The case excerpt available does not contain many fact details. The only thing that may be ascertained is that the two victims were disabled persons transported in France with the purpose of earning money for the defendants by begging.
فرنسارومانيا1st Instance:
Mures Tribunal
27 July 2007
Sentence no. 230
Found all defendants guilty.
2nd Instance:
Targu Mures Court of Appeal
16 December 2008
Decision no. 84/A
The sentence was upheld.
3rd instance:
High Court of Cassation and Justice
10 June 2009
Decision no. 2186
Annulled the decision issued by the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for re-trial by the same court.
The discussion centred on whether D.L. indeed acted under the same criminal intent with respect to all of the felony acts or, on the contrary, a number of felonies were committed by the defendant D.L. with the occasion of each felony act.
The Mures Tribunal issued criminal sentence no. 230 on 27 July 2007 by which it ruled the foolowing:
(i) Defendants D.L. and D.M. were each convicted for two human trafficking crimes provided under article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking; the sanctions for each of them consisted of two 5-year imprisonment terms and 2-year probation of certain rights (the right to vote and to be elected in public office, the right to occupy position requiring the exercise of state authority); the imprisonment terms were not executed since the court established that the defendants’ sentences benefit from pardon on the basis of a special law providing the pardon for certain crimes sanctioned with imprisonment of maximum 5 years;
(ii) Defendant D.C. was convicted for two human trafficking crimes provided under article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking; the sanctions consisted of two - 2 years and 6 months imprisonment terms; the pardon legislation was equally applicable, and the defendant did not have to execute the punishment;
(iii) Defendants R.A. and R.M., both with criminal record, were discharged on the ground that the crimes were not committed by the defendants;
(iv) Defendant R.G. was convicted for one human trafficking crime provided under article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking; the sanction consisted of 3 years of imprisonment and 2 years prohibitions of certain rights; the provisions on pardon were also applicable; in respect the second victim, the defendant was discharged on the ground that the crime was not committed by the defendant.
A sum of RON 100 (approximately US 30) was seized from defendant R.G.
Defendant D.M. was obliged to the payment of RON 4500 under a claim for moral damages made by one of the victims.
Defendants D.L., D.M., D.C. and R.G. were also obliged to pay the judiciary expenses.
The discussion centred on whether D.M. indeed acted under the same criminal intent with respect to all of the felony acts or, on the contrary, a number of felonies were committed by the defendant D.M. with the occasion of each felony act.
The Mures Tribunal issued criminal sentence no. 230 on 27 July 2007 by which it ruled the foolowing:
(i) Defendants D.L. and D.M. were each convicted for two human trafficking crimes provided under article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking; the sanctions for each of them consisted of two 5-year imprisonment terms and 2-year probation of certain rights (the right to vote and to be elected in public office, the right to occupy position requiring the exercise of state authority); the imprisonment terms were not executed since the court established that the defendants’ sentences benefit from pardon on the basis of a special law providing the pardon for certain crimes sanctioned with imprisonment of maximum 5 years;
(ii) Defendant D.C. was convicted for two human trafficking crimes provided under article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking; the sanctions consisted of two - 2 years and 6 months imprisonment terms; the pardon legislation was equally applicable, and the defendant did not have to execute the punishment;
(iii) Defendants R.A. and R.M., both with criminal record, were discharged on the ground that the crimes were not committed by the defendants;
(iv) Defendant R.G. was convicted for one human trafficking crime provided under article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking; the sanction consisted of 3 years of imprisonment and 2 years prohibitions of certain rights; the provisions on pardon were also applicable; in respect the second victim, the defendant was discharged on the ground that the crime was not committed by the defendant.
A sum of RON 100 (approximately US 30) was seized from defendant R.G.
Defendant D.M. was obliged to the payment of RON 4500 under a claim for moral damages made by one of the victims.
Defendants D.L., D.M., D.C. and R.G. were also obliged to pay the judiciary expenses.
The discussion centred on whether D.C. indeed acted under the same criminal intent with respect to all of the felony acts or, on the contrary, a number of felonies were committed by the defendant D.C. with the occasion of each felony act.
The Mures Tribunal issued criminal sentence no. 230 on 27 July 2007 by which it ruled the foolowing:
(i) Defendants D.L. and D.M. were each convicted for two human trafficking crimes provided under article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking; the sanctions for each of them consisted of two 5-year imprisonment terms and 2-year probation of certain rights (the right to vote and to be elected in public office, the right to occupy position requiring the exercise of state authority); the imprisonment terms were not executed since the court established that the defendants’ sentences benefit from pardon on the basis of a special law providing the pardon for certain crimes sanctioned with imprisonment of maximum 5 years;
(ii) Defendant D.C. was convicted for two human trafficking crimes provided under article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking; the sanctions consisted of two - 2 years and 6 months imprisonment terms; the pardon legislation was equally applicable, and the defendant did not have to execute the punishment;
(iii) Defendants R.A. and R.M., both with criminal record, were discharged on the ground that the crimes were not committed by the defendants;
(iv) Defendant R.G. was convicted for one human trafficking crime provided under article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking; the sanction consisted of 3 years of imprisonment and 2 years prohibitions of certain rights; the provisions on pardon were also applicable; in respect the second victim, the defendant was discharged on the ground that the crime was not committed by the defendant.
A sum of RON 100 (approximately US 30) was seized from defendant R.G.
Defendant D.M. was obliged to the payment of RON 4500 under a claim for moral damages made by one of the victims.
Defendants D.L., D.M., D.C. and R.G. were also obliged to pay the judiciary expenses.
The discussion centred on whether R.A. indeed acted under the same criminal intent with respect to all of the felony acts or, on the contrary, a number of felonies were committed by the defendant R.A. with the occasion of each felony act.
The Mures Tribunal issued criminal sentence no. 230 on 27 July 2007 by which it ruled the foolowing:
(i) Defendants D.L. and D.M. were each convicted for two human trafficking crimes provided under article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking; the sanctions for each of them consisted of two 5-year imprisonment terms and 2-year probation of certain rights (the right to vote and to be elected in public office, the right to occupy position requiring the exercise of state authority); the imprisonment terms were not executed since the court established that the defendants’ sentences benefit from pardon on the basis of a special law providing the pardon for certain crimes sanctioned with imprisonment of maximum 5 years;
(ii) Defendant D.C. was convicted for two human trafficking crimes provided under article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking; the sanctions consisted of two - 2 years and 6 months imprisonment terms; the pardon legislation was equally applicable, and the defendant did not have to execute the punishment;
(iii) Defendants R.A. and R.M., both with criminal record, were discharged on the ground that the crimes were not committed by the defendants;
(iv) Defendant R.G. was convicted for one human trafficking crime provided under article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking; the sanction consisted of 3 years of imprisonment and 2 years prohibitions of certain rights; the provisions on pardon were also applicable; in respect the second victim, the defendant was discharged on the ground that the crime was not committed by the defendant.
A sum of RON 100 (approximately US 30) was seized from defendant R.G.
Defendant D.M. was obliged to the payment of RON 4500 under a claim for moral damages made by one of the victims.
Defendants D.L., D.M., D.C. and R.G. were also obliged to pay the judiciary expenses.
The discussion centred on whether R.M. indeed acted under the same criminal intent with respect to all of the felony acts or, on the contrary, a number of felonies were committed by the defendant R.M. with the occasion of each felony act.
The Mures Tribunal issued criminal sentence no. 230 on 27 July 2007 by which it ruled the foolowing:
(i) Defendants D.L. and D.M. were each convicted for two human trafficking crimes provided under article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking; the sanctions for each of them consisted of two 5-year imprisonment terms and 2-year probation of certain rights (the right to vote and to be elected in public office, the right to occupy position requiring the exercise of state authority); the imprisonment terms were not executed since the court established that the defendants’ sentences benefit from pardon on the basis of a special law providing the pardon for certain crimes sanctioned with imprisonment of maximum 5 years;
(ii) Defendant D.C. was convicted for two human trafficking crimes provided under article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking; the sanctions consisted of two - 2 years and 6 months imprisonment terms; the pardon legislation was equally applicable, and the defendant did not have to execute the punishment;
(iii) Defendants R.A. and R.M., both with criminal record, were discharged on the ground that the crimes were not committed by the defendants;
(iv) Defendant R.G. was convicted for one human trafficking crime provided under article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking; the sanction consisted of 3 years of imprisonment and 2 years prohibitions of certain rights; the provisions on pardon were also applicable; in respect the second victim, the defendant was discharged on the ground that the crime was not committed by the defendant.
A sum of RON 100 (approximately US 30) was seized from defendant R.G.
Defendant D.M. was obliged to the payment of RON 4500 under a claim for moral damages made by one of the victims.
Defendants D.L., D.M., D.C. and R.G. were also obliged to pay the judiciary expenses.
The discussion centred on whether R.G. indeed acted under the same criminal intent with respect to all of the felony acts or, on the contrary, a number of felonies were committed by the defendant R.G. with the occasion of each felony act. R.G was found guilty of one human trafficking felony.
The Mures Tribunal issued criminal sentence no. 230 on 27 July 2007 by which it ruled the foolowing:
(i) Defendants D.L. and D.M. were each convicted for two human trafficking crimes provided under article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking; the sanctions for each of them consisted of two 5-year imprisonment terms and 2-year probation of certain rights (the right to vote and to be elected in public office, the right to occupy position requiring the exercise of state authority); the imprisonment terms were not executed since the court established that the defendants’ sentences benefit from pardon on the basis of a special law providing the pardon for certain crimes sanctioned with imprisonment of maximum 5 years;
(ii) Defendant D.C. was convicted for two human trafficking crimes provided under article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking; the sanctions consisted of two - 2 years and 6 months imprisonment terms; the pardon legislation was equally applicable, and the defendant did not have to execute the punishment;
(iii) Defendants R.A. and R.M., both with criminal record, were discharged on the ground that the crimes were not committed by the defendants;
(iv) Defendant R.G. was convicted for one human trafficking crime provided under article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking; the sanction consisted of 3 years of imprisonment and 2 years prohibitions of certain rights; the provisions on pardon were also applicable; in respect the second victim, the defendant was discharged on the ground that the crime was not committed by the defendant.
A sum of RON 100 (approximately US 30) was seized from defendant R.G.
Defendant D.M. was obliged to the payment of RON 4500 under a claim for moral damages made by one of the victims.
Defendants D.L., D.M., D.C. and R.G. were also obliged to pay the judiciary expenses.
Article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking
2nd instance:
The Targu Mures Court of Appeal issued decision no. 84/A on 16 December 2008 by which the sentence was upheld. It his appeal, the state prosecutor challenged the sentence considering that (i) there is sufficient evidence that defendants R.A., R.M. and R.G. committed the charged crimes, and consequently they should be convicted and (ii) the court should have retained that the defendants committed a continuous human trafficking crime, not two separate crimes (thus, the legal classification of the criminal acts by the first court was erroneous).
All these considerations were dismissed by the court. Also, the civil claims made by one of the victims who had appealed the sentence were dismissed.
3rd instance:
The High Court of Cassation and Justice issued decision no. 2186 on 10 June 2009 by which it annulled the decision issued by the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for re-trial by the same court.
The High Court of Cassation and Justice ruled that the prosecutor’s appeal is founded since the inferior court did not analyze in its decision all the appeal grounds presented by the prosecutor, in particular the aspect on the erroneous classification of the criminal acts by the first court.
Article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking
2nd instance:
The Targu Mures Court of Appeal issued decision no. 84/A on 16 December 2008 by which the sentence was upheld. It his appeal, the state prosecutor challenged the sentence considering that (i) there is sufficient evidence that defendants R.A., R.M. and R.G. committed the charged crimes, and consequently they should be convicted and (ii) the court should have retained that the defendants committed a continuous human trafficking crime, not two separate crimes.
All these considerations were dismissed by the court. Also, the civil claims made by one of the victims who had appealed the sentence were dismissed.
3rd instance:
The High Court of Cassation and Justice issued decision no. 2186 on 10 June 2009 by which it annulled the decision issued by the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for re-trial by the same court.
The High Court of Cassation and Justice ruled that the prosecutor’s appeal is founded since the inferior court did not analyze in its decision all the appeal grounds presented by the prosecutor, in particular the aspect on the erroneous classification of the criminal acts by the first court.
Article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking
The Targu Mures Court of Appeal issued decision no. 84/A on 16 December 2008 by which the sentence was upheld. It his appeal, the state prosecutor challenged the sentence considering that (i) there is sufficient evidence that defendants R.A., R.M. and R.G. committed the charged crimes, and consequently they should be convicted and (ii) the court should have retained that the defendants committed a continuous human trafficking crime, not two separate crimes.
All these considerations were dismissed by the court. Also, the civil claims made by one of the victims who had appealed the sentence were dismissed.
3rd instance:
The High Court of Cassation and Justice issued decision no. 2186 on 10 June 2009 by which it annulled the decision issued by the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for re-trial by the same court.
The High Court of Cassation and Justice ruled that the prosecutor’s appeal is founded since the inferior court did not analyze in its decision all the appeal grounds presented by the prosecutor, in particular the aspect on the erroneous classification of the criminal acts by the first court.
Article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking
2nd instance:
The Targu Mures Court of Appeal issued decision no. 84/A on 16 December 2008 by which the sentence was upheld. It his appeal, the state prosecutor challenged the sentence considering that (i) there is sufficient evidence that defendants R.A., R.M. and R.G. committed the charged crimes, and consequently they should be convicted and (ii) the court should have retained that the defendants committed a continuous human trafficking crime, not two separate crimes.
All these considerations were dismissed by the court. Also, the civil claims made by one of the victims who had appealed the sentence were dismissed.
3rd instance:
The High Court of Cassation and Justice issued decision no. 2186 on 10 June 2009 by which it annulled the decision issued by the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for re-trial by the same court.
The High Court of Cassation and Justice ruled that the prosecutor’s appeal is founded since the inferior court did not analyze in its decision all the appeal grounds presented by the prosecutor, in particular the aspect on the erroneous classification of the criminal acts by the first court.
Article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking
2nd instance:
The Targu Mures Court of Appeal issued decision no. 84/A on 16 December 2008 by which the sentence was upheld. It his appeal, the state prosecutor challenged the sentence considering that (i) there is sufficient evidence that defendants R.A., R.M. and R.G. committed the charged crimes, and consequently they should be convicted and (ii) the court should have retained that the defendants committed a continuous human trafficking crime, not two separate crimes.
All these considerations were dismissed by the court. Also, the civil claims made by one of the victims who had appealed the sentence were dismissed.
3rd instance:
The High Court of Cassation and Justice issued decision no. 2186 on 10 June 2009 by which it annulled the decision issued by the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for re-trial by the same court.
The High Court of Cassation and Justice ruled that the prosecutor’s appeal is founded since the inferior court did not analyze in its decision all the appeal grounds presented by the prosecutor, in particular the aspect on the erroneous classification of the criminal acts by the first court.
Article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter a) of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking
2nd instance:
The Targu Mures Court of Appeal issued decision no. 84/A on 16 December 2008 by which the sentence was upheld. It his appeal, the state prosecutor challenged the sentence considering that (i) there is sufficient evidence that defendants R.A., R.M. and R.G. committed the charged crimes, and consequently they should be convicted and (ii) the court should have retained that the defendants committed a continuous human trafficking crime, not two separate crimes.
All these considerations were dismissed by the court. Also, the civil claims made by one of the victims who had appealed the sentence were dismissed.
3rd instance:
The High Court of Cassation and Justice issued decision no. 2186 on 10 June 2009 by which it annulled the decision issued by the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for re-trial by the same court.
The High Court of Cassation and Justice ruled that the prosecutor’s appeal is founded since the inferior court did not analyze in its decision all the appeal grounds presented by the prosecutor, in particular the aspect on the erroneous classification of the criminal acts by the first court.
High Court of Cassation and Justice
The courts retained that the defendants committed each two crimes, instead of retaining that each of them committed a sole crime, but in a continuous form. If this had been the case, it is possible that the special legislation on pardon of punishments would not have been applicable. Although the cumulated imprisonment term applied by the court for each of the first two defendants amounts to 10 years, the legislation on pardon is applied to each 5-year sentence. If, for instance, a 6 - year imprisonment term were applied for a sole continuous crime, the legislation on pardon would not have been applicable anymore.