Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_212021 AI generated

Scope of "Dwelling" under Arts. 224 and 226 Penal Code: Equivalence for Violation of Domicile and Private Life

Case Number ICCJ_212021
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 issued a binding preliminary decision, effective from publication in the Official Monitor, establishing that the legal concepts of "dwelling," "room," or "dependency" in the crime of violating private life (Art. 226(1) of the Criminal Code) carry the same meaning as in the crime of violating domicile (Art. 224(1) of the Criminal Code) and are subsumed under the legal notion of domicile. The dispute arose from a referral by the Bucharest Court of Appeal to resolve a conflict over whether these terms in Art. 226 are broader than "domicile," specifically whether they encompass spaces that do not qualify as a domicile but still offer private protection, such as clinic bathrooms, shop fitting rooms, or sports hall lockers. Relying on the doctrine of uniform interpretation and the definitions within the Criminal Code, the Court rejected the expansive interpretation, ruling that Art. 226 does not extend to non-domicile spaces, thereby limiting the scope of the offense to areas legally defined as domicile.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 477 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură penală; Scope of "Dwelling" under Arts. 224 and 226 Penal Code: Equivalence for Violation of Domicile and Private Life: 226(1) of the Criminal Code) carry the same meaning as in the crime of violating domicile (Art. 224(1) of the Criminal Code) and are subsumed under the legal notion of domicile. The dispute arose from a referral by the Bucharest Court of Appeal to resolve a conflict over whether these terms in Art. 226 are broader than "domicile," specifically whether they encompass spaces that do not qualify as a domicile but still offer private protection, such as clinic bathrooms, shop fitting rooms, or sports hall lockers. Relying on the doctrine of uniform interpretation and the definitions within the Criminal Code, the Court rejected the expansive interpretation, ruling that Art. 226 does not extend to non-domicile spaces, thereby limiting the scope of the offense to areas legally defined as domicile.

Keywords

AI generated
domicile scope and term of protection criminal offense housing law legal doctrine uniform interpretation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 477 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură penală
Procedural basis cited in the dispositive to establish that the decision is mandatory from the date of its publication in the Official Monitor.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 18/2024
Scope of "dwelling" and "room" in private life violation crimes: Equivalence to criminal domicile excluding public and commercial spaces
ICCJ_232887
Penal Code Article 226(2): Scope of "dwelling" for commercial premises used as de facto residence and irrelevance of image originator in private life violation
ICCJ_118603
Appeal for annulment dismissed; conviction for disturbance and home invasion upheld under new Criminal Code.
ICCJ_86990
Inadmissible appeal in the public interest for lack of nationwide divergence on defining "dwelling" for sale rights in state-funded non-family dormitories under Decree-Law No. 61/1990.
Decizia nr. 1777/2003
Absorption of domicile violation into aggravated burglary and imposition of mandatory complementary penalties for rape

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 477 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură penală

Procedural basis cited in the dispositive to establish that the decision is mandatory from the date of its publication in the Official Monitor.

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 DEZLEGAREA UNOR CHESTIUNI DE DREPT ÎN MATERIE PENALĂ

Minuta deciziei nr. 18 Dosar nr. 359/1/2024

Ședința din data de 22 aprilie 2024

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E:

Admite sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Bucureşti – Secţia a II-a Penală, în dosarul nr. 3288/300/2023 (2274/2023), în vederea pronunţării unei hotărâri prealabile pentru dezlegarea următoarei chestiuni de drept:

Dacă noţiunile de locuinţă, încăpere sau dependinţă la care face referire art. 226 alin. (1) din Codul penal sunt mai extinse decât cea de domiciliu prevăzută de art. 224 din Codul penal, incluzând şi acele spaţii care, chiar dacă nu pot fi calificate drept domiciliu, oferă o protecţie vieţii private a persoanei, de pildă grupul sanitar al unei clinici sau la care au acces mai multe persoane, o cabină de probă dintr-un magazin, vestiarul unei săli de sport și stabilește că:

Noţiunile de locuinţă, încăpere sau dependinţă din conținutul infracțiunii de violarea vieții private, prevăzută de art. 226 alin. (1) din Codul penal au acelaşi înţeles cu noțiunile de locuință, încăpere sau dependință din conținutul infracțiunii de violarea de domiciliu, prevăzută de art. 224 alin. (1) din Codul penal, fiind subsumate noțiunii de domiciliu în sensul legii penale.

Obligatorie de la data publicării în Monitorul Oficial al României, Partea I, potrivit art. 477 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură penală.

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică, astăzi, 22 aprilie 2024.