Particularități în aplicarea unor norme de procedură penală. O ipoteză specială de sesizare a organelor de urmărire penală de persoane cu funcții de conducere și de alte persoane. Întinderea și sancțiunea încălcării obligației judecătorului de cameră
Particularities in the application of some rules of criminal procedure. A special hypothesis of referral to the criminal prosecution bodies by persons in management positions and by other persons. The extent and sanction of the violation of the oblig

Summary/Abstract: The study shows that Article 291 of the Criminal Procedure Code, with the marginal name „Referrals made by persons in management positions and by other persons”, provides a sui generis way of referral to the criminal prosecution bodies, separately from the complaint, denunciation and ex officio referral. It is appreciated that the text establishes an obligation to refer the matter to the criminal prosecution body, particularised by subject and object. The subject of this obligation is, among others, any person who exercises a service of public interest for which he has been entrusted by the public authorities. This description corresponds to the notion of civil servant, within the meaning of Article 175 (2) of the Criminal Code. The judge pertains to this category, by the fact that he exercises a service of public interest and by the fact that he has been entrusted by the public authorities to exercise it. Consequently, it is shown that subject of the obligation to refer the matter to the criminal prosecution body is an offence about the commission of which the judge has become aware in the exercise of his duties. The article also notes that Article 346 (7) of the Criminal Procedure Code is mandatory for the preliminary chamber judge, but the extent of this obligation is limited by the need to comply with Article 354 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thus: as a rule, the preliminary chamber judge who ordered the commencement of the trial has the obligation to join the composition of the judicial panel that exercises the judicial function; by way of exception, if the preliminary chamber judge that has ordered the commencement of the trial is prevented by an objective cause from joining the composition of the judicial panel, he may be replaced with another judge. The sanction of the violation of Article 346 (7) of the Criminal Procedure Code is the absolute nullity arising from the non-observance of the rules regarding the composition of the judicial panel. It is appreciated that absolute nullity is incidental, since Article 346 (7) of the Criminal Procedure Code is violated, in two hypotheses: the preliminary chamber judge who has ordered the commencement of the trial is not also the judge who exercises the judicial function, and this is not caused by any impediment; the preliminary chamber judge who ordered the commencement of the trial is not also the judge who exercises the judicial function, and this is caused by a non-objective impediment. The opinion expressed means that absolute nullity is not incidental, since Article 346 (7) of the Criminal Procedure Code is not violated, if the preliminary chamber judge who has ordered the commencement of the trial is not also the judge who exercises the judicial function, but this fact is caused by an objective impediment. Such a hypothesis is explicitly allowed by Article 354 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

• Details
• Contents