\u00cen urma ridic\u0103rii unei excep\u0163ii de neconstitu\u0163ionalitate cu privire la art. 297 alin. 1 C.pen., rap. la art. 16 alin. 7 din Legea 247\/2005 \u015fi art. 25 alin. 2 \u015fi 3 din O.U.G. 24\/2011, Curtea de Apel Bucure\u015fti a \u00een\u0163eles s\u0103 resping\u0103 excep\u0163ia ca inadmisibil\u0103, solu\u0163ie men\u0163inut\u0103 \u015fi de \u00cenalta Curte de Casa\u0163ie \u015fi Justi\u0163ie, \u00een urma recursului declarat.<\/p>\n
Pentru a pronun\u0163a aceast\u0103 solu\u0163ie, instan\u0163a a re\u0163inut faptul c\u0103 practica judiciar\u0103 a recunoscut c\u0103 jurispruden\u0163a constant\u0103 a Cur\u0163ii Constitu\u0163ionale de a respinge excep\u0163iile de neconstitu\u0163ionalitate formulate anterior cu privire la un text de lege, constituie \u201eun fine de neprimire\u201d a unei sesiz\u0103ri cu acela\u015fi obiect, \u00een contextul identit\u0103\u0163ii solu\u0163iei legislative a dou\u0103 legi succesive.<\/p>\n
Aceasta din urm\u0103 s-ar explica prin lipsa modific\u0103rilor de substan\u0163\u0103 a normei, singura modificare fiind reprezentat\u0103, \u00een opinia instan\u0163ei, de renumerotatea articolelor, sens \u00een care, \u00eentr-o atare situa\u0163ie, \u201enu poate modifica condi\u0163ia de admisibilitate creat\u0103 pe cale de jurispruden\u0163\u0103<\/em>\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n Este important de men\u0163ionat faptul c\u0103, pentru ca o excep\u0163ie de neconstitu\u0163ionalitate s\u0103 poat\u0103 fi declarat\u0103 admisibil\u0103, aceasta trebuie s\u0103 \u00eendeplineasc\u0103 condi\u0163iile prev\u0103zute de Lege, la art. 29\u00a0 alin. (1) \u2013 (3) din Legea nr. 47\/1992 privind organizarea \u015fi func\u0163ionarea Cur\u0163ii Constitu\u0163ionale a Rom\u00e2niei.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Potrivit art. 29 din Legea 47\/1992, exist\u0103 trei condi\u0163ii de admisibilitate, care se impun a fi analizate de c\u0103tre instan\u0163ele \u00een fa\u0163a c\u0103rora este ridicat\u0103 excep\u0163ia de neconstitu\u0163ionalitate, respectiv, norma care face obiectul sesiz\u0103rii s\u0103 fie \u00een vigoare, s\u0103 existe o leg\u0103tur\u0103 \u00eentre dispozi\u0163ia legal\u0103 \u015fi modul de solu\u0163ionare a cauzei \u00een care se formuleaz\u0103 cererea de sesizare \u015fi totodat\u0103, Curtea s\u0103 nu fi pronun\u0163at anterior o decizie prin care s\u0103 constate c\u0103 textul de lege contravine Constitu\u0163iei. Acestea sunt stabilite expres \u015fi limitativ de lege.<\/p>\n \n \u00cen acest context, amintim faptul c\u0103 practica judiciar\u0103 nu reprezint\u0103 un veritabil izvor de drept \u00een sistemul judiciar rom\u00e2nesc. Jurispruden\u021ba este rezultatul actului de justi\u0163ie \u015fi trebuie p\u0103strat\u0103 \u00een limitele legii \u015fi ale Constitu\u0163iei. \u00cens\u0103\u015fi sus\u0163inerea c\u0103 \u201epractica judiciar\u0103 a recunoscut\u201d <\/em>\u00een contextul ar\u0103tat, contravine art. 1 alin. 4 din Constitu\u0163ia Rom\u00e2niei, respectiv principiului separa\u0163iei puterilor \u00een stat.<\/p>\n \n Practica judiciar\u0103 reprezint\u0103 strict o sintez\u0103 a judec\u0103\u0163ii, care poate cel mult s\u0103 interpreteze o norm\u0103 juridic\u0103, \u00eens\u0103 autorit\u0103\u0163ii judec\u0103tore\u015fti nu \u00eei este permis s\u0103 adauge la lege. Potrivit art. 124 din Constitu\u0163ie, justi\u0163ia se \u00eenf\u0103ptuie\u015fte \u00een numele legii<\/em>, nu \u00een afara acesteia, instan\u0163ele de judecat\u0103 neput\u00e2nd-o completa.<\/p>\n \n \u00cen m\u0103sura \u00een care exist\u0103 o dispozi\u0163ie legal\u0103 care prevede expres \u015fi limitativ condi\u0163iile de admisibilitate ale unei sesiz\u0103ri privitoare la contrarietatea unor norme legale cu prevederile constitu\u0163ionale, o ipotez\u0103 \u00een care jurispruden\u0163a instan\u0163elor stabile\u015fte o condi\u0163ie de admisibilitate suplimentar\u0103, reprezint\u0103 o ingerin\u0163\u0103 grav\u0103 a puterii judec\u0103tore\u015fti \u00een cea legislativ\u0103, solu\u021bie care nu poate fi acceptat\u0103.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u00cen urma ridic\u0103rii unei excep\u0163ii de neconstitu\u0163ionalitate cu privire la art. 297 alin. 1 C.pen., rap. la art. 16 alin. 7 din Legea 247\/2005 \u015fi art. 25 alin. 2 \u015fi 3 din O.U.G. 24\/2011, Curtea de Apel Bucure\u015fti a \u00een\u0163eles s\u0103 resping\u0103 excep\u0163ia ca inadmisibil\u0103, solu\u0163ie men\u0163inut\u0103 \u015fi de \u00cenalta Curte de Casa\u0163ie \u015fi Justi\u0163ie, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,84],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1540","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-drept-penal","category-white-collar-infractiuni-economice"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1540","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1540"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1540\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1540"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1540"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1540"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}