Aspecte teoretice şi practice privind motivul de revizuire reglementat de art. 509 alin. (1) pct. 3 din noul Cod de procedură civilă
Theoretical and Practical Aspects Regarding the Revising Reason Established by Art. 509 Par. (1) Point 3 of the New Code of Civil Procedure

Summary/Abstract: The terminology used by the legislator in the 2nd thesis art. 509 par. (1) point 3 C. Civ. Proc. Respectively ‚‘the examination court shall adjudicate (...) upon the existence or non-existence of the pleaded crime‘‘ and ‚‘the accused of having committed the crime‘‘ is not a proper one, but the references should have been made towards the acts that which could have constituted crimes. Hypothetically, the incidental research of these aspects is reached, precisely due to the fact that such acts either do not constitute and have never constituted offences in terms of the criminal law (by missing one of the elements of the crime, referred to in the art. 15 Pen. C.), either due to, or because, although they could have constituted offences, the criminal liability cannot be engaged (for some cases referred to in art. 16. Pen. Proc. C.). If we’d consider ad absurdum that it’s being researched incidentally by the civil court ‚''the offence of..'', the research would suppose automatically the verification of all conditions in which a certain deed is considered an offence by the criminal law, or by hypothesis, would always reach the conclusion that there is no offence just because there is that impediment for which it hasn’t been established as such by the criminal prosecution authority. We express the opinion that the intention of the legislator was that of determining the main elements of the objective side of the act which could have constituted an offence, this determination being suffice for determining the revision and by no means that of substituting the civil court by the criminal court.

• Details
• Contents