-
-
Curtea Constituțională a fost sesizată cu excepția de neconstituționalitate ridicată de un număr mare de funcționari publici trimiși în judecată pentru săvârșirea infracțiunii de abuz în serviciu, care a fost reglementată de art. 246 din Codul penal din 19691, având conținutul „Fapta funcționarului public, care, în exercițiul atribuțiilor de serviciu, cu știință, nu îndeplinește un act ori îl îndeplinește în mod defectuos și prin aceasta cauzează o vătămare intereselor legale ale unei persoane se pedepsește cu închisoare de la 6 luni la 3 ani”, precum și de art. 297 alin. (1) din Codul penal în vigoare, adoptat în anul 2009, potrivit căruia „Fapta funcționarului public care, în exercitarea atribuțiilor de serviciu, nu îndeplinește un act sau îl îndeplinește în mod defectuos și prin aceasta cauzează o pagubă ori o vătămare a drepturilor sau intereselor legitime ale unei persoane fizice sau ale unei persoane juridice se pedepsește cu închisoare de la 2 la 7 ani și interzicerea exercitării dreptului de a ocupa o funcție publică.” -
In the Draft law drawn up by the Ministry of Justice, the offence of abuse of office provided by Article 297 (1) of the Criminal Code is defined simplistically and formally, without clarity, precision and predictability. According to the Draft law, any act of breach of the law, of a Government Ordinance or of a Government Emergency Ordinance by a civil servant is considered to be an offence of abuse of office, regardless of its gravity and of its consequences, because its legal content is not circumscribed. In order for the offence of abuse of office not to be confused with the other forms of civil, disciplinary, administrative, fiscal, material or contraventional legal liability, we have introduced in its definition the condition that the deed must be committed for material interests, and the damage must cause particular serious consequences. In this way, the abuses in the interpretation and application of Article 297 (1) of the Criminal Code will be completely removed. -
This study concerns the manner in which the abuse of office provided by Article 297 (1) of the Criminal Code is presented in the Draft law drawn up by the Ministry of Justice, appreciating that the offence is defined simplistically and formally, without clarity, precision and predictability. According to the Draft law, any act of breach of the law, of a Government Ordinance or of a Government Emergency Ordinance by a civil servant is considered to be offence of abuse of service, regardless of its severity and consequences, because the legal content thereof is not circumscribed. In order not to confuse the offence of abuse of service with the other forms of civil, disciplinary, administrative, fiscal, material or contraventional legal liability, we have introduced in its definition the condition that the act be committed for material interests, and that the damage cause particularly serious consequences. In this way, the abuses in the interpretation and application of Article 297 (1) of the Criminal Code will be completely removed. -
Practica judiciară recentă s-a confruntat cu numeroase frământări în legătură cu îndeplinirea elementelor constitutive ale infracțiunii de abuz în serviciu, prevăzută în art. 297 C.pen. Potrivit acestui articol, constituie infracțiunea de abuz în serviciu „fapta funcționarului public care, în exercitarea atribuțiilor de serviciu, nu îndeplinește un act sau îl îndeplinește în mod defectuos și prin aceasta cauzează o pagubă ori o vătămare a drepturilor sau intereselor legitime ale unei persoane fizice sau ale unei persoane juridice” -
Introducere. Practica judiciară recentă s-a confruntat cu numeroase frământări în legătură cu îndeplinirea elementelor constitutive ale infracțiunii de abuz în serviciu, prevăzută în art. 297 C.pen. -
The author aims to present a historical perspective by connecting to the current juridical perspective, addressing and making an exegesis of one of the institutions which are convergent to the two essential procedural codifications, namely the Civil Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, but rather incompletely regulated by the legislator, namely the offence of hearing. Emphasizing the fact that in neither of the two Procedure Codes the notion of the offence of hearing is not expressely and categorically defined, the legislator has conceptualized the procedure which is going to be followed by the judge insofar as he directly finds, through his own senses, such an offence/deed provided by the criminal law, the two procedures presenting similarities, but also differences, some of them being non-resilient to scientific criticism, as we will try to demonstrate this conclusion in the content of the material, in which there have been inserted de lege ferenda proposals as well. -
Fraudulent bankruptcy is one of the criminal law’s “Cinderellas” because the legislator was highly oscillating with regard to the sanctioning regime, the rules indicting this deed suffered frequent changes of the contents and the seat of the matter was found in the recent years in several legal acts (the Commercial Code, Law no. 31/1990, Law no. 64/1995, Law no. 85/2006 and the 2009 Criminal Code). This study focuses both on the analysis of the fraudulent bankruptcy offense under the new Criminal Code and on the specific concepts. -
This study addresses, from the comparative perspective, the regulation set forth under Article 386 in the new Criminal Code. Its introductory part includes an overall assessment of the new regulations on electoral offences in the new Criminal Code which systematize rules corresponding to those which are currently included in the special legislation, namely in five regulations. The comparison of the incrimination text covered by Article 386 in the new Criminal Code aimed at checking correspondence with all the other 4 rules of incrimination of the same title currently active. -
The article approaches the offence of “patrimonial exploitation of a vulnerable individual” under the provisions of Article 247 of the new Criminal Code. On these lines, the author conducted a thorough review of its legal content and highlighted issues of procedural nature. Likewise, there are also expressed critical opinions on how the legislature sought to regulate the offence’s conditions of existence, likely to severely limit its factual scope thereof. -
According to the legal provisions in force, public institutions and authorities (ministries and other specialized bodies of the central public administration) are obliged by the law to ensure their effective security and protection. Also, the security of the objectives of special importance for the defence of the country and for the activity of the state is provided by gendarmes, which have military status. Although the presence of military personnel in public institutions and public authorities is a requirement imposed by the law in order to protect the premises of the institutions, the measures taken by the authorities for managing the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic determined, inter alia, a substantial involvement, superior to the one existing in normal conditions, of the military personnel. More specifically, they were part in the actions of the public order bodies of vigilance regarding the observance of the restrictions of movement imposed on the occasion of the establishment of the state of emergency and subsequently the state of alert, as well as in the protection of the public authorities. This aspect translates into a significant increase of the numerical presence of military personnel in everyday life. Without being exhaustive, this study aims to analyze the jurisprudence of military courts on how the provisions on the offence of violation of guard and security duty were interpreted and applied, an analysis which revealed some problematic issues in terms of predictability and accessibility of legal provisions.
-
The offence of incest, like other offences relating to sexual life, has generated debates in the specialty literature and doctrine, as well as different solutions in judicial practice. From the author’s viewpoint, although the High Court of Cassation and Justice envisaged, by Decision no. II/2005 to standardize courts’ practice, as regards the legal classification of the facts that, in relation to their material content, meet both the constituent elements of the offence of rape, as well as those of the offence of incest, the solution adopted is questionable, in its turn. The legislature, by the rules of incrimination of the offence of incest under the new Criminal Code, succeeds, at least in this respect, to settle the issue. However, there are some outstanding issues that this study seeks to put forward and clarify.
