Sunteți pe pagina 1din 18

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr.

1/2010

ACCENTE EUROPENE ALE PRINCIPIULUI NON BIS IN IDEM

EUROPEAN ACCENTS OF THE NON BIS IN IDEM PRINCIPLE

Conf. univ. dr. Mirela GORUNESCU Academia de Poliie Alexandru Ioan Cuza
Rezumat: Principiul non bis in idem este un principiu clasic de drept, n temeiul su o persoan nu poate fi condamnat de dou ori pentru comiterea aceleiai fapte. Atunci cnd fapta este comis pe teritoriul de jurisdicie al unei singure ri, urmrirea respectrii principiului enunat este facil. Dificultile apar n cazurile n care sunt elemente de extraneitate derivate n mod deosebit din principiul ubicuitii, motiv pentru care au fost depuse eforturi consistente de reglementare convenional, care s evite nclcri ale principiului non bis in idem. i la nivelul Uniunii Europene au fost adoptate instrumente juridice cu inciden n domeniul autoritii de lucru judecat, dar sau pronunat i decizii ale Curii de Justiie care au adus puternice accente europene n materia principiului non (ne) bis in idem. Cuvinte cheie: principiu, fapt penal, cooperare judiciar, hotrre defininitiv, extrdare

Assoc. Prof. PhD Mirela GORUNESCU Police Academy Alexandru Ioan Cuza
Abstract: The principle of non bis in idem is a classic principle of law under his person may be convicted twice for committing the same acts. When the offense is committed within the jurisdiction of one country, follow the principle set out is easy. Difficulties arise in cases where foreign elements derived specifically from the principle of ubiquity, which is why efforts have been made consistent regulatory Conventional to avoid violations of the principle non bis in idem. And EU legal instruments have been adopted in the incidence of res judicata, but were held and decisions of the Court which brought strong in relation to the principle of non European accents non bis in idem. Key words: principle, criminal offense, judicial cooperation, final decision, extradition

1. n doctrina romneasc, n mod tradiional se arat c una dintre cauzele care justific atacarea n cale de atac extraordinar a unei hotrri este cea n care autoritatea lucrului judecat este violat prin aceea c mpotriva unei persoane s-au pronunat dou hotrri definitive pentru aceeai fapt penal1. O astfel de situaie este considerat ca fiind posibil atunci cnd fptuitorul nu a tiut de existena primei hotrri, fiindc altfel ar fi invocat existena acesteia cu ocazia celei de-a doua judeci, sau atunci cnd fptuitorul nu a tiut despre cea de-a doua judecat i nu a putu s invoce autoritatea de lucru judecat. Pentru a fi admis calea de atac este suficient s se fac dovada existenei celor dou hotrri definitive2, fiind indiferent cauza care a provocat acest bis in idem. Condiia este considerat ca fiind ndeplinit chiar dac pentru aceeai fapt cele dou instane au dat o ncadrare juridic diferit (ex. una a considerat-

1. In the Romanian doctrine, traditionally, it is shown that one of the reasons which justify the use of the extraordinary appeal against a court ruling is the violation of res judicata rule by the fact that two final judgments for the same criminal offense27 were delivered against the same person. Such a situation is possible when the perpetrator did not know about the existence of the first decision, because otherwise there would be invoked on the occasion of the second trial, or when the perpetrator did not know about the second trial and he could not invoke res judicata. For the appeal to be admitted is sufficient to prove the existence of two final28 decisions, being indifferent reason that caused this bis in idem. The condition is considered fulfilled even if for the same offense two courts have given a different legal qualification (eg one considered it a

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2010

99

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2010

o nelciune, iar cealalt abuz de ncredere). n acelai timp, cu privire la consecinele rmnerii definitive a hotrrii judectoreti sunt indicate a se produce dou efecte: unul pozitiv, care const ntr-o eficien activ numit puterea lucrului judecat i care confer persoanelor n favoarea crora au fost pronunate dispoziiile hotrrii dreptul de a folosi mijloacele legale pentru executarea lor. n acelai timp, se produce i un efect negativ n sensul c se mpiedic o nou urmrire i judecat pentru faptele i preteniile soluionate prin hotrre. Acest efect este concretizat n regula non bis in idem i este cunoscut sub denumirea de autoritate de lucru judecat care reprezint un obstacol n calea readucerii n faa organelor judiciare a conflictului de drept penal anterior soluionat, nici chiar sub o alt calificare. mpotriva nclcrii acestei autoriti opereaz potrivit art. 10 lit. g C. pr. pen. romn excepia lucrului judecat (exceptio rei judicatae). Din acest motiv, autoritatea de lucru judecat se nscrie ntre cauzele care mpiedic punerea n micare a aciunii penale sau continuarea exercitrii ei3. Tot n literatura de specialitate romneasc se apreciaz c pentru ca regula non bis in idem se cer a fi ndeplinite trei condiii: a) s existe o hotrre definitiv de condamnare, de achitare sau de ncetare a procesului penal4; b) identitatea de persoan; c) identitatea de obiect, fiind avut n vedere fapta i nu infraciunea (n cazul n care s-ar da o alt ncadrare juridic s-ar crea posibilitatea de a eluda regula)5. O reglementare expres a principiului n materia cooperrii judiciare internaionale n materie penal a fost introdus n 20066 n art. 10 din Legea nr. 302/2004 privind cooperarea judiciar internaional n materie penal7. n conformitate cu alin. (1) din acest text legal, al crui nomen iuris este chiar Non bis in idem, cooperarea judiciar internaional nu este admisibil dac n Romnia sau n orice alt stat s-a desfurat un proces penal pentru aceeai fapta i dac: a) printr-o hotrre definitiv s-a dispus achitarea sau ncetarea procesului penal; b) pedeapsa

fraud and the other one embezzlement). Meanwhile, the Court ruling become final are set to produce two effects: a positive one, which consists of an active named res judicata power and gives the person favorized by it the right to use legal means for its execution. At the same time, it produces a negative effect that prevents a new trial to be initiated for the same facts and claims settled by court. This effect is reflected in the non bis in idem rule, is known as res judicata and is an obstacle for the judicial bodies to initiate a new criminal trial concerning the conflict which was resolved, even under another qualification. Against the violation of this rule operates according to art. 10, point g) of Romanian Criminal Procedural Code the exceptio rei judicatae. Therefore, res judicata is one of the causes that prevent the initiation or continuing of criminal pursuit29. Also in Romanian literature is shown that non bis in idem rule requires three conditions to be fulfilled: a) to exist a final conviction, acquittal or termination of criminal proceedings decision30, b) the same person, c) the same object (is important the fact itself and not the legal qualification of it, because giving a different legal classification would make it possible to circumvent the rule31). An express indication of the principle non bis in idem in Romanian legislation was introduced in 2006 in the field of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters32, in article 10 of the Law no. 302/200433. According to par. (1) of this legal text, whose nomen juris is non bis in idem, the international judicial cooperation is not admissible if in Romania or in any other state has held a criminal trial for the same offense and if: a) by a final decision was ordered the acquittal or the cessation of the trial, b) the penalty imposed in the case by issuing a final decision was executed or was the subject of a total or partial pardon or amnesty. However, these exemptions do not

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2010

100

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2010

aplicat n cauza, printr-o hotrre definitiv de condamnare, a fost executat sau a format obiectul unei graieri sau amnistii, n totalitatea ei ori asupra prii neexecutate. Totui, aceste exceptri nu mai opereaz dac asistena este solicitat n scopul revizuirii hotrrii definitive, pentru unul din motivele care justific promovarea uneia din cile extraordinare de atac prevzute de Codul de procedur penal al Romniei. Textul nu se aplic nici n cazul n care un tratat internaional la care Romnia este parte conine dispoziii mai favorabile sub aspectul principiului non bis in idem. n literatura de specialitate se afirm, de asemenea, c regula amintit este de ordine public, motiv pentru care trebuie examinat de instanele de judecat i de organele de urmrire penal din oficiu, iar acestea trebuie s nceteze procesul penal cnd constat c sunt ocazionate nclcri ale regulii8. 3. Din cele ce au precedat, se poate observa c principiul non bis in idem este reflectat n legislaia penal romneasc i n doctrina juridic, iar n activitatea concret a organelor judiciare este asigurat respectarea sa, chiar dac sunt nc unele chestiuni supuse controverselor. Cu toate acestea, premisele generale referitoare la principiul clasic prezentat anterior trebuie reconsiderate sub influena unor demersuri normative derulate la nivel internaional, i cu precdere a celor din cadrul Uniunii Europene. n prezent, chiar dac principiul a fost creat pentru a rezolva diferitele situaii ntlnite n practica judiciar naional n materie penal, ntruct se nregistreaz din ce n ce mai multe raporturi juridice penale de conflict n care se regsesc elemente de extraneitate, ndeosebi datorate ubicuitii, se resimte necesitatea acceptrii dimensiunilor sale transnaionale9. Acceptarea acestei perspective este cu att mai necesar cu ct principiul a fost nscris ca un drept fundamental al omului n multe instrumente juridice internaionale cu impact n acest domeniu. 4. Din acest motiv, se remarc eforturi

operate where the judicial assistance is requested to review a final decision in an extraordinary appeal for any reason under the Romanian Criminal Procedural Code. The text does not apply if an international treaty to which Romania is a contracting party contains provisions more favorable concerning the principle non bis in idem. The literature also takes the view that this is a public order rule and this is why it must be examined by the courts and the prosecution by office, and they have to stop criminal proceedings if find any violations34. 3. Of what has preceded, we can see that the non bis in idem principle is reflected in the Romanian criminal law, in criminal law doctrine and is respected in the practical work of judicial bodies, even if some issues are still subject to controversy. However, the general assumptions of this classical principle we previously presented must be reconsidered under the influence of regulatory approaches undertaken internationally, and especially those adopted in the European Union. Currently, although the principle was created to solve different situations encountered in national practice in criminal matters, as recorded increasingly more criminal legal conflict relationships which contained foreign elements, particularly due to ubiquity, it is need the acceptance of its transnational dimensions35. Accepting this perspective is even more necessary because the principle has been included as a fundamental human right in many international legal instruments having an impact in this area. 4. For this reason, important regulatory efforts have been made in this field, and some international legal instruments were enacted at different levels and in different contexts to reflect the non bis in idem rule. First, the principle is established to be a fundamental human right in

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2010

101

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2010

de reglementare a domeniului prin intermediul unor instrumente juridice internaionale edictate la diferite niveluri i pornind de la contexte diferite de percepere a regulii non bis in idem. n primul rnd, principiul este stabilit a reprezenta un drept fundamental al omului n instrumente ca Pactul internaional ONU asupra drepturilor civile i politice din 1966 care, n art. 14 alin. (7) prevede c nimeni nu poate fi urmrit sau pedepsit din pricina unei infraciuni pentru care a fost deja achitat sau condamnat printr-o hotrre definitiv n conformitate cu legea i cu procedura penal a fiecrei ri. n mod asemntor, n art. 4 din Protocolul al 7-lea la Convenia European de drepturilor omului prevede sub denumirea Dreptul de a nu fi judecat sau pedepsit de dou ori c nimeni nu poate fi urmrit sau pedepsit penal de ctre jurisdiciile aceluiai stat pentru svrirea infraciunii pentru care a fost deja achitat sau condamnat printr-o hotrre definitiv conform legii i procedurii penale ale acestui stat. Totui, aceste prevederi nu mpiedic redeschiderea procesului, conform legii i procedurii penale a statului respectiv, dac fapte noi sau recent descoperite sau un viciu fundamental n cadrul procedurii precedente sunt de natur s afecteze hotrrea pronunat. Fora prevederii este relevat i de mprejurarea c art. 4 pct. 3 din acest act normativ nu permite nicio derogare de la regul. Principiul non bis in idem este unul important i pentru domeniul cooperrii judiciare n materie penal. n Convenia European privind extrdarea adoptat sub egida Consiliului Europei n 1957, n art. 9 c extrdarea nu se va acord cnd persoana reclamat a fost judecat definitiv de ctre autoritile competente ale prii solicitate, pentru fapta sau faptele pentru care extrdarea este cerut. Extrdarea va putea fi refuzat, dac autoritile competente ale prii solicitate au hotrt s nu ntreprind urmriri sau s pun capt urmririlor pe care le-au exercitat pentru aceeai fapt sau aceleai fapte. n baza alin. 2 al art. 9 din Convenie, extrdarea unei persoane care a format obiectul

international instruments as the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, art. 14 para. (7) which provides that "no one shall be tried or punished again for an offense for which has already been acquitted or convicted by a final decision in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country." Similarly, the article 4 from the 7th Protocol to European Convention of Human Rights states under the name: "right not to be tried or punished twice" that nobody can be tried or punished by the criminal jurisdiction of the same State for an offense for which already been acquitted or convicted by a final decision under the law and penal procedure of that State. However, these provisions do not prevent the reopening of the penal procedure of that State, whether new or newly discovered facts or a fundamental flaw in the previous proceedings are likely to affect the ruling. The power of the provision is reveled by the fact that art. 4, paragraph 3 of this normative act does not allow any derogation from the rule. The non bis in idem principle is an important one in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, as well. The European Convention on Extradition adopted by the Council of Europe in 1957, in art. 9 provide that extradition shall not be granted when the claimed person has been finally judged by the competent authorities of the Requested Party for the offense or offenses for which extradition is requested. Extradition may be refused if the competent authorities of the requested Party have decided either not to institute or to terminate proceedings in respect of the same offence or offences. Under the article 9, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the extradition of a person on whom a final judgments in a third State Party to the Convention for the offense or offenses for which the application is submitted, will not be accorded: a) when the mentioned judgment is in his acquittal,

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2010

102

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2010

unei judeci definitive ntr-un stat ter, parte contractant la convenie, pentru fapta sau faptele n vederea crora cererea este prezentat, nu se va acorda: a) cnd menionata judecat a pronunat achitarea sa; b) cnd pedeapsa privativ de libertate sau alt msur aplicat: a fost executat integral sau a format obiectul unei graieri sau amnistii, totale sau pariale; c) cnd judectorul a constatat vinovia autorului infraciunii fr s pronune vreo sanciune. Totui, extrdarea va putea fi acordat i n cazurile precedente: a) dac fapta care a dat loc judecii a fost comis mpotriva unei persoane, instituii sau bun avnd caracter public n statul solicitant; b) dac persoana care a format obiectul judecii avea ea nsi un caracter public n statul solicitant; c) dac fapta care a dat loc judecii a fost comis n total sau n parte pe teritoriul statului solicitant sau ntrun loc asimilat teritoriului su. n toate aceste cazuri nu se mpiedic aplicarea dispoziiilor naionale mai favorabile, cu privire la efectul non bis in idem legat de hotrrile judiciare pronunate n strintate. Principiul a fost nscris i n alte instrumente juridice ce eman de la Consiliul Europei i care intereseaz cooperarea specializat pe anumite segmente de infracionalitate. Spre exemplu, n Convenia privind splarea, descoperirea, sechestrarea i confiscarea produselor infraciunii din 1990, art. 18 alin. 1 pct. 3 nscrie ntre situaiile n care cooperarea n cadrul acestor activiti poate fi refuzat dac partea solicitat consider c msura solicitat ar fi contrar principiului ne bis in idem. Eforturile cu adevrat remarcabile sub aspectul rezultatului lor, au fost totui depuse la nivelul Uniunii Europene. Primul document este Convenia ncheiat ntre statele membre asupra dublei sancionri (Convention on Double Jeopardy), care, n primul su articol prevedea c o persoan al crei proces a fost soluionat definitiv ntr-un stat membru nu poate fi judecat pentru aceeai fapt n legtur cu care a fost condamnat, a executat pedeapsa sau este n curs de executare sau nu mai poate fi

b) when the penalty of imprisonment or other measure applied: was fully enforced or subject of a pardon or amnesty, totally or partially, c) if the court found the offender's guilt without imposing a sanction. However, the extradition may be accorded even in the previous cases: a) if the act which is under judgment has been committed against a person, institution or thing having public importance in the requesting state, b) if the offender has a public statute in the requesting state, c) if the act that has been committed in whole or in part within the requesting State or in a place treated as its territory. In all these cases will be applied the national provisions if they are more favorable to the non bis in idem effect related to a foreign criminal judgments. The principle has been included in other legal instruments adopted by the Council of Europe in the field o specialized cooperation on certain segments of criminality. For example, the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime, adopted in 1990 indicates, in art. 18 para. 1 point 3, between the situations where cooperation in these activities may be refused if "the requested Party considers that the sought measure would be contrary to the principle of non bis in idem". Truly remarkable efforts in terms of their results have been made at EU level, as well. The first document is the Agreement between Member States on double sanctioning (Convention on Double Jeopardy), which, in its first article provides that a person whose trial has been finally resolved in a Member State can not be tried for the same offense in connection with who was convicted and executed penalty is being enforced or can no longer be enforced under the laws of the sentencing State. Although this convention has not been a success, its content was taken into the Convention of 19 June 1990

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2010

103

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2010

executat n conformitate cu legea statului de condamnare. Dei aceast convenie nu a fost un succes, coninutul su a fost preluat n Convenia din 19 iunie 1990 de aplicare a acordului de la Schengen din 14 iunie 1985 privind eliminarea gradual a controalelor la frontierele comune, Schengen, 19 iunie 1990. Aceasta, n Capitolul al 3-lea cuprinde norme care au n vedere chiar aplicarea principiului non bis in idem. n temeiul art. 54 din acest instrument juridic, se prevede c o persoan n privina creia s-a pronunat o hotrre definitiv ntr-un stat parte nu poate fi urmrita pentru aceleai fapte de o un alt stat, cu condiia ca, n caz de condamnare, hotrrea s fi fost executat, s fie n curs de executare sau s nu mai poat fi executat potrivit legii statului n care s-a pronunat condamnarea. Art. 55 al Conveniei cuprinde enumerarea unor situaii n care statele pot declara c nu doresc s aplice aceste prevederi, declaraie la care poate renuna oricnd. Situaiile enumerate sunt: a) dac faptele vizate de hotrrea strin s-au petrecut n tot sau n parte pe propriul su teritoriu (dar nu i dac s-au petrecut n parte pe teritoriul statului unde s-a pronunat hotrrea; b) dac faptele vizate de hotrrea strina constituie o infraciune contra siguranei statului sau mpotriva altor interese care sunt n egal msur eseniale pentru stat; c) dac faptele vizate de hotrrea strina au fost svrite de un funcionar al su nclcarea obligaiilor de serviciu (cu precizarea infraciunilor pentru care se poate aplica excepia)10. Art. 56 din Convenia Schengen face referiri la computarea pedepselor: cnd un stat continu procedurile mpotriva unei persoane fa de care s-a pronunat o hotrre definitiv pentru aceleai fapte ntr-un alt stat, orice perioad de privare de libertate care este o consecin a faptelor respective, executat pe teritoriul acestuia trebuie dedus din orice hotrre pronunat. Mai mult, se prevede c, n msura n care legislaia naional permite, se iau in considerare i alte pedepse dect perioadele de deinere deja executate.

implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 on the gradual abolition of checks at common borders. This convention, in the 3rd chapter contains rules considering the principle of non bis in idem. Under the article 54 of this instrument, "a person whose trial has been finally disposed of in one Contracting Party may not be prosecuted in another Contracting Party for the same acts provided that, if a penalty has been imposed, it has been enforced, is actually in the process of being enforced or can no longer be enforced under the laws of the sentencing Contracting Party". Article 55 of the Convention contains the list of the situations where the States can declare that they do not wish to apply these provisions. That statement may be waived at any time. The cases listed are: " (a) where the acts to which the foreign judgment relates took place in whole or in part in its own territory; in the latter case, however, this exception shall not apply if the acts took place in part in the territory of the Contracting Party where the judgment was delivered; (b) where the acts to which the foreign judgment relates constitute an offence against national security or other equally essential interests of that Contracting Party; (c) where the acts to which the foreign judgment relates were committed by officials of that Contracting Party in violation of the duties of their office"36. Article 56 of the Schengen Convention refers to the computation of the penalties: "if a further prosecution is brought in a Contracting Party against a person whose trial, in respect of the same acts, has been finally disposed of in another Contracting Party, any period of deprivation of liberty served in the latter Contracting Party arising from those acts shall be deducted from any penalty imposed. To the extent permitted by national law, penalties not involving deprivation of liberty shall also be taken

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2010

104

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2010

n art. 57 din Convenie se arat c atunci cnd un stat acuz o persoan de svrirea unei fapte pedepsibile i autoritile sale competente au motive s cread c acuzaia privete fapte pedepsibile pentru care persoana a fost deja judecat ntr-un alt stat, aceste autoriti solicit, dac se consider necesar, informaiile relevante de la autoritile competente ale acelui stat pe al crui teritoriu sa pronunat deja hotrrea. Informaiile cerute trebuie furnizate n cel mai scurt termen i trebuie luate n considerare n aciunile care se ndeplinesc n cadrul procedurii pendinte. Ca i n alte instrumente juridice, n art. 58 din Convenia Schengen se prevede c n msura n care prevederile din legislaiile naionale sunt mai favorabile n ceea ce privete principiul non bis in idem n cazul hotrrilor pronunate n strintate, acestea sunt cele care au prioritate. i ntr-un alt instrument care eman de la Uniunea European se fac referiri la principiul pe care l analizm. Este vorba despre Carta Drepturilor Fundamentale ale Uniunii Europene care instituie prin art. 50 un drept fundamental al cetenilor Uniunii i anume: dreptul de a nu fi judecat de dou ori pentru aceeai infraciune. n baza acestui text, nimeni nu poate fi judecat sau condamnat pentru o infraciune pentru care a fost deja achitat sau condamnat n cadrul Uniunii, prin hotrre judectoreasc definitiv, n conformitate cu legea. n Decizia-cadru privind mandatul de arestare european i procedurile de predare ntre Statele Membre11, n art. 4 pct. 2 i 3 se prevd printre cauzele n care se poate refuza executarea mandatului: 3. dac autoritatea judectoreasc a statului de executare a decis fie s nu urmreasc pentru infraciunea pe care se bazeaz mandatul de arestare european fie s stopeze urmrirea, sau dac s-a pronunat o hotrre rmas definitiv mpotriva persoanei solicitate ntr-un alt stat, pentru aceleai acte, care mpiedic continuarea urmririi ; 2. dac persoana care este supus mandatului de arestare european este urmrit n statul de executare pentru acelai act ca i cel pe care se

into account ". Art. 57 of the Convention states that when one state accuses a person of committing a punishable act and its competent authorities have reason to believe that the charge relates to some acts for which the person has been tried in another state, those authority asks if consider necessary, relevant information from the competent authorities of that state in whose territory judgment has already been delivered. The information required must be provided soon and must be taken into account in the pending proceedings. As in other legal instruments, art. 58 of the Schengen Convention provides that insofar the provisions from national laws are more favorable in terms of the non bis in idem principle in case of foreign judgments, are those which have priority. Another instrument originating from the European Union contains provisions on the principle which we discuss about. It is the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights which established in article 50 a fundamental right of EU citizens, namely: "the right not to be tried twice for the same offense. According to this text nobody can be tried or punished for an offense for which he or she already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law. In the Framework Decision on European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between member states37, in art. 4 points 2 and 3 are indicated among the cases in which it is possible to refuse the execution of the warrant: ... 3. if the executing judicial authority of the state decided not to pursue either the offense on which the European arrest warrant or to stop the prosecution, or whether a ruling became final against the person sought in another state, for the same acts, which prevents further prosecution 2.if the person is subject to the European arrest warrant is sought in the State of enforcement for the same act as that on which the European

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2010

105

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2010

bazeaz mandatul de arestare european. 5. Fr ndoial, activitatea cea mai eficient n ceea ce privete conturarea elementelor principiului non bis in idem (ne bis in idem n referirile din cadrul Uniunii Europene) este cea desfurat de Curtea de Justiie a Uniunii Europene. Aceasta s-a pronunat pentru prima dat n legtur cu incidena principiului n materie penal n anul 2003, iar de atunci domeniul este cel mai consistent din jurisprudena instanei judiciare europene. Au fost pronunate hotrri cu privire la chestiuni precum interpretarea noiunii de soluionat definitiv12, consecinele pentru instana dintr-un stat membru a achitrii unui inculpat din cauza prescrierii aciunii penale13, interpretarea noiunilor de aceleai fapte i autoritate de lucru judecat14, domeniul de aplicare al principiului non bis in idem n situaia n care autoritile judiciare renun s iniieze urmrirea penal exclusiv pe motivul c un alt stat membru a iniiat o procedur similar15, etc. Cauza care a deschis calea acestei intensificri a activitii Curii de Justiie a Uniunii este cea denumit Gozutok and Brugge16, pronunat la 11 februarie 2003, fiind i prima hotrre n interpretarea Conveniei pentru implementarea Aquisului Schengen. n concret, un cetean turc care tria de civa ani n Olanda a fost descoperit deinnd cteva kilograme de hai i de marijuana n cafeneaua sa. Ministerul Public Olandez i-a propus o tranzacie n condiiile legii penale naionale. Dl. Gozutok a pltit suma de bani stabilit i a evitat condamnarea. n acelai timp, autoritile germane, dup ce o banc german a notificat suspiciunile de implicare n trafic de droguri n Olanda, l-au condamnat pe dl. Gozutok la un an i 5 luni nchisoare. Att condamnatul, ct i Ministerul Public au atacat hotrrea n baza art. 54 CISA pentru c decizia luat de autoritile olandeze avea valoare de res judicata i s-a produs o condamnare dubl pentru aceeai fapt. n mod asemntor, ntr-o alt situaie, un cetean german, a provocat unei persoane, cetean belgian, vtmri corporale care au

arrest warrant. 5. Undoubtedly, the most effective work in shaping the elements of the non bis in idem (ne bis in idem in the legal instruments of the European Union) is held by the Court of Justice of the European Union. It ruled for the first time about the incidence of the principle in criminal matters in 2003 and since then the field has been the most consistent from the activity of the European judicial authority. Decisions have been delivered on issues such as interpretation of the concept finally settled "38, the consequences for the court of a member state of the acquittal based on the prescription of a defendant by another state court39, the interpretation of the concepts of same facts and res judicata authority40, the incidence of non bis in idem principle in cases where judicial authorities renounce to initiate the prosecution waived solely because another Member State has initiated a similar procedure41, etc.. The case that opened the way of this intensification work of the Court Union is called Gozutok and Bruge42, passed on February 11, 2003, being the first decision in the interpretation of the Convention to implement the Schengen Acquis (CISA), as well. Specifically, a Turkish citizen who lived for years in the Netherlands was found holding a few kilograms of hashish and marijuana in his cafe. The Dutch Public Prosecutor has proposed a settlement according to national criminal law and Mr. Gozutok paid the money down and avoided the conviction. Meanwhile, German authorities after a German bank informed about the suspicions of involvement in drug trafficking in the Netherlands, condemned Mr. Gozutok one year and 5 months imprisonment. Both the offender and the prosecutor challenged the decision under the article 54 CISA because the decision issued by Dutch authorities had res judicata force and in consequence have been created a double conviction for the same offense.

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2010

106

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2010

determinat o incapacitate de munc acesteia. Procurorul din Bonn a condus o anchet asupra acestei fapte i a propus o nelegere n schimbul sumei de 1000 de mrci. Amenda a fost pltit i procurorul a dispus ncetarea procesului. Totui, Mr. Brugge a fost condamnat de ctre o instan belgian la care victima introdusese aciune separat n considerarea aceleiai fapte. Curtea belgian a decis s suspende procedura i s se adreseze Curii de Justiie pentru chestiunea preliminar. Chestiunea a vizat lmurirea urmtorului aspect: dac sub art. 54 CISA este permis ca Ministerul Public Belgian s cear unui cetean german s compar n faa instanei penal belgiene i s fie condamnat pentru aceeai fapt pentru care Ministerul Public German i-a oferit o nelegere de oprire a procedurii dup plata unei amenzi, amend care a i fost pltit. Instana naional a dorit s cunoasc dac faptul c nu o instana nu a fost implicat n nelegere i nu este o procedur judectoreasc are vreo relevan din punctul de vedere al art. 54 CISA. Curtea de Justiie a Uniunii Europene a considerat c decizia Ministerului Public de ncetare a procedurii este o form de administrare a justiiei. Mai mult dect att, Curtea a statuat c acest tip de procedur penalizeaz conduita antisocial a acuzatului, de aceea persoana trebuie privit n acelai fel ca o persoan care a fost condamnat definitiv i care a executat pedeapsa. Curtea i-a motivat soluia pe mprejurarea c n Titlul VI din Tratatul UE sau n CISA nu se condiioneaz aplicarea art. 54 CISA de armonizarea legilor penale ale Statelor Membre. De aceea, Curtea a considerat c implementarea principiului non bis in idem nseamn c statele au ncredere reciproc n sistemele lor judiciare penale i c fiecare dintre ele recunoate regulile de natur penal consacrate n celelalte state, chiar i atunci cnd sunt diferite de cele proprii17. 6. Pentru c, aa cum am ilustrat anterior, importana respectrii principiului non bis in idem este admis la nivelul Uniunii Europene, n decembrie 2005 Comisia a elaborat i publicat o Carte verde asupra

Similarly, in another case a German citizen caused to a person, a Belgian citizen, an injury which created a disability. Bonn prosecutor leading an investigation into the facts proposed a deal in exchange for the sum of 1,000 marks. The fine was paid and the prosecutor has ordered the termination of the process. However, Mr. Brugge has been convicted by a Belgian court because the victim brought a separate action in considering the same facts. The Belgian Court decided to suspend the proceedings and to refer the European Court Justice for a preliminary ruling. The issue aimed at clarifying next aspect: whether under Art. 54 from CISA the Belgian Prosecutor is allowed to ask to a German citizen to appear before the Belgian criminal court and be sentenced for the same offense for which the German prosecutors offered a deal to stop the procedure after a fine, fine which was paid. National court wanted to know if that court has not been involved in the arrangement and not a judicial proceeding, has no relevance in terms of article 54 from CISA. The decision of EU Court considered that the Public Ministry decision of termination the proceedings is a form to administrate the justice. Moreover, the Court held that this type of procedure penalizes the defendants antisocial behavior, so the person must be seen in the same way as a person who was finally convicted and executed the penalty. The Court has reasoned solution to the fact that Title VI of the EU Treaty or CISA does not determine the application of the article of 54 CISA on the harmonization of criminal laws in the member states. Therefore, the Court held that the implementation of the non bis in idem principle means that states have mutual trust in their criminal justice systems and that each of them recognizes the criminal rules established in other states, even when they are different from their own43. 6. Because, as we have previously

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2010

107

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2010

conflictelor de competene i principiului ne bis in idem n cauzele penale18 n care se exprim intenia ca n aceast materie s se creeze un mecanism de alocare a cauzelor n competena adecvat. Un astfel de mecanism ar facilita evitarea situaiilor de bis in idem i ar fi de natur s susin aplicarea principiului recunoaterii reciproce. Pentru ca un astfel de mecanism s devin funcional este obligatoriu se porneasc de la dou premise. n primul rnd, autoritile competente trebuie s devin contiente de procedurile sau deciziile pronunate sub alt jurisdicie, motiv pentru care trebuie s li se permit sau poate chiar s fie obligate s schimbe informaii relevante. n al doilea rnd, odat ce au devenit contiente de activitile judiciare desfurate de cealalt parte, organele competente trebuie s aib posibilitatea de a se abine de la declanarea urmririi sau s opreasc pe cea existent, pentru simplul motiv c acea fapt este urmrit n alt stat. Dup ndeplinirea acestor premise, sunt propuse urmtoarele etape ce ar trebui parcurse din punct de vedere al procedurii concrete de funcionare a unui astfel de mecanism: 1) identificarea i informarea prilor interesate (n funcie de elementele de extraneitate pe care fiecare fapt n parte le prezint: cetenia autorului sau a victimei, teritoriul pe care fapta este comis, etc.); 2) etapa consultrilor i a discuiilor (n care autoritile competente ale statelor interesate examineaz mpreun care este cel mai bun loc pentru ca procesul penal s se desfoare); 3) rezolvarea conflictelor i medierea (care intervine cnd din etapa anterioar nu se ajunge la un consens); 4) etapa opional care este doar sugerat de Cartea verde i care presupune ca un anumit organism s dobndeasc n viitor capacitatea de a pronuna decizii obligatorii pentru situaiile n care medierea a euat i s atribuie judecarea cauzei uneia dintre jurisdiciile aflate n conflict. Pentru ca mecanismul s funcioneze, sunt propuse i alte prghii care s l susin. n primul rnd, se propune instituirea unei obligaii ca organele judiciare s verifice

illustrated, the importance of the principle non bis in idem is admitted to the European Union level, in December 2005 the Commission developed and published a Green Paper on conflicts of jurisdiction and the non bis in idem in criminal cases44 to express the intention that in this matter should be created a mechanism for allocation of cases under the most appropriate jurisdiction. Such a mechanism would help avoid bis in idem situations and would be likely to uphold the principle of mutual recognition. For such a mechanism to be operational it is required to start from two premises. First, the authorities must become aware of the procedures or decisions rendered in another jurisdiction, and that is why they should be allowed or may even be obliged to exchange relevant information. Secondly, once they became aware of the legal activities undertaken by the other party, the competent authorities must be able to refrain from triggering the prosecution or to stop the existing ones, simply because that offense is prosecuted in another state. When these assumptions are met, next steps would be taken in terms of specific operating procedure of such a mechanism: 1) identify and inform the implied parties (depending on which extraneity elements are in discussion in that particular case: the author or the victims nationality, the territory on which the deed was committed, etc.); 2) the stage of consultations and discussions (in which the competent authorities of the states concerned shall examine together the best place for the trial to be conducted); 3) solving the competences conflicts and mediation (which occurs when the previous stage doesnt reached a consensus); 4) optional step which is only suggested in the paper, and requires that a body to acquire in the future the ability to give binding decisions where mediation has failed and to award the proceedings to one of the

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2010

108

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2010

competena de a soluiona o cauz lund n considerare nu numai normele dreptului intern, dar i pe cele care alctuiesc dreptul Uniunii Europene. n al doilea rnd, se propune instituirea unui principiu al prioritii care se permit obligarea statelor s i concentreze activitatea judiciar din acelai caz sub o jurisdicie principal (leading jurisdiction), cea care a fost identificat ca fiind cea mai potrivit pentru a guverna urmrirea i judecarea cauzei. n baza acestui principiu statele ar putea fi obligate s n nceteze eventuala activitate paralel pe care ar avea-o n derulare. Momentul considerat oportun pentru concentrarea tuturor jurisdiciilor este cel al formulrii acuzaiilor. Al treilea element este cel care vizeaz stabilirea unor criterii care s fie utilizate n procesul de identificare a acelei jurisdicii principale. O astfel de list ar putea s includ principii ca: teritorialitatea, criterii legate de nvinuit sau inculpat, legate de interesele victimei sau de cele ale statului, dar i alte criterii legate de eficiena i celeritatea procesului penal. Dup stabilirea acestei liste, o etap superioar este reprezentat de identificarea unei ordini de prioritate n ceea ce privete principiile, sau chiar la identificarea unui principiu general care s guverneze alegerea jurisdiciei principale cum este cel al procesului rezonabil. Aa cum este i firesc, Cartea verde a ocazionat luri de poziie n literatura de specialitate, i dei este un obiectiv pe termen lung, care va nregistra multe piedici i opoziii, este n opinia noastr o modalitate de a dezvlui i poate chiar de a invita la reflecie cu privire la modul n care se dorete a fi rezolvat problema respectrii principiului non bis in idem n domeniul penal. n acest context, credem c se impune o reconsiderare a acestuia i la nivelul dreptului i doctrinei romneti. Argumentele n sprijinul reconsiderrii sunt cele care privesc unele abordri tradiionale care nu mai sunt adecvate cu noul peisaj al cooperrii judiciare i poliieneti n materie penal, mai ales dup intrarea n vigoare a Tratatului de la Lisabona. 7. Spre exemplu, n doctrina

conflicting jurisdictions. For the mechanism to operate, are proposed other levers to support it. First, it is proposed to impose an obligation to verify the competence of judicial authorities to deal with an issue taking into account not only domestic law but also those that make up the European Union law. Secondly, it is proposing the institution of a priority principle to allow states to focus their work under the coordination of that court indicated as a primary jurisdiction (a leading jurisdiction), which was identified as best suited to govern the prosecution and trial case. Based on this principle states could be even obliged to cease any activity that would be parallel to the one in progress. The moment considered appropriate for the concentration of all jurisdictions is the one of formulating the charge. The third element is to determine the criteria to be used in the identification of that leading jurisdiction. Such a list could include principles as: territoriality, criteria concerning the defendant, the victims interests or related to the interests of the state, but also other criteria based on the efficiency and the celerity of trial. After establishing this list, an upper stage is the identification of a priority order of the principles, or even to identify a general principle governing the choice of the leading jurisdiction - as is the reasonable process. As it should be, the Green Paper has given rise to different positions in the literature, and although it is a long term goal, which will meet many obstacles and opposition, is in our opinion a way to reveal and perhaps to invite to reflection on how the problem of the principle non bis in idem in criminal matters would be solved. In this context, in my opinion, it is necessary to reconsider the principle, both from legal and doctrinal perspective. The arguments which support this reconsideration concern some traditional approaches that are no

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2010

109

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2010

romneasc de specialitate clasic, se arta c n materia recunoaterii hotrrilor judectoreti strine, trebuiau identificate dou categorii de efecte, dup cum hotrrea este una de achitare sau una de condamnare. n acest fel se vorbea despre o autoritate pozitiv de lucru judecat dar i despre o autoritate negativ de lucru judecat19. n acest din urm caz, se aprecia c hotrrea strin nu se poate invoca pe cale incidental naintea organelor judiciare romne n cazul n care acea hotrre se refer la fapte i persoane fa de care legea romn este aplicabil cu titlu principal (art. 3,4 i 5 C.pen.), n astfel de cazuri regula non bis in idem nefiind operant. Persoana aflat n una dintre aceste situaii trebuie judecat de instanele penale romne, n prezen sau n lips, indiferent dac exist o hotrre definitiv strin de condamnare pentru aceeai fapt i pentru aceeai persoan. Totui, n astfel de situaii urma a se face aplicarea art. 89 C.pen. privitoare la deducerea pedepsei (sau a timpului de reinere sau deinere) din strintate. Atunci cnd, ns, aplicarea legii romne era posibil cu titlu subsidiar, autoritatea negativ de lucru judecat a hotrrii penale strine poate fi invocat (art. 6 C.pen.), producnd efecte juridice penale potrivit legii romne (ex. mpiedic sau face s nceteze o nou urmrire sau judecat mpotriva aceleiai persoane). O astfel de abordare nu mai este posibil n prezent, n contextul n care cooperarea n materie penal se face chiar i n cadrul procedurii de executare a mandatului european de arestare, n care se execut pe teritoriul naional acte emise de un organ jurisdicional strin, fr s se mai verifice respectarea tuturor condiiilor n care acest act a fost emis, doar n temeiul ncrederii reciproce. Cu privire la un alt aspect, doctrina romneasc a dreptului procesual penal este unanim n a accepta c ordonana de scoatere de sub urmrire penal pe temeiul inexistenei faptei sau a vinoviei inculpatului nu are puterea de lucru judecat a unei hotrri judectoreti definitive de achitare n faa instanei civile, de altfel procurorul poate redeschide oricnd urmrirea penal dac au

longer adequate to the new landscape of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, especially after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. 7. For example, the Romanian classical doctrine indicated that in the field of recognition of the foreign judgments had identified two categories of effects, depending if it is about an acquittal or a conviction decision. There was indicated a positive authority of res judicata but also a negative authority of res judicata45. In the latter case, it was considered that the foreign decision cannot rely before the Romanian judicial bodies when that decision relates to acts and persons to which Romanian law is applicable as a principal (according to art. 3.4 and 5 of the Romanian Penal Code.), in such cases non bis in idem rule being not being applicable. Person in one of these situations should be judged by the Romanian criminal courts, regardless of the presence or absence or whether a final foreign conviction for the same offense and the same person exists. However, in such a situation, art. 89 from the Romanian Penal Code, was applicable relating to deduction of penalty (detention or retention time) from abroad. When, however, Romanian law enforcement was possible in a subsidiary way, the negative authority of res judicata may be invoked and the foreign criminal decision (Article 6 Penal Code.) produced criminal legal effect according to the Romanian law. Such an approach is not possible nowadays, in the context when the cooperation in criminal matters ma develop in the framework of the European arrest warrant, in which it is allowed to enforce on the national territory an act issued of a foreign jurisdiction without ascertaining compliance with all conditions in which the act was issued, but only under mutual trust principle. Concerning another aspect, the Romanian doctrine of the criminal procedure law is unanimous in accepting that the order of removal from criminal

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2010

110

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2010

aprut noi mprejurri, fapt ce nu este de natur s confere un caracter irevocabil celor constatate prin ordonan20. n general, se accept c principiul non bis in idem are dou componente: nemodebet bis vexari pro pro una et eadem causa (nimeni nu trebuie s fie urmrit de dou ori pentru aceeai infraciune) i nemo debet bis punir pro uno delicto (nimeni nu trebuie s fie sancionat de dou ori pentru aceeai fapt)21. Din susinerea doctrinar citat anterior se observ c n procedura penal romneasc doar ce-a de-a doua component este nsuit, principiul fiind considerat nclcat atunci cnd au fost aplicate dou sanciuni pentru aceeai fapt, fr s se mai aib n vedere i prima component, cea legat de urmrirea dubl pentru aceeai fapt. Cu toate acestea, n jurisprudena Curii de Justiie a Uniunii Europene22, aa cum am subliniat, s-a statuat c o decizie luat de un reprezentat al ministerului public dintr-o ar este opozabil unui organ de acelai nivel ntrun alt stat, chiar dac nu s-a ajuns n faa unei instane judectoreti pentru a se stinge raportul juridic de drept procesual penal. Date fiind cele subliniate anterior, apreciem c este oportun o reconsiderare a aprecierilor din doctrin, dar i a legislaiei pentru a permite respectarea ambelor componente ale principiului non bis in idem. 8. O alt provocare cu care domeniul investigat se confrunt este aceea c accentele europene ale principiului non bis in idem sunt furnizate i de jurisprudena CEDO. Astfel, n literatura de specialitate romneasc se arat c nu opereaz autoritatea de lucru judecat n situaia n care exist identitate de fapte materiale, dar fapta este calificat diferit sub aspectul naturii juridice: odat ca i contravenie i apoi ca infraciune23. Aceasta deoarece, n condiiile judecrii faptei ca o contravenie nu s-a exercitat o aciune penal care are ca obiect tragerea la rspundere penal a celui care a svrit o infraciune i, n consecin, nici aciunea penal nu s-a putut stinge. Aciunea penal nefiind stins, nu poate opera ca impediment pentru punerea ei n

prosecution under the act or lack of guilt of the accused has not the force of res judicata in front of the civil court, and the prosecutor may reopen prosecution whenever there any new circumstances, which is not likely to make the ordinance irrevocable.46 Generally it is accepted that the non bis in idem principle has two components: nemodebet bis vexari pro pro una et eadem causa (no one should be pursued for the same offense twice) and nemo debet bis punir pro uno delicto (no one should be punished twice for the same offense)47. For doctrinal opinion cited above it is obvious that the Romanian criminal procedure only the second component is acquired, the principle is considered breached when two penalties were applied to the same act, and the first component is neglected, the double pursuit related one. However, the Court of Justice of the European Union48, as noted above, stated that a decision taken by a representative of the Public Ministry in a country is opposable to an authority of the same level in another state, even if the procedure never reached before a court, and has the ability to extinguish the criminal procedural conflict. Given the previously outlined, we think it is appropriate to reconsider the findings of doctrine and the internal legislation in order to enable the both components of the principle non bis in idem. 8. Another challenge facing the field investigated is that European accents of the non bis in idem principle are provided also by ECHR jurisprudence. Thus, Romanian literature states that res judicata does not operate where there is identity of material facts, but the fact is described differently in terms of legal nature: once as an administrative offense (contravention) and then as a crime49. This is because, in front of the administrative Court the violation has not been pursued in a criminal action which

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2010

111

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2010

micare existena unei hotrri definitive a instanei civile prin care pentru aceeai fapt s-a aplicat fptuitorului o sanciune 24 contravenional . O astfel de afirmaie va trebui reconsiderat datorit unor staturi ale Curii Europene a Drepturilor Omului. ntr-o cauz recent25, instana amintit a pornit de la reclamaia unui cetean care, dup ce a fost sancionat cu amend contravenional pentru c n cadrul unui conflict a spart ua unui vecin i l-a lovit pe acesta, iar pentru aceeai fapt a fost condamnat i n faa instanei penale pentru violare de domiciliu i loviri sau alte violene. n acest context, n faa Curi Europene, reclamantul a invocat nclcarea articolelor 6 din Convenia European a Drepturilor Omului i a art. 4 din Protocolul nr. 7 la Convenie (care garanteaz dreptul de a nu fi urmrit sau condamnat penal de dou ori pentru aceleai fapte ne bis in idem). Curtea, prin hotrrea pronunat la 14 ianuarie 2010, a constatat nclcarea ambelor articole. Cu privire la art. 4 din Protocolul 7 la Convenie, Curtea a artat c: sanciunea contravenional aplicat reclamantului pentru faptele comise poate fi considerata avnd un caracter penal n sensul autonom pe care Convenia l acord acestei noiuni, avnd in vedere c, pe de o parte, interdicia instituit prin textul legal nclcat se adreseaz tuturor persoanelor i c, pe de alt parte, scopul sanciunii este acela de a pedepsi i preveni svrirea n viitor a unor fapte similare. n plus, s-a apreciat c exist identitate de faptele care s-au aflat la originea sanciunii contravenionale i respectiv cele care au generat procedura penal ndreptat mpotriva reclamantului, independent de definiia legal pe care dreptul intern o d contraveniei, respectiv celor dou infraciuni. n acest context, s-a constatat c a existat o dublare a procedurilor judiciare ndreptate mpotriva reclamantului, avnd n vedere c procedurile penale au fost precedate de sancionarea contravenional a acestuia. n concluzie, reclamantul fusese condamnat n procedura administrativ

seeks criminal accountability of those who committed a crime and therefore criminal proceedings could not be extinguished. The administrative Court ruling cannot operate as an impediment for the criminal proceedings initiation, even more as only a minor penalty has been applied50. Such a statement need to be reconsidered because of some directives of the European Court of Human Rights. In a recent cause51, the specified Court began with the complaint of a citizen, which after having been sanctioned with an administrative fine because in the context of a conflict, he broke down the door of a neighbor and also hit him and for the same crime, was convicted in front of the penal court for illegal trespassing and acts of violence. In this context, in front of the European Court the plaintiff alleged the breach of Articles 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the Article 4 of the 7th Protocol to the Convention (which guarantees the right not to be tried or convicted twice for the same offense - non bis in idem). The Court, in its ruling, on the 14 th, 2010, admitted the breach of both articles. Concerning the Article 4 of the 7th Protocol to the Convention, the Court stated that: the administrative penalty imposed for the applicants crimes can be considered as having a "criminal" character within the meaning given to this term by the Convention, because, on the one hand, the prohibition established by the violated law addresses to all individuals and, secondly, because the aim of the sanction is to punish and prevent the future commission of similar acts. In addition, the Court stated that there was the same fact which generated both the administrative penalty and the criminal pursuit against the applicant, regardless of the legal definition given by national law to the offense. In this context, it was found that there was a doubling of legal proceedings against the plaintiff, considering that the criminal

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2010

112

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2010

(contravenional) ce trebuie asimilat unui proces penal n sensul autonom al acestei noiuni n Convenie. Dup ce aceast condamnare a devenit definitiv, mpotriva reclamantului fusese formulat o alta acuzaie n materie penal care privea acelai comportament i, n esen, aceleai fapte. Avnd n vedere c art. 4 din Protocolul 7 la Convenie interzice att urmrirea penal ct i condamnarea unei persoane pentru fapte care au condus deja la aplicarea unei sanciuni penale definitive, Curtea a constatat nclcarea principiului ne bis in idem de ctre statul care a i fost condamnat. Din aceast decizie a Curii Europene a Drepturilor Omului, se poate observa c s-a creat posibilitatea ca i n legtur cu legislaia romneasc s se ntlneasc astfel de situaii. n legislaia noastr actual exist o serie ntreag de fapte care sunt considerate deopotriv contravenii sau infraciuni, n funcie de aptitudinea lor concret de a depi pragul de periculozitate specific unei infraciuni. Spre exemplu, n domeniul silviculturii26, aceeai fapt de tiere de mas lemnoas pe picior poate constitui contravenie sau infraciune n funcie de prejudiciul concret creat prin comiterea sa sau, alternativ, de observarea unei persistene n comportamentul antisocial ntr-un interval de 2 ani. Dac pentru un prim act s-a aplicat o sanciune contravenional, iar cu ocazia constatrii repetrii faptei se procedeaz la tragerea la rspundere penal pentru infraciunea respectiv, situaia este asemntoare cu cea din spea analizat anterior. 9. Prezentul studiu i-a propus s fie un prilej de reflecie asupra modului n care dreptul material i procesual penal sunt influenate de mprejurarea c domeniul de inciden al legilor naionale nu mai este unul autonom, ci unul integrat ntr-un Spaiu de libertate, securitate i justiie european, care se dorete a fi consolidat dup intrarea n vigoare a Tratatului de la Lisabona. Din acest motiv, aplicarea principiului non bis in idem n materie penal nu mai este o chestiune supus legilor naionale, ci este influenat profund de norme i

proceedings were preceded by an administrative punishment. In conclusion, the European Court of Human Rights admitted that the applicant had been convicted in the administrative procedure which must be assimilated to a criminal trial within the meaning from the Convention. After this conviction became final, another charge was made against the plaintiff in a criminal procedure concerning the same conduct. Considering the fact that in the article 4 from the 7th Protocol to the Convention prohibits both the prosecution and the conviction of persons for crimes that have already led to the definitive imposition of a criminal penalty, the Court indicated the infringement of the non bis in idem principle by the State and was therefore sentenced against it. From this decision of the European Court of Human Rights, it is obvious that it is now possible to meet such situations concerning the Romanian legislation. In our current legislation there is a series of facts which are considered both offenses and crimes, according to their specific ability to exceed a specific level social danger. For example, in forestry field52, the same act - cutting standing trees is an administrative offence or a crime, depending on the importance of the damage produced by committing the act, or alternatively on a persistent antisocial behavior in a period of 2 years. If for the first act observed in this period was applied an administrative sanction and afterwards for the second act the offender support a criminal conviction, we have a similar situation as in the previously analyzed case. 9. This study aims to be an opportunity to reflect on how the substantive law and criminal procedure are influenced by the fact that the area of incidence of national laws is no more restricted to the national territory, but one integrated into a European Space of Freedom, Security ad Justice, which would be strengthened after the entry into force of

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2010

113

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2010

standarde impuse prin instrumentele juridice ce eman de la instituiile Uniunii Europene. n plus, o alt provocare pe care am identificat-o n acest domeniu este aceea de a menine echilibru ntre elementele care sunt semnalate de aceste instrumente i din jurisprudena Curii de Justiie a Uniunii Europene i elementele care rezult din jurisprudena Curii Europene a Drepturilor Omului.

Bibliografie V. Dongoroz, S. Kahane, G. Antoniu, C. Bulai, N. Iliescu, R. Stnoiu, Explicaii teoretice ale Codului de procedur penal Romn, Partea special, vol. II, Editura Academiei Romne, Bucureti, 1978 I. Neagu, Tratat de drept procesual penal, Partea special, Editura Gobal Lex, Bucureti, 2008 N. Volonciu, Tratat de Drept procesual penal, Editura Paideia, Bucureti, 1994 I. Neagu, Tratat de drept procesual penal, Editura Global Lex, Bucureti, 2002 Gr. Theodoru, Tratat de Drept procesual penal, Editura Hamangiu, Bucureti, 2008 A.t. Tulbure, Autoritatea de lucru judecat n procesul penal, Revista de Drept penal nr. 4/1999 J. A. Vervaele, The transnational ne bis in idem principle in the EU - Mutual recognition and equivalent protection of human rights, Utrecht Law Review, Volume 1, Issue 2 (December) 2005 I. Poenaru, Aspecte ale raportului dintre rspunderea penal i rspunderea contravenional, n R.R.D. nr. 6/1973

the Treaty of Lisbon. For this reason, applying the non bis in idem principle in criminal matters is no more a subject to national laws, but is deeply influenced by norms and standards imposed by the legal instruments emanating from EU institutions. In addition, another challenge is to be admitted in these matters - to maintain balance between the standards imposed by these norms and by the Court of Justice of the European Union practice, on one hand, and the standard imposed by the European Court of Human Rights rulings. Bibliography V. Dongoroz, S. Kahane, G. Antoniu, C. Bulai, N. Iliescu, R. Stnoiu, Theoretical Explanations of Romanian Penal Code, Special Part, vol. II, Academiei Romne Publishing House, Bucharest, 1978 I. Neagu, Criminal Procedural Law, Global Lex Publishing House, Bucharest, 2002 N. Volonciu, Criminal Procedural Law, Paideia Publishing House, Bucharest, 1994 Gr. Theodoru, Criminal Procedural Law, Hamangiu Publishing House, Bucharest, 2008 A.t. Tulbure, Res Judicate in Criminal Trial, in Criminal Law Review no. 4/1999 A. Vervaele, The Transnational non bis in idem Principle in the EU - Mutual Recognition and Equivalent Protection of Human Rights, Utrecht Law Review, Volume 1, Issue 2 (December) 2005 I. Neagu, Criminal Procedural Law, Gobal Lex Publishing House, Bucharest, 2008 I. Poenaru, Aspects of the report between criminal liability and contravention responsibility, in Romanian Law Review no. 6/1973

V. Dongoroz, S. Kahane, G. Antoniu, C. Bulai, N. Iliescu, R. Stnoiu, Explicaii teoretice ale Codului de procedur penal Romn, Partea special, vol. II, Editura Academiei Romne, Bucureti, 1978, p. 249. 2 N. Volonciu, Tratat de Drept procesual penal, Editura Paideia, Bucureti, 1994, p. 328. 3 I. Neagu, Tratat de drept procesual penal, Editura Global Lex, Bucureti, 2002, p. 250. 4 Cu excepia hotrrii de ncetare a procesului penal pe temeiul de la art. 10 lit. f C.pr.pen. 5 Gr. Theodoru, Tratat de Drept procesual penal, Editura Hamangiu, Bucureti, 2008, p. 830. Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2010

114

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2010

Prin Legea nr. 224/ 2006, publicat n Monitorul Oficial al Romniei, Partea I, nr. 534 din 21 iunie 2006. Publicat n Monitorul Oficial al Romniei, Partea I, nr. 594/2004. A fost avut n vedere forma modificat succesiv, inclusiv cu modificrile operate prin Legea nr. 222/2008. 8 A.t. Tulbure, Autoritatea de lucru judecat n procesul penal, Revista de Drept penal nr. 4/1999, p. 30. 9 J. A. Vervaele, The transnational ne bis in idem principle in the EU - Mutual recognition and equivalent protection of human rights, Utrecht Law Review, Volume 1, Issue 2 (December) 2005. p. 100. 10 Excepiile care au fcut obiectul declaraiei nu se aplic atunci cnd, pentru aceleai fapte, Partea Contractant interesat a cerut unei alte Pri Contractante s efectueze urmrirea sau a acordat extrdarea persoanei n cauz. 11 Decizia-cadru nr. 2002/584/JHA. 12 Cauzele conexate C-187/01 i C-385/01 Gztok i Brugge. 13 Cauza C-467/04 Gasparini. 14 Cauza C-150/05 van Straaten. 15 Cauza C-469/03 Miraglia. 16 Joined cases 187/01 and 385/01, www.eclan.eu 17 Veronique Beaugrand, The European Court of Justice: An Increasing Role within The Third Pillar, Summer Course on European Criminal Justice, ERA, Trier, 2007. 18 COM (2005) 696 19 V. Dongoroz, S. Kahane, G. Antoniu, C. Bulai, N. Iliescu, R. Stnoiu, op. cit., p. 414. 20 Gr. Theodoru, op. cit., p. 606. Afirmaie sprijinit i prin indicarea unei decizii din practica judiciar romneasc C.S.J., s.pen., dec. nr. 2063/1991, n Dreptul nr. 8/1992, p. 80. 21 J. A. Vervaele, op. cit., p. 100. 22 Denumire primit dup intrarea n vigoare a Tratatului de la Lisabona. 23 I. Neagu, Tratat de drept procesual penal, Partea special, Editura Gobal Lex, Bucureti, 2008, pag. 347. 24 I. Poenaru, Aspecte ale raportului dintre rspunderea penal i rspunderea contravenional, n R.R.D. nr. 6/1973, pag. 82. 25 Tsonyo Tsonev vs. Bulgaria 2376/03, 14 ianuarie 2010, www.echr.coe.int. 26 Actul normativ care reglementeaz domeniul este Legea nr. 46/2008 (Publicat n Monitorul Oficial al Romniei, Partea I, nr. 238 din 27 martie 2008). 27 V. Dongoroz, S. Kahane, G. Antoniu, C. Bulai, N. Iliescu, R. Stnoiu, Theoretical Explanations of Romanian Penal Code, Special Part, vol. II, Academiei Romne Publishing House, Bucharest, 1978, p. 249 28 N. Volonciu, Criminal Procedural Law, Paideia Publishing House, Bucharest, 1994, p. 328 29 I. Neagu, Criminal Procedural Law, Global Lex Publishing House, Bucharest, 2002, p. 250. 30 E Unless the decision to terminate criminal proceedings on the basis of art. 10 point f of Romanian Criminal Procedural Code. 31 Gr. Theodoru, Criminal Procedural Law, Hamangiu Publishing House, Bucharest, 2008, p. 830. 32 Law no. 224/ 2006, published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part. I, no. 534 from 21 June 2006. 33 Published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part. I, no. 594/2004, including the adjustments made by Law no. 222/2008. 34 A.t. Tulbure, Res Judicate in Criminal Trial, in Criminal Law Review no. 4/1999, p. 30. 35 J. A. Vervaele, The Transnational non bis in idem Principle in the EU - Mutual Recognition and Equivalent Protection of Human Rights, Utrecht Law Review, Volume 1, Issue 2 (December) 2005, p.100. 36 The exceptions which were the subject of a declaration under paragraph 1 shall not apply where the Contracting Party concerned has, in connection with the same acts, requested the other Contracting Party to bring the prosecution or has granted extradition of the person concerned. 37 Framework-Decision no. 2002/584/JHA. 12 Conexed cases C-187/01 i C-385/01 Gztok i Brugge. 39 Case C-467/04 Gasparini. 40 Case C-150/05 van Straaten. 41 Case C-469/03 Miraglia. 42 Joined cases 187/01 and 385/01, www.eclan.eu 43 Veronique Beaugrand, The European Court of Justice: An Increasing Role within The Third Pillar, Summer Course on European Criminal Justice, ERA, Trier, 2007. 44 COM (2005) 696 45 V. Dongoroz, S. Kahane, G. Antoniu, C. Bulai, N. Iliescu, R. Stnoiu, op.cit., p. 414.
7

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2010

115

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2010

46

Gr. Theodoru, op. cit., p. 606, and High Court of Cassation and Justice, Decision no. 2063/1991, in Dreptul Review nr. 8/1992, p. 80. 47 J. A. Vervaele, cited work, p. 100. 48 Called in this manner after the enforcement of the Treaty of Lisbon 49 I. Neagu, Criminal Procedural Law, Gobal Lex Publishing House, Bucharest, 2008, p. 347. 50 I. Poenaru, Aspects of the report between criminal liability and contravention responsibility, in Romanian Law Review no. 6/1973, p. 82. 51 Tsonyo Tsonev vs. Bulgaria 2376/03, January 14-th 2010, www.echr.coe.int. 52 Law no. 46/2008 (Published in the Romanian Official Monitor, Part I, no. 238 of March 27 th 2008).

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2010

116