O problemă controversată privind măsurile asigurătorii: concursul între executarea silită şi sechestrul aplicat în procesul penal
A controversial issue regarding the precautionary measures: the concurrence between the forced execution and the seizure enforced in the criminal proceedings

Summary/Abstract: For a correct solution to the issue into question it is necessary to know the effects of taking the action of seizure in the criminal proceedings. Thus, as explicitly resulting from art. 249 paragraph (2) of the Code of criminal procedure, the consequence shall be the preservation of the asset, which means that the holder of the ownership right over the respective asset shall no longer be able to dispose freely of it, therefore, it may not dispose it, encumber it by liens or reduce its value by voluntary acts of disposition. However, the asset shall become neither inalienable, for the purpose of art. 136 of the Constitution, nor unattachable, for the purpose of art. 2329 paragraph (2) of the Civil Code or art. 729, art. 781, art. 818 of the Code of civil procedure, and it shall not be removed from the person’s ownership. Consequently, the existence of a criminal seizure over an asset shall not prevent the enforcement of a pre-existing mortgage debt of a good faith creditor, acting as third party as regards the criminal legal relationship.

• Details
• Contents