Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncu i din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiin e Juridice, Nr.

3/2011

RECUNOATEREA I EXECUTAREA HOTRRILOR PENALE I A ACTELOR JUDICIARE STRINE

RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF PENAL DECISIONS AND FOREIGN JUDICIAL DOCUMENTS

Judector Dr. Denis Gabriela GHERVASE Preedinte Judectoria Craiova

Abstract: The recognition and enforcement of criminal and judicial decisions as a form of international judicial cooperation, is the process by which criminal or other judicial decisions taken by a judicial authority in one EU member state has legal effect in another member state and in this way, the state appropriates the judicial decision or act effectively and give its territory, under its own sovereignty. Cuvinte cheie: recunoaterea i executarea hotrrilor strine, acte judiciare strine

Judge Dr. Denis Gabriela GHERVASE President of Craiova Court

Abstract: The recognition and enforcement of criminal and judicial decisions as a form of international judicial cooperation, is the process by which criminal or other judicial decisions taken by a judicial authority in one EU member state has legal effect in another member state and in this way, the state appropriates the judicial decision or act effectively and give its territory, under its own sovereignty. Key words: foreign decisions recognition and enforcement, foreign judicial documents

Recunoaterea reciproc consolidat a hotrrilor penale i a actelor judiciare va spori eficiena cooperrii dintre autoriti, fiind bazat pe ncrederea reciproc pe care statele membre o au n alte sisteme pe respectarea comun a drepturilor i libertilor fundamentale, astfel cum sunt menionate n Tratatul privind Uniunea European. [1, p. 13] Ca urmare, Consiliul Europei adopt principiul recunoaterii reciproce, care, n opinia sa, ar trebui s devin piatra de temelie a cooperrii judiciare n Uniunea European, att n materie penal, ct i n materie civil i, s se aplice att hotrrilor judectoreti, ct i pentru alte decizii ale autoritilor judiciare. Importana acestei forme de cooperare judiciar internaional n materie penal a determinat ca, n decursul timpului, teoreticienii s afirme c nfptuirea justiiei penale n mod complet i eficace nu ar fi posibil dac efectele hotrrilor penale s-ar limita numai la teritoriul statului unde s-au pronunat. [2, p. 45-47] Astfel, n doctrin sau conturat trei concepii total diferite i

Mutual consolidated recognition of penal decisions and judicial documents will increase the efficiency of cooperation between authorities, being based on mutual trust that member states have in other systems, on mutual compliance with the fundamental rights and freedoms, as mentioned in the European Union Treaty. [1, p. 13] Consequently, Europe Council adopts the principle of mutual recognition which, in its opinion, should become the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in the European Union both in penal matters and in civil matters and apply both to judicial sentences and for other decisions of judicial authorities. The importance of this form of international judicial cooperation in penal matters has determined theoreticians declare that penal justice fulfilment completely and efficiently would not be possible if the effects of penal decisions are limited only to the territory of the state they were sentenced in. [2, p. 45-47] Therefore, three totally different conceptions have occurred in doctrine, namely:

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 3/2011

117

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncu i din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiin e Juridice, Nr. 3/2011

anume: a. concepia negativ a aprut pe fondul nencrederii manifestate fa de hotrrile penale strine, ca urmare a nelegerii greite a termenului de suveranitate i a fost reprezentat de susintorii teoriei teritorialitii absolute. [3, p. 135] Concepia negativ const n aprecierea c, hotrrile penale strine nu pot produce efecte dect n limitele suveranitii statului de la care eman. b. concepia pozitiv propune recunoaterea hotrrilor penale strine n anumite limite i cu ndeplinirea anumitor condiii. Aceast concepie a aprut i s-a dezvoltat ntre cele dou rzboaie mondiale, atunci cnd, mai multe state au legiferat ideile aprute cu mult timp nainte de doctrin.[4, p.347] c. consacrarea legislativ reprezint recunoaterea hotrrilor penale strine ca form de asisten judiciar internaional n materie penal, teorie adoptat i susinut de majoritatea autorilor, dar i a legislaiilor europene. Ca atare, instituia recunoaterii i executrii actelor judiciare strine a existat i produs efecte juridice odat cu ncheierea primelor convenii de extrdare [5] de la sfritul secolului al XIX-lea. n Romnia, Codul Penal Carol al IIlea, n anul 1940 a prevzut primele norme legate de recunoaterea hotrrilor penale strine i a actelor judiciare strine, n acord cu noile orientri ale politicii penale a timpului. [4, p. 350-354] n doctrina timpului, majoritatea autorilor au susinut necesitatea recunoaterii legilor i hotrrilor penale strine pe ideea de curtoazie internaional. Astfel, legiuitorul romn din perioada interbelic a abordat instituiile recunoaterii hotrrilor penale i a actelor judiciare strine ntr-o manier modern, apropiat celei contemporane. ncepnd cu a doua jumtate a secolului trecut s-a constatat o tendin accentuat de admitere a tezei recunoaterii

d. Negative conception occurred based on the lack of trust expressed towards foreign penal decisions, as a result of wrong understanding of the term sovereignty and was represented by the supporters of absolute territoriality theory. [3, p. 135] The negative conception consists in the appreciation that foreign penal decisions can cause effects only within the limitations of the state they result from. e. Positive conception proposes the recognition of foreign penal decisions within certain limitations in compliance with certain conditions. This conception occurred and developed between the two world wars, several states legislated the ideas occurred long before the doctrine. [4, p.347] f. Legislative devotion is the recognition of foreign penal decisions as a form of international judicial assistance in criminal matters, a theory adopted and supported by most of authors, and European legislations. Consequently, the institution of foreign judicial documents recognition and execution existed and caused effects with the conclusion of the first extradition conventions [5] at the end of the 19th century. In Romania, Carol de 2nd Criminal Code, in 1940 provided the first rules regarding the recognition of foreign penal decisions and foreign judicial documents, in agreement with the new orientation of the criminal policy of the time. [4, p. 350-354] In the time doctrine, most of the authors supported the need to recognize foreign criminal laws and decisions based on the idea of international courtesy. Therefore, the Romanian lawmaker from the inter-war period approached the institutions of recognizing foreign penal decisionsand judicial documents in a modern manner, close to the contemporary one. Starting with the second half of the last century, we noticed an increased trend of admitting the thesis of recognizing foreign penal decisions in the first phase, between neighbour states under geographic aspects, related through cultural, religious traditions

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 3/2011

118

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncu i din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiin e Juridice, Nr. 3/2011

hotrrilor penale strine, n prima faz, ntre statele vecine sub aspect geografic, legate ntre ele prin tradiii culturale, religioase, etc., apoi, la nivel regional. [4, p. 362] n virtutea principiului suveranitii statelor, fiecare stat avea libertatea de a impune anumite condiii pe care trebuia s le ndeplineasc o hotrre penal strin pentru a putea fi recunoscut, condiii care ulterior au constituit principii de baz n regimul recunoaterii hotrrilor penale strine i anume: hotrrea s fie definitiv; hotrrea s fie conform ordinii publice, adic hotrrea s fie pronunat n acord cu normele de ordine public impuse de statul respectiv pe teritoriul su i s nu fie contrar acestora; hotrrea s prezinte o serie de garanii judiciare, adic s fie dat cu respectarea principiilor fundamentale unanim admise de legile de procedur penal ale majoritii statelor, principii care asigur temeinicia i justa soluionare a procesului penal i care se gsesc stipulate n mai multe declaraii i acorduri internaionale. Procedura recunoaterii hotrrilor penale strine are caracter judiciar, fiind dat n competena instanelor judectoreti din statul solicitat, conform procedurii de recunoatere din legislaia acestuia. Aadar, o hotrre penal produce n cadrul ordinii de drept a statului solicitat trei efecte principale care condiioneaz n mod direct efectele pe care hotrrea penal respectiv le produce pe plan internaional, dup cum urmeaz: are putere de lucru judecat; are for obligatorie; soluioneaz definitiv un conflict de drept penal. n concluzie, n dreptul intern, autoritatea negativ de lucru judecat a hotrrilor penale constituie un obstacol juridic care mpiedic ca o persoan fa de care s-a pronunat o hotrre penal definitiv s mai poat fi urmrit pentru aceeai fapt

etc., then at regional level. [4, p. 362] By virtue of states sovereignty principle, every state had the freedom of establishing certain conditions that a foreign criminal decision has to fulfil in order to be recognized, which were later basic principles in the regime of foreign penal decisions recognition, namely: The decision has to be final; The decision has to comply with public order, that is the decision has to be sentenced in agreement with the public order rules established by the state on its territory and not be contrary to them; The decision has to have a series of judicial guarantees, meaning it has to be given in compliance with the fundamental principles unanimously accepted by the criminal procedure laws of most of the states, principles that provide groundness and fair settlement of the criminal lawsuit and which are stipulated in several international declarations and agreements. The procedure of foreign penal decisions has judicial character, being given in the jurisdiction of the courts of law from the requested state, according to the recognition procedure from its legislation. Therefore, a penal decision produces three main effects in the lawful order of the state which directly influence the effects of the penal decision at international level, as follows: It has the power of res judiciata; It has compulsory force; It irrevocably settles a criminal law conflict. In conclusion, in domestic law, the negative authority of penal decisions res judicata is a judicial obstacle which prevents that a person for whom a final penal decision has been given to be pursued for the same action even under a different qualification. The principle of mutual recognition should apply to decisions previous to the trial phase, especially to those that allow relevant

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 3/2011

119

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncu i din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiin e Juridice, Nr. 3/2011

chiar sub o calificare diferit. Principiul recunoaterii reciproce ar trebui s se aplice hotrrilor anterioare fazei de judecat, n special celor care ar permite autoritilor competente s acioneze rapid pentru a obine probe i a pune sub sechestru bunuri uor de transferat i, c, probele strnse n mod legal de autoritile unui stat membru ar trebui s fie admisibile n faa instanelor din alte state membre, lund n considerare standardele care se aplic n statele respective. Decizia cadru nr. 2003/577/JAI a Consiliului privind executarea n Uniunea European a ordinelor de indisponibilizare a bunurilor sau a probelor extinde principiul asupra hotrrilor anterioare fazei de judecat, prin care se indisponibilizeaz bunuri sau probe. Aceast decizie cadru se bazeaz pe un sistem de recunoatere reciproc a hotrrilor judectoreti anterioare fazei de judecat, conform creia un ordin de indisponibilizare este recunoscut fr alte formaliti, motivele de refuz fiind strict limitate i principiul dublei ncriminri fiind parial eliminat [6] Scopul deciziei cadru din 06 octombrie 2006, JO L328/2006 referitoare la aplicarea principiului recunoaterii reciproce a ordonanelor de confiscare este acela de a nlesni colaborarea n scopul recunoaterii i executrii reciproce a ordonanelor de confiscare i de a stabili regulile dup care statele membre urmeaz s recunoasc i s execute ordonanele de confiscare emise de ctre o autoritate judiciar competent a unui alt stat. [1, p. 65] n comparaie cu decizia cadru 2003/577/JAI referitoare la executarea n Uniunea European a ordonanelor de indisponibilizare a bunurilor sau a materialului probator, ordonana de confiscare reglementat de decizia - cadru din 06 octombrie 2006, JO L328/2006 se refer la bunuri care sunt supuse confiscrii printr-o hotrre judectoreasc definitiv, instan care a stabilit c aceste bunuri sunt: provenite din veniturile dintr-o

authorities to act rapidly to get evidence and place easily transferable assets under sequester and that legally collected evidence should be admissible in front of courts of law from other member states, considering the standards that apply in those states. The framework decision no. 2003/577/JAI of the Council regarding the enforcement of frozen assets orders or evidence in the European Union extends the principle on decisions previous to the judgement phase, which freezes assets or evidence. This framework decision is based on a mutual recognition system of decisions previous to the judgment phase, according to which a freezing order is recognized without other formalities, the reasons for refusal being strictly limited and the principle of double incrimination being partially removed [6] The purpose of the framework decision from October 6th, 2006, JO L328/2006 regarding the application of mutual recognition of confiscation ordinances is to allow collaboration in for mutual recognition and execution of confiscation ordinances and establish the rules by which member states will recognized and execute confiscation ordinances issued by the relevant judicial authority of another state. [1, p. 65] In comparison to the framework decision 2003/577/JAI regarding the execution of freezing ordinances of assets and evidence in the European Union, regulated by the framework decision from October 6th, 2006, JO L328/2006 refers only to assets confiscated through a final judicial sentence, the court that established that these assets: Come from the incomes of a criminal activity or the partial or total equivalent of such incomes; Means by which the criminal offence was committed; Possible elements of confiscation, by applying the enlarged confiscation prerogatives in the issuing state provided by

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 3/2011

120

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncu i din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiin e Juridice, Nr. 3/2011

activitate infracional sau echivalentul parial sau total al unor astfel de venituri; mijloace prin care s-a comis fapta penal; elemente posibile de confiscare prin aplicarea n statul emitent a prerogativelor lrgite de confiscare prevzute de dispoziiile Deciziei cadru 2005/212/JAI referitoare la confiscarea veniturilor din activiti infracionale, a instrumentelor i bunurilor care au servit la aceasta; elemente posibile de confiscare conform oricror altor dispoziii legate de prerogativele lrgite de confiscare prevzute de legea statului emitent. n ceea ce privete procedura, ordonana de confiscare trebuie recunoscut fr alte formaliti, autoritatea judiciar competent din Romnia urmnd a lua msurile specifice de punere n executare a acesteia, conform normelor de procedur penal interne. Cooperarea judiciar internaional poate fi definit ca o relaie interstatal n cadrul creia un stat suveran transmite o cerere altui stat suveran i acesta decide dac s execute sau nu cererea, relaie care este organizat prin diferite instrumente juridice asupra crora se cade de acord fie bilateral, fie n cadrul unor organizaii internaionale. [7] n principiu, aceasta nseamn c, fiecare autoritate judiciar naional ar trebui ipso facto s recunoasc cererile naintate de o autoritate judiciar din alt stat membru cu un minim de formaliti de ndeplinit. [8, p. 127] n literatura de specialitate [4, p. 221] s-a apreciat c, recunoaterea, n legislaia noastr procesual penal, poate avea ca obiect hotrrile penale definitive pronunate de instanele judectoreti din strintate, precum i actele efectuate de organele judiciare penale din strintate, dac sunt de natur s produc potrivit legii penale romne efecte juridice. Potrivit prevederilor legii, recunoaterea hotrrilor penale i a actelor judiciare strine se poate face pe dou ci -

the provisions of the framework decision 2005/212/JAI regarding the confiscation of incomes from criminal activities, instruments and assets that served to it; Possible confiscation elements according to any other legal provisions related to enlarged confiscation prerogatives provided by the law of the issuer state. As far as procedure is concerned, confiscation ordinance has to be recognized without other formalities, the relevant judicial authority from Romania taking all the specific measures for executing it, according to the domestic criminal procedure rules. International judicial cooperation can be defined as an interstate relation in which a sovereign state sends a claim to another sovereign state and the latter decides whether to execute the claim or not, the relation which is organized through various judicial instruments agreed upon bilaterally or within international organisations. [7] Basically, this means that every national judicial authority should ipso facto recognize the claims submitted by a judicial authority from another member state with a minimum of formalities to fulfil. [8, p. 127] Specialized literature [4, p. 221] stated that recognition in our penal procedural legislation, can have the subject of final penal sentences ruled by foreign courts of law as well as documents drawn-up by foreign penal judicial authorities, if they are meant to produce legal effects according to the Romanian criminal law. According to the provisions of the law, foreign penal decisions and judicial documents recognition can be done by two means respectively by principal means or incidental means. Recognition, as the institution of Romanian criminal procedural law, is the means by which penal decisions or other judicial documents acquire when there is the case judicial effects on the territory of the state. [9, p. 368]

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 3/2011

121

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncu i din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiin e Juridice, Nr. 3/2011

respectiv pe cale principal ori pe cale incidental. Recunoaterea, ca instituie a dreptului procesual penal romn, constituie mijlocul prin care hotrrile penale sau alte acte juridice capt atunci cnd este cazul efecte juridice pe teritoriul rii. [9, p. 368] Unii autori [14, p. 88-89] apreciaz c, hotrrile judectoreti strine pronunate n alte procese dect cele privitoare la statutul civil al persoanei n cauz sunt recunoscute n Romnia pentru a putea beneficia de puterea lucrului judecat, sub rezerva ndeplinirii cumulative a urmtoarelor condiii de regularitate internaional i anume: 9 hotrrea s fie definitiv potrivit legii statului unde a fost pronunat; 9 instana care a pronunat hotrrea judectoreasc strin s fi avut competena, potrivit legii civile a statului unde a fost pronunat acea hotrre, s judece procesul i s existe reciprocitate n ceea ce privete efectele hotrrilor judectoreti strine ntre Romnia i statul instanei care a pronunat hotrrea. n conformitate cu dispoziiile art. 116 alin. 1 din Legea nr. 302/2004 privind cooperarea judiciar internaional n materie penal cu modificrile i completrile ulterioare recunoaterea unei hotrri penale sau a unui act juridic strin poate avea loc n cazul n care sunt ndeplinite urmtoarele condiii: a) Romnia i-a asumat o asemenea obligaie printr-un tratat internaional la care este parte; b) a fost respectat dreptul la un proces echitabil, n sensul art. 6 din Convenia pentru aprarea drepturilor omului i a libertilor fundamentale, ncheiat la Roma la 04 noiembrie 1950, ratificat de Romnia prin Legea nr. 30/1994; c) nu a fost pronunat pentru o infraciune politic sau pentru o infraciune militar care nu este o infraciune de drept comun; d) respect ordinea public a statului romn;

Some authors [14, p. 88-89] appreciate that foreign judicial sentences ruled in other lawsuits than those regarding the persons civil status are recognized in Romania in order to benefit from the power of res judicata, under the reserve of cumulative fulfilment of the following international regularity conditions, namely: 9 The decision to be final according to the law of the state it is sentenced in; 9 The court that sentenced the foreign judicial sentence should have had the jurisdiction according to the civil law of the state where it was sentenced, to judge the lawsuit and reciprocity has to exist regarding the effects of foreign judicial decisions between Romania and the state of the court that sentenced the decision. In accordance with the provisions of art. 116 par. 1 of the Law no. 302/2004 regarding international judicial cooperation in criminal matters as further amended and completed, the recognition of a penal decision or a foreign judicial document can occur if the following conditions are met: h) Romania has undertaken such obligation in an international treaty it is a part of; i) The right to a fair lawsuit has been complied with within the meaning of art. 6 of the Convention for defending human rights and fundamental freedoms, concluded in Rome on November 4th, 1950, ratified by Romania through the Law no. 30/1994; j) It has not been sentenced for a political offence or for a military offence which is not a common law offence; k) It complies with the public order of the Romanian state; l) The decision or the judicial act can cause legal effects in Romania, according to the Romanian criminal law; m) A conviction has not been sentenced for the same offences against the same person in Romania; n) A conviction has not been sentenced for the same actions against the same person in another state, which was

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 3/2011

122

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncu i din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiin e Juridice, Nr. 3/2011

e) hotrrea sau actul judiciar poate produce efecte juridice n Romnia, potrivit legii penale romne; f) nu s-a pronunat o condamnare pentru aceleai fapte mpotriva aceleai persoane n Romnia; g) nu s-a pronunat o condamnare pentru aceleai fapte mpotriva aceleai persoane ntr-un alt stat, care a fost recunoscut n Romnia. Pe baz de reciprocitate, hotrrile penale strine pot fi recunoscute n Romnia i atunci cnd nu este ndeplinit condiia prevzut de dispoziiile art. 116 alin. 1 lit. a din Legea nr. 302/2004 privind cooperarea judiciar internaional n materie penal cu modificrile i completrile ulterioare, sens n care, instana competent va solicita Ministerului Justiiei verificarea ndeplinirii condiiei de reciprocitate. De la regula prevzut de dispoziiile art. 116 alin. 1 din Legea nr. 302/2004 privind cooperarea judiciar internaional n materie penal cu modificrile i completrile ulterioare, unii autori [10, p. 221] apreciaz c dispoziiile legale stabilesc i dou excepii potrivit crora hotrrile penale strine pot fi recunoscute i fr ndeplinirea condiiilor menionate mai sus, i anume: a) hotrrile penale strine pot fi recunoscute n Romnia pe baz de reciprocitate, chiar dac nu este ndeplinit condiia prevzut la aliniatul 1 lit. a [art. 116 alin. 2 din Legea nr. 302/2004 privind cooperarea judiciar internaional n materie penal cu modificrile i completrile ulterioare]; b) executarea hotrrilor i, implicit, recunoaterea, este posibil atunci cnd se refer la un cetean romn a crui extrdare a fost, n prealabil, acordat de Romnia statului strin n care s-a pronunat hotrrea, chiar dac nu sunt ndeplinite condiiile prevzute la aliniatul 1 al articolului 116 [art. 116 alin. 2 din Legea nr. 302/2004 privind cooperarea judiciar internaional n materie penal cu modificrile i completrile ulterioare]

recognized in Romania. Based on reciprocity, foreign penal decisions can be recognized in Romania in case of non-compliance with the condition provided by art. 116 par. 1 letter a of the Law. 302/2004 regarding international judicial cooperation in criminal matters as further amended and completed, reason why the court shall ask the Ministry of Justice to check the fulfilment of the reciprocity condition. From the rule provided by the dispositions of art. 116 par. 1 of the Law no. 302/2004 regarding international judicial cooperation in criminal matters as further amended and completed, some authors [10, p. 221] think that legal provisions also establish two exceptions according to which foreign penal decisions can be recognized without fulfilling the aforementioned conditions, namely: c) Foreign penal decisions can be recognized in Romania based on reciprocity even in the case of non-compliance with the condition provided in paragraph 1 letter a [art. 116 par. 2 of the Law no. 302/2004 regarding international judicial cooperation in criminal matters as further amended and completed]; d) Decisions execution and implicitly recognition, is possible when it refers to a Romanian citizen whose extradition was previously granted by Romania to the foreign state in which the decision was sentenced, even in the case of non-compliance with the conditions provided by paragraph 1 of the article 116 [art. 116 par. 2 of the Law no. 302/2004 regarding international judicial cooperation in criminal matters as further amended and completed] Regarding the authorities certified to establish the existence of conditions provided by the law, we can say that the Romanian judicial authorities relevant to settle the recognition claim of a foreign penal decision or a foreign judicial document, in relation to the content of every condition separately differ depending on the analyzed

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 3/2011

123

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncu i din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiin e Juridice, Nr. 3/2011

Referitor la organele abilitate s constate existena condiiilor prevzute de lege, putem afirma c, organele judiciare romne competente s soluioneze cererea de recunoatere a unei hotrri penale strine ori a unui act juridic strin, n raport cu coninutul fiecrei condiii n parte, difer n funcie de condiiile analizate i anume: pentru constatarea condiiilor reglementate de dispoziiile art. 116 alin. 1 lit. a), b), c), d) i e) Romnia i-a asumat o asemenea obligaie printr-un tratat internaional la care este parte; a fost respectat dreptul la un proces echitabil, n sensul art. 6 din Convenia pentru aprarea drepturilor omului i a libertilor fundamentale, ncheiat la Roma la 04 noiembrie 1950, ratificat de Romnia prin Legea nr. 30/1994; nu a fost pronunat pentru o infraciune politic sau pentru o infraciune militar care nu este o infraciune de drept comun; respect ordinea public a statului romn; hotrrea sau actul judiciar poate produce efecte juridice n Romnia, potrivit legii penale romne -, ndeplinirea lor este apreciat de organul judiciar competent pe baza nscrisurilor doveditoare (tratatul internaional la care Romnia este parte ori hotrrea penal strin); pentru constatarea condiiilor reglementate de dispoziiile art. 116 alin. 1 lit. b), f) i g a fost respectat dreptul la un proces echitabil, n sensul art. 6 din Convenia pentru aprarea drepturilor omului i a libertilor fundamentale, ncheiat la Roma la 04 noiembrie 1950, ratificat de Romnia prin Legea nr. 30/1994; nu s-a pronunat o condamnare pentru aceleai fapte mpotriva aceleai persoane n Romnia; nu s-a pronunat o condamnare pentru aceleai fapte mpotriva aceleai persoane ntr-un alt stat, care a fost recunoscut n Romnia tocmai lipsa unor nscrisuri care s constate contrariul situaiilor prevzute de lege ndreptete organul judiciar competent s aprecieze dac sunt sau nu ndeplinite aceste condiii. Legea nr. 302/2004 privind cooperarea judiciar internaional n materie penal cu

conditions namely: In order to establish the conditions provided by the dispositions of art. 116 par. 1 letter a), b), c), d) and e) Romania has undertaken such an obligation through an international treaty which is a part to; the right to a fair trial was respected, within the meaning of art. 6 of the convention for defending human rights and fundamental freedoms, concluded in Rome on November 4th, 1950, ratified by Romania through the Law no. 30/1994; it has not been sentenced for a political offence or for a military offence which is not a common law offence; it complies with the public order of the Romanian law; the judicial decision or document can cause legal effects in Romania, according to the Romanian criminal law -, their fulfilment is appreciated by the relevant judicial authority based on the evidence (the international treaty Romania is a part of or the foreign penal decision); In order to establish the conditions regulated by the provisions of art. 116 par. 1 letter b), f) and g the right to a fair lawsuit was respected, within the meaning of art. 6 of the convention for defending human rights and fundamental freedoms, concluded in Rome on November 4th, 1950, ratified by Romania through the Law no. 30/1994; a conviction has not been sentenced for the same actions against the same persons in Romani; a conviction has not been sentenced for the same actions against the same person in another state, which was recognized in Romania the lack of documents that establish the contrary of the circumstances provided by the law entitles the relevant judicial authority to appreciate whether these conditions are fulfilled or not. Law no. 302/2004 regarding international judicial cooperation in criminal matters as further amended and completed regulates three procedures that have to be followed for recognizing a foreign penal decision:

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 3/2011

124

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncu i din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiin e Juridice, Nr. 3/2011

modificrile i completrile ulterioare reglementeaz trei proceduri care trebuie urmate pentru recunoaterea unei hotrri penale strine: A. procedura de recunoatere la cererea unui stat strin n cadrul acestei proceduri, cererea de recunoatere a unei hotrri penale strine formulat de autoritatea competent a statului strin va fi adresat Ministerului Justiiei din Romnia, care va proceda, n cadrul acestui proces, la verificarea urmtoarelor aspecte: 9 dac Romnia i-a asumat o asemenea obligaie printr-un tratat internaional, la care este parte, se va avea n vedere ca parte la acel tratat s fie i statul solicitant; 9 dac a fost respectat dreptul la un proces echitabil, n sensul art. 6 din Convenia pentru aprarea drepturilor omului i libertilor fundamentale ncheiat la Roma la data de 04.11.1950, ratificat de Romnia prin Legea nr. 30/1994. Dup realizarea verificrilor aspectelor menionate i, constatnd c, nu exist cauze care s determine nerecunoaterea hotrrilor penale strine, Ministerul Justiiei va transmite cererea de recunoatere Procurorului General al Parchetului de pe lng Curtea de Apel n circumscripia creia domiciliaz sau i are reedina condamnatul, iar n cazul n care hotrrea penal strin se refer la un bun imobil, cererea se transmite Procurorului General al Parchetului de pe lng Curtea de Apel n circumscripia creia se afl imobilul. B. procedura special de recunoatere pe cale principal aceast procedur se face de instana de judecat sesizat n acest scop de ctre condamnat sau de ctre procuror, respectiv la Judectoria n a crei circumscripie teritorial se afl domiciliul condamnatului. Procedura de judecat este identic cu cea de la recunoatere a unei hotrri penale strine ori a unui act juridic strin la cererea unui stat strin. C. procedura de recunoatere

D. The recognition procedure at the request of a foreign state Within this procedure, the recognition application of a foreign penal decisions submitted by the relevant authority of the foreign state shall be addressed to the Ministry of Justice from Romania, which shall proceed to checking the following aspects: 9 If Romania has undertaken such an obligation through an international treaty it is a part of, one shall take into consideration that the applicant state is a part to the treaty as well; 9 If the right to a fair lawsuit was respected, within the meaning of art. 6 of the convention for defending human rights and fundamental freedoms, concluded in Rome on November 4th, 1950, ratified by Romania through the Law no. 30/1994. After checking the aforementioned aspects and establishing that there are no causes that determine non-recognition of foreign penal decisions, the Ministry of Justice will send the recognition application to the General District Attorney of the Public Prosecutors Office of the Court of Appeal in which jurisdiction the convict resides, and if the foreign penal decision refers to immovables, the application will be submitted to the General District Attorney of the Public Prosecutors Office of the Court of Appeal in which jurisdiction the assets are. E. Main recognition special procedure this procedure is made by the court of law notified by the convict or by the district attorney, at the Court of Law in which jurisdiction the convict resides. The judgment procedure is identical to that of a foreign penal decision recognition or to a foreign judicial document recognition at the request of a foreign state. F. Incidental recognition procedure is made within a developing penal lawsuit, by the district attorney during the criminal prosecution phase or by the court of law where the cause is pending. In doctrine, the provisions regarding

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 3/2011

125

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncu i din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiin e Juridice, Nr. 3/2011

pe cale incidental se poate face n cadrul unui proces penal n curs, de ctre procuror n faza de urmrire penal sau de ctre instana de judecat n faa creia cauza este pendinte. n doctrin, prevederile legale referitoare la aceast procedur sunt considerate incomplete, deoarece dispoziiile art. 119 din Legea nr. 302/2004 privind cooperarea judiciar internaional n materie penal cu modificrile i completrile ulterioare au prevzut numai cadrul procesual n care poate avea loc, legea nefcnd nicio referire la procedura efectiv care trebuie urmat. Aadar, n lipsa unei reglementri speciale, unii autori [11, p. 223-224] consider c, att procurorul care supravegheaz sau efectueaz urmrirea penal, ct i instana de judecat pot fi sesizate cu o cerere de recunoatere a unei hotrri penale strine sau a unui act juridic strin, de persoana care este urmrit penal ori judecat pentru svrirea unei infraciuni. Sesizarea organelor judiciare menionate i, recunoaterea de ctre acestea a unor hotrri penale i acte juridice strine, poate avea loc i din oficiu, chiar n cazul n care s-ar crea prin aceasta o situaie defavorabil persoanei urmrite sau judecate. n practic este foarte probabil c acest lucru se va ntmpla doar atunci cnd, consecinele juridice ale unei astfel de recunoateri sunt pozitive pentru situaia persoanei urmrite sau judecate (exemplu: cazul n care fapta pentru care persoana este urmrit sau judecat este concurent cu o alt fapt pentru care aceeai persoan a fost condamnat printr-o hotrre strin i, n urma contopirii pedepselor s-ar putea ajunge la neexecutarea sau executarea parial a unei pedepse). nainte de luarea unei decizii referitoare la recunoaterea unei hotrri penale strine, instana competent poate - la cererea statului strin, transmis prin Ministerul Justiiei sau din oficiu - s dispun arestarea preventiv a persoanei care face obiectul hotrrii a crei recunoatere se solicit sau o alt msur preventiv pentru a

this procedure are considered incomplete, because the provisions of art. 119 of the Law no. 302/2004 regarding international judicial cooperation in criminal matters as further amended and completed stipulated only within the procedural framework it can occur in, the law failing to refer to the actual procedure that has to be followed. Therefore, in the absence of a special regulation, some authors [11, p. 223-224] think that both the district attorney that monitors or performs criminal prosecution, and the court of law can be informed with a recognition application of a foreign penal decision or a foreign judicial document, by the criminally prosecuted person or judged person for having committed an offence. Notification of judicial authorities as well as their recognition of foreign penal decisions and judicial documents can occur also ex officio even if they would result in an unfavourable circumstance for the prosecuted or pursued person. In practice, it is very likely that this occurs when the judicial consequences of such recognition are positive for the circumstance of the prosecuted or pursued circumstance (example: if the action for which the person is prosecuted or pursued is concurrent with another actions for which the same person was convicted through a foreign decision and after penalties merging, the result could be non-execution or partial execution of a penalty). Before making a decision regarding the recognition of a foreign penal decision, the relevant court can, at the request of the foreign state, submitted through the Ministry of Justice or ex officio order preventive arrest of a person which is the subject of the decision whose recognition is asked or another preventive measures in order to avoid its escaping from the Romanian territory. Providing a space of freedom, security and justice in the European Union requires first of all, improvement of judicial cooperation in criminal matters between

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 3/2011

126

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncu i din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiin e Juridice, Nr. 3/2011

evita fuga acesteia de pe teritoriul Romniei. Asigurarea unui spaiu de libertate, securitate i justiie n Uniunea European impune, n primul rnd, perfecionarea cooperrii judiciare n materie penal ntre statele membre, prin respectarea drepturilor fundamentale, precum i a diferitelor sisteme i tradiii juridice ale statelor membre. n acest sens, Uniunea European dezvolt politici comune n materie de imigraie i control al frontierelor exterioare, adopt msuri pentru prevenirea criminalitii de mare amploare, exercit coordonarea i cooperarea ntre autoritile poliieneti i judiciare competente. [12, p. 201] n concluzie, activitatea de realizare a unei justiii penale complete i eficiente desfurate n fiecare stat ar putea rmne fr rezultat, dac efectele hotrrilor penale s-ar opri la graniele statului unde au fost pronunate ori actele juridice care ar putea servi la rezolvarea unor cauze penale ar fi lipsite de valoare n afara teritoriului rii n care au fost efectuate. Bibliografie: 1. Judith Hester, Michael Klackl, Gabriele Mucha, Roman Reich, Birgit Schneider, Harald Tiegs, Michael Tolstink, Mariana Zainea, Recunoaterea reciproc n domeniul cooperrii judiciare n materie penal: instrumente juridice i implementarea lor: manual, Editura Euro Standard, Bucureti, 2010 2. Constantin G. Rtescu, Ion IonescuDolj, I. Gr. Perieeanu, V. Dongoroz, H. Asnavorian, Tudor Pop, M.I. Papadopolu, Nicolae Pavelescu, Codul Penal Carol al IIlea adnotat, vol.I, Partea General, Editura Librriei Sorec & Co. Societate Anonim, Bucureti, 1937 3. P. Bernard, Des conflits de souverainetes en matiere penale, Paris, 1901 4. Alexandru Boroi, Ioan Rusu, Cooperarea judiciar internaional n materie penal, Editura C.H. Beck, Bucureti, 2008

member states, by complying with fundamental rights, as well various legal systems and traditions of member states. Therefore, the European Union develops common policies in matters of immigration and exterior borders control, adopts measures for preventing extended criminality, exercises coordination and cooperation between the relevant police and judicial authorities. [12, p. 201] In conclusion the achievement activity of a complete and efficient penal justice developed in every state remains without a result, if the effects of penal decision stop at the borders of the state they were sentenced in or the judicial documents that could serve in settling penal causes would lack value outside the territory of the country they were made in. Bibliography: 1. Judith Hester, Michael Klackl, Gabriele Mucha, Roman Reich, Birgit Schneider, Harald Tiegs, Michael Tolstink, Mariana Zainea, Mutual recognition in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters: legal instruments and their implementation: manual, Euro Standard Press, Bucharest, 2010 2. Constantin G. Rtescu, Ion Ionescu-Dolj, I. Gr. Perieeanu, V. Dongoroz, H. Asnavorian, Tudor Pop, M.I. Papadopolu, Nicolae Pavelescu, Carol the second annoted Criminal Code, vol.I, General Part, Sorec & Co. Press, Bucharest, 1937 3. P. Bernard, Des conflits de souverainetes en matiere penale, Paris, 1901 4. Alexandru Boroi, Ioan Rusu, international judicial cooperation in criminal matters, C.H. Beck Press, Bucharest, 2008 5. Extradition Convention with Italy, published in the Official Gazette no. 44/1881; Extradition Convention with Belgium, published in the Official Gazette no. 3/1881; Extradition Convention with

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 3/2011

127

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncu i din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiin e Juridice, Nr. 3/2011

5. Convenia de Extrdare cu Italia, publicat n Monitorul Oficial nr. 44/1881; Convenia de Extrdare cu Belgia, publicat n Monitorul Oficial nr. 3/1881; Convenia de Extrdare cu Olanda, publicat n Monitorul Oficial nr. 35/1895 denumit Conveniune de extradaiune ntre Romnia i Olanda; Tratat de extrdare cu Marea Britanie, publicat n Monitorul Oficial nr. 270/1894 denumit Tratat de extrdare ntre Romnia i Marea Britanie; Convenia de Extrdare cu Marele Ducat de Luxemburg, publicat n Monitorul Oficial nr. 13/1911; Convenia de Extrdare cu Ungaria, publicat n Monitorul Oficial nr. 74/1925; Convenia de Extrdare cu Bulgaria, publicat n Monitorul Oficial nr. 56/1925; Convenia de Extrdare cu Statele Unite ale Americii, publicat n Monitorul Oficial nr. 79/1925, etc. 6. http/eur-lex.europa.eu 7. de exemplu: Organizaia Naiunilor Unite sau Consiliul Europei 8. Florin Rzvan Radu, Cooperarea n domeniul justiiei i al afacerilor interne n cadrul Uniunii Europene, Revista Dreptul nr. 6/2007 9. P.A. Coovanu, Efectul executoriu al hotrrii judectoreti strine, urmare a aderrii Romniei la Uniunea European, Revista Dreptul nr. 10/2007 10.Valerica Mirea, Recunoaterea hotrrilor penale i a actelor judiciare strine, Revista Dreptul nr. 5/2007 11.Florin Rzvan Radu, Cooperare judiciar internaional i european n materie penal, Editura Wolters Kluwer, Bucureti, 2009 12.Valeric Bndar, Aspecte privind cooperarea judiciar n materie penal n lumina Tratatului de la Lisabona, Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui Tg. Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, nr. 4/2010

Holland, published in the Official Gazette no. 35/1895 referred to as Extradition convention between Romania and Holland; Extradition Treaty with Great Britain, published in the Official Gazette no. 270/1894 referred to as Extradition Treaty between Romania and Great Britain; Extradition Convention with The Great Ducat of Luxemburg, published in the Official Gazette no. 13/1911; Extradition Convention with Hungary, published in the Official Gazette no. 74/1925; Extradition Convention with Bulgaria, published in the Official Gazette no. 56/1925; Extradition Convention with The United States of America, published in the Official Gazette no. 79/1925, etc. 6. http/eur-lex.europa.eu 7. for instance: United Nations or the Council of Europe 8. Florin Rzvan Radu, Cooperation in the field of justice and domestic affairs within the European Union, Law magazine no. 6/2007 9. P.A. Coovanu, Enforceable effect of foreign judicial decision as a result of Romanias accession to the European Union, Law magazine no. 10/2007 10. Valerica Mirea, Recognition of foreign penal decisions and judicial documents, Law magazine no. 5/2007 11. Florin Rzvan Radu, International and European judicial cooperation in criminal matters, Wolters Kluwer Press, Bucharest, 2009 12. Valeric Bndar, Aspects regarding judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the light of the Lisbon Treaty, Annals of Constantin Brncui University Tg. Jiu, Judicial Sciences Series, no. 4/2010

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 3/2011

128