Probleme de drept procesual penal din practica Parchetului de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Târgu Mureş şi a parchetelor aflate în circumscripţia acestuia, pe semestrul întâi al anului 2016
Criminal procedural law issues identified in the practice of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal and the prosecutor’s offices under its jurisdiction, in the first semester of 2016

Summary/Abstract: The article includes nine of the most important criminal procedural law issues identified in the practice of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal and the prosecutor’s offices under its jurisdiction, in the first semester of 2016. 1. The legal basis of a new discharge provision, when there is an identity between the act and the person subject of the prosecution and an act and a person who previously was discharged of the prosecution is: • res judicata, if the initial discharge provision is maintained by a ruling of the preliminary chamber judge; • the same as the legal basis of the initial discharge provision, if the initial discharge provision is not maintained by a ruling of the preliminary chamber judge, as there was not filed a complaint against it. 2. When there are two successive notifications, the territorial competent prosecuting authority is the one notified first. The sequence provided by the art. 41 par. 1 Crim. Proc. Code is mandatory only in case of simultaneous notifications, not also in the case of successive notifications. 3. Within the limits provided by art. 138 par. 11 Crim. Proc. Code, the special method of surveillance or investigation concerning the authorised participation at certain activities is not conditioned by the nature of the offence. 4. The moment of liberating the detained defendant - subject of a judicial control within the time of the detention - is when the detention ends 5. If the defendant knowingly violates its obligations and the duration of the imprisonment is five years or less, the judicial control can be replaced with the pending trial detention only in the cases provided by art. 223 par. 1 and possibly par. 2 first sentence Crim. Proc. Code, not also in the case provided by art. 223 par. 2 second sentence Crim. Proc. Code. 6. The Judicial costs when ordering: • the discharge, before the beginning of the investigation on the act, under the legal basis of reconciliation, shall remain in the responsibility of the state; • the discharge, after the beginning of the investigation on the act and before the further prosecution, under the legal basis of withdrawal the complaint, shall be borne by the injured party; • the dismissal of the complaint against a criminal investigation act or measure, shall be borne by the petitioner. 7. The chief prosecutor who solves a complaint against a discharge order can change the legal basis of the discharge provision. The chief prosecutor who allows a complaint against a discharge order can order a new provision only after the preliminary chamber judge confirms the reopening of the criminal investigation due to the invalidate of the initial discharge provision. 8. The presence of the defendant at the trial in the special procedure of the plea bargaining agreement is assessed on the same basis as the defendant’s presence at trial in the common law procedure. Therefore, the court shall rule on a plea bargain agreement after hearing the defendant, when the defendant is present, not when, given an exceptional case provided by law, he is missing. The absence of the defendant shall not result in a dismissal of the plea bargaining agreement. 9. The provision of seizing the preliminary chamber judge, from the discharge order, is sufficient for the preliminary judge to be legally seized with the proposal to dissolve a document. Hopefully, given the subject and the method, the material will be useful, by providing solutions and conclusions on those issues that we have faced in the judicial practice, issues that other law practice colleagues may have noted in their own professional activity.

• Details
• Contents