Aplicarea dispozițiilor art. 19 din Legea nr. 682/2002 privind protecția martorilor. Conduita denunțătorului versus efectuarea în continuare a urmăririi penale față de suspect. Comentarii asupra unei soluții recente a practicii judiciare
Application of the provisions of art. 19 of Law no. 682/2002 on witness protection. Whistleblower's conduct versus further prosecution of the suspect. Comments on a recent settlement of case law

Summary/Abstract: Judicial practice was recently faced with a difficult problem in applying the provisions for mitigating the punishment limits provided by Law no. 682/2002 on the protection of witnesses. The denouncer, himself accused in the file where he claims the benefit of the provision, also carries out specific activities to facilitate the identification of the denounced. Specifically, it is about participating in criminal probatory proceedings where the facts for which the criminal prosecution was ordered are proven (authorized purchases of prohibited substances, technical surveillance, etc.). However, as a rule, for operative reasons, the judicial authorities do not order the further prosecution of the accused, even in the conditions where the commission of the criminal acts by him appear to be sufficiently outlined by evidence. The reason is given, we believe, by the specific of the cases handled by the specialized prosecutor’s offices (in this case “anti-mafia” prosecution office). The investigated facts lead, in a chain, to the discovery of new ones, respectively to the identification of other perpetrators. Practically, in drug-dealing affairs, through complaints concerning small quantities of prohibited substances sometimes the sources of drug import or at least the important internal suppliers can be discovered. And it is certain that this appears as the main objective of judicial bodies with powers along these lines. Our goal in this article is to analyse and comment a recent decision of Timișoara Court of Appeal, where the judges decided to apply the mitigating dispositions considering the cooperation of the denouncer, even if the prosecutor’s office did not proceed to an official accusation against the indicated persons. What is more important, the conduct of the denouncer or an existing official accusation against the denounced?

• Details
• Contents