinance; consequently, such cases are within the competence of the non-specialized prosecutor's office, and the threshold regarding the value of the sum or object mentioned in the second sentence of Article 13(1)(a) is inapplicable to abuse of office charges.

Keywords

AI generated
e-justice abuse of official authority grounds of jurisdiction interpretation of the law criminal damage value in dispute

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 132 din Legea nr. 78/2000
43/2002, infracţiunea de abuz în serviciu prevăzută în art. 132 din Legea nr. 78/2000 raportat la art.
art. 474 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură penală
Establishes the binding nature of the decision on all judicial and other bodies, applied in the dispositive to mandate the uniform interpretation.
AI generated
ICCJ_171879
Jurisdiction of National Anticorruption Directorate for abuse in service based on undue benefit threshold
ICCJ_185481
Jurisdictional threshold for abuse in office: Applicability of the "object of corruption crime" value criterion vs. material damage in determining DNA competence
ICCJ_171950
Jurisdiction for abuse of office: DNA competence requires damage over EUR 1,000,000 or specific corruption law qualification
Decizia nr. 461/RC/2017
Abuse of service instigation: scope of service duties under O.U.G. 26/2012 and Constitutional Court Decision 405/2016 for criminal liability.
Decizia nr. 605/2008
Criminal abuse of office: prosecutor discretion and abuse of service limits in property dispute

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 474 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură penală

Establishes the binding nature of the decision on all judicial and other bodies, applied in the dispositive to mandate the uniform interpretation.

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

R O M Â N I A

ÎNALTA CURTE DE CASAŢIE ŞI JUSTIŢIE

Completul pentru soluționarea recursului în interesul legii

Minuta deciziei nr. 26 Dosar nr. 2382/1/2021

Şedinţa de la 15 noiembrie2021

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E :

Admite recursul în interesul legii formulat de procurorul general al Parchetului de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie şi stabileşte că:

În interpretarea şi aplicarea unitară a dispoziţiilor art. 13 alin. (1) lit. a) din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 43/2002, infracţiunea de abuz în serviciu prevăzută în art. 132 din Legea nr. 78/2000 raportat la art. 297 din Codul penal, care a cauzat o pagubă materială mai mică sau egală cu echivalentul în lei a 200.000 euro, comisă de o persoană a cărei calitate nu determină incidenţa dispoziţiilor art. 13 alin. (1) lit. b) din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 43/2002, este de competenţa parchetului nespecializat, iar nu a Direcţiei Naţionale Anticorupţie.

Dispoziţiile art. 13 alin. (1) lit. a) teza a II-a din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 43/2002, referitoare la valoarea sumei sau a bunului care formează obiectul infracţiunii de corupţie, nu sunt incidente în cazul infracţiunii de abuz în serviciu prevăzută în art. 132 din Legea nr. 78/2000 raportat la art. 297 din Codul penal.

Obligatorie, potrivit dispoziţiilor art. 474 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură penală.

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică, azi, 15 noiembrie 2021.