{"id":2824,"date":"2019-02-07T15:02:40","date_gmt":"2019-02-07T15:02:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.chirita-law.com\/?p=2824"},"modified":"2025-12-29T09:47:37","modified_gmt":"2025-12-29T07:47:37","slug":"ccr-si-rapoartele-anaf","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/ccr-si-rapoartele-anaf\/","title":{"rendered":"CCR \u015fi rapoartele ANAF."},"content":{"rendered":"

Mar\u0163i, 29 ianuarie 2019, Curtea Constitu\u0163ional\u0103 a Rom\u00e2niei a pronun\u0163at o decizie de neconstitu\u0163ionalitate cu privire la o serie de prevederi cuprinse \u00een vechiul, precum \u015fi \u00een noul Cod de procedur\u0103 fiscal\u0103.<\/p>\n

\u00cen urma deliber\u0103rilor, Curtea Constitu\u0163ional\u0103, a decis cu unanimitate urm\u0103toarele:<\/p>\n

\u201e1. Admite excep\u0163ia de neconstitu\u0163ionalitate \u015fi constat\u0103 c\u0103 dispozi\u0163iile art.233\/1 alin. (2) \u015fi alin. (3) din Ordonan\u0163a Guvernului nr. 92\/2003 \u015fi ale art. 350 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 207\/2015 sunt neconstitu\u0163ionale.<\/em><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Admite excep\u0163ia de neconstitu\u0163ionalitate \u015fi constat\u0103 c\u0103 sintagma ‘care constituie mijloace de prob\u0103’ din cuprinsul art. 233\/1 alin. (5) din Ordonan\u0163a Guvernului nr. 92\/2003 cu referire la alin. (2) \u015fi (3) din acela\u015fi articol este neconstitu\u0163ional\u0103.<\/em><\/li>\n
  2. Admite excep\u0163ia de neconstitu\u0163ionalitate \u015fi constat\u0103 c\u0103 sintagma ‘care constituie mijloace de prob\u0103’ din cuprinsul art. 350 alin. (3) din Legea nr. 207\/2015 cu referire la alin. (1) din acela\u015fi articol este neconstitu\u0163ional\u0103.\u201d<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Potrivit normelor declarate neconstitu\u0163ionale, organele de urm\u0103rire penal\u0103, aveau posibilitatea de a desemna personal ANAF \u00een vederea efectu\u0103rii unor controale fiscale, rezultatul acestor controale fiind consemnat \u00eentr-un proces verbal care constituia mijloc de prob\u0103 \u00een cadrul proceselor penale.<\/p>\n

    Practic, legisla\u0163ia declarat\u0103 neconstitu\u0163ional\u0103 permitea p\u00e2n\u0103 la pronun\u0163area acestei decizii, ca reprezentan\u0163i ai p\u0103r\u0163ii civile (ANAF) din eventualele dosare ce vizau infrac\u0163iuni de evaziune fiscal\u0103 ori asimilate acestora, s\u0103 efectueze acte de urm\u0103rire penal\u0103 \u015fi s\u0103 administreze probele \u00een cauz\u0103.<\/p>\n

    Apreciem solu\u0163ia Cur\u0163ii ca fiind una \u00een acord cu principiile procesului penal, care presupun administrarea probatoriului \u00een mod loial, at\u00e2t \u00een favoarea c\u00e2t \u015fi \u00een defavoarea persoanelor cercetate. Or, \u00een lumina legisla\u0163iei declarate neconstitu\u0163ionale, exista o prezum\u0163ie cu privire la o poten\u0163ial\u0103 lips\u0103 de obiectivitate \u00een sarcina organelor fiscale care reprezentau at\u00e2t procurorul, teoretic impar\u0163ial, c\u00e2t \u015fi partea civil\u0103, \u00een acela\u015fi proces penal.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Mar\u0163i, 29 ianuarie 2019, Curtea Constitu\u0163ional\u0103 a Rom\u00e2niei a pronun\u0163at o decizie de neconstitu\u0163ionalitate cu privire la o serie de prevederi cuprinse \u00een vechiul, precum \u015fi \u00een noul Cod de procedur\u0103 fiscal\u0103. \u00cen urma deliber\u0103rilor, Curtea Constitu\u0163ional\u0103, a decis cu unanimitate urm\u0103toarele: \u201e1. Admite excep\u0163ia de neconstitu\u0163ionalitate \u015fi constat\u0103 c\u0103 dispozi\u0163iile art.233\/1 alin. (2) \u015fi […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,10,84],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2824","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-drept-penal","category-litigii-fiscale","category-white-collar-infractiuni-economice"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2824","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\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2824"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2824\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2824"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2824"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2824"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}