Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_207903 AI generated

Preventive detention scope: Restriction of Art. 223(1)(d) CPP to initial criminal file when accused faces new offense suspicion

Case Number ICCJ_207903
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 admitted the appeal in the public interest filed by the Prosecutor General, establishing a mandatory unitary interpretation of Article 223(1)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case concerned the scope of preventive detention in scenarios where an accused is already under criminal prosecution in a status of freedom in a first file, and subsequently faces reasonable suspicion of intentionally committing or preparing a new offense in a second file. The court ruled that preventive detention under the specific provision for new offenses can be ordered exclusively within the first file, thereby prohibiting its application in the subsequent second file. This decision establishes a binding precedent under Article 474(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, clarifying that the procedural mechanism for detention based on the risk of new crimes is tied solely to the initial pending criminal action.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 223 alin. (1) lit. d) din Codul de procedură penală, art. 474 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură penală; Preventive detention scope: Restriction of Art. 223(1)(d) CPP to initial criminal file when accused faces new offense suspicion: The case concerned the scope of preventive detention in scenarios where an accused is already under criminal prosecution in a status of freedom in a first file, and subsequently faces reasonable suspicion of intentionally committing or preparing a new offense in a second file. The court ruled that preventive detention under the specific provision for new offenses can be ordered exclusively within the first file, thereby prohibiting its application in the subsequent second file. This decision establishes a binding precedent under Article 474(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, clarifying that the procedural mechanism for detention based on the risk of new crimes is tied solely to the initial pending criminal action.

Keywords

AI generated
preventive detention code of criminal procedure urgent suspicion of an offence e-justice scope of the legislation new application

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 223 alin. (1) lit. d) din Codul de procedură penală
The main ground for the decision, as the court established the unitary interpretation of this provision regarding the scope of preventive detention.
art. 474 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură penală
The procedural rule establishing the binding nature of the decision issued by the complete panel for resolving appeals in the public interest.
AI generated
ICCJ_211720
Scope of preventive detention for post-accusation recidivism: restriction to the initial prosecution case under Art. 223(1)(d) CCP
Încheierea nr. 2480/2012
Preventive detention admissibility: cumulative requirements of reasonable suspicion and specific risks under Articles 143, 146, and 148 of the Criminal Procedure Code
Decizia nr. 4101/2011
Legality of preventive detention under Art. 148(1)(f) CPP for grave offenses and public order risk
Decizia nr. 1327/2005
Preventive detention for murder defendant: concrete public order danger and statutory conditions under Art. 148 CPP
Decizia nr. 1112/2013
Continuation of preventive detention post-conviction: concrete danger to public order under Art. 148(1)(f) CPP

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 223 alin. (1) lit. d) din Codul de procedură penală

The main ground for the decision, as the court established the unitary interpretation of this provision regarding the scope of preventive detention.

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

The procedural rule establishing the binding nature of the decision issued by the complete panel for resolving appeals in the public interest.

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. 22 Dosar nr. 2394/1/2023

Şedinţa de la 27 noiembrie 2023

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, în consecinţă, stabileşte că:

În interpretarea şi aplicarea unitară a dispoziţiilor art. 223 alin. (1) lit. d) din Codul de procedură penală, în situaţia în care faţă de inculpat este pusă în mişcare acţiunea penală pentru săvârşirea unei infracţiuni pentru care este cercetat în stare de libertate (primul dosar), iar ulterior, există suspiciunea rezonabilă că inculpatul a săvârşit cu intenţie o nouă infracţiune (al doilea dosar) sau pregăteşte săvârşirea unei noi infracţiuni, măsura arestării preventive în baza art. 223 alin. (1) lit. d) din Codul de procedură penală se poate dispune doar în primul dosar.

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

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică, astăzi, 27 noiembrie 2023.