Uncategorized

Failure to comply with the obligation imposed on the defendant within the judicial control not to drive certain vehicles – crime or not?

25 November 2019

logo articol musat partners

On 29.10.2019 the High Court of Cassation and Justice pronounced a decision for the disassociation of a question of law in criminal matters, by which it responds to the notification made by the Suceava Court of Appeal – Criminal Section, which asked for an answer to the question “If the defendant’s obligation not to drive certain vehicles, imposed by the judicial body during the preventive measure of judicial control according to art. 215 paragraph (2) lit. i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure constitutes a suspension of the exercise of the right to drive and meets the typical conditions of the offense provided by art. 335 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code ”.

Thus, the Supreme Court has established that the obligation of the defendant not to drive certain vehicles during the preventive measure of judicial control does not constitute a suspension of the exercise of the right to drive and, in this respect, does not meet the typical conditions of the offense provided in art. 335 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code (driving a vehicle without a driving license).

The conclusion of Decision no. 18 / 29.10.2019 is that the sanction of non-compliance with bad faith of the obligation provided in the judicial control is the one provided by par. (7) in art. 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code, namely the possibility of the judicial body to replace the preventive measure of judicial control with that of the arrest at the domicile or the preventive arrest.