Participaţia improprie. Aspecte generale, modalităţi, chestiuni problematice
Improper participation. General issues, methods and problems

Summary/Abstract: The institution of improper participation to a criminal offence represented the solution that the Romanian lawmaker adopted in order to sanction the collaboration of two or more individuals with different forms of guilt in committing acts incriminated by criminal law. The reason for creating this type of participation arose from the objective realities in which at least one person with intent takes part in committing an incriminated act together with at least another person who commits the act in negligence or without guilt. The present article addresses the issues that arose with the in-depth analysis of the institution of improper participation and it is thus divided into four main sections, structure-wise. The first section deals with general issues, such as the reasons for which the institution was created, the suis-generis character and the way in which the general conditions of participation are reflected in the creation and application of the institution of improper participation. In the second section, the first form of improper participation is addressed, respectively participation with intent to an offence committed unintentionally. Issues such as the types of acts of participation are discussed as well as the legal classification of each individual action. The third section analyses the second, broader form of improper participation – that of participating with intent to an offence committed without guilt. This section is the most problematic, given its complexity. Therefore, each cause of non-imputability is addressed and focused on. Moreover, for each particular cause, an analysis is made regarding whether each type of participation in its improper form (complicity, co-authorship, instigation) is possible, and, if so, in what manner. The fourth part focuses on the sanctioning system of participation in general and improper participation more especially. The debate regards acknowledging which system is applicable to improper participation, the parity system or the diversification one. Finally, to sum up, a conclusion is drawn with regard to the institution, its utility, the possible types of participation in each case, and the situations in which improper participation is not possible, given on the one hand the individual acts and on the other hand, the causes of non-imputability that are applicable.

• Details
• Contents