During August – September 2005, O.C.R. illegally recruited two victims to whom he promised jobs in Spain. He sexually exploited the young women at his house in Romania and forced them to practice prostitution in Spain. N.V.I. helped the first defendant by supervision one of the victims when O.C.R. was away. Other factual elements were not disclosed in the Decision of the Supreme Court. The lower Court disposed the seizure of RON 2830 from O.C.R.
The laws applied were Law no. 678/2001 on preventing and combating human trafficking, the Romanian Criminal Code and the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code.
SpainRomania1st Instance:
Teleorman Tribunal
17 April 2007
Decision 42
The defendant O.C.R. was found guilty of juvenile trafficking and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment, and N.V.I. was found guilty of the same crime and sentenced 6 months imprisonment.
The Public Prosecutor and OC.R. appealed the decision.
2nd Instance:
Bucharest Court of Appeal
20 November 2007
Decision 371/A
The Bucharest Court of Appeal rejected O.C.R.’s appeal.
3rd instance:
Supreme Court of Justice
3 June 2008
Decision 1984
Retrial:
In retrial, the Bucharest Court of Appeal admitted the Public Prosecutor’s appeal, reversed Tribunal’s Decision and sentenced O.C.R and N.V.I. to 7 and 3 years imprisonment for juvenile trafficking and complicity at juvenile trafficking (Decision 63/A/ 10 March 2009).
O.C.R filled appeal again against this decision at the higher court, but the Supreme Court of Justice rejected his appeal and maintained the decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal.
During August – September 2005, O.C.R. illegally recruited two victims to whom he promised jobs in Spain. He sexually exploited the young women at his house in Romania and forced them to practice prostitution in Spain. O.C.R. admitted to have housed the victims but denied forcing them to practice prostitution.
By Decision 42/17 April 2007, O.C.R. was found guilty of juvenile trafficking and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
The law applied was Law no. 678/2001 on preventing and combating human trafficking, and O.C.R. was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
When O.C.R. sexually exploited the victims and forced them to practice prostitution, N.V.I helped him by supervising the young women.
By Decision 42/17 April 2007 N.V.I. was found guilty of the same crime and sentenced 6 months imprisonment.
Article 13 para. (1) and (2) of the Law no. 678/2011 on preventing and combating human trafficking, art. 41 para. (2) and art. 64 let. a), b), d) and e) of the Romanian Criminal Code
2nd instance:
By Decision 371/A/20 November 2007, the Bucharest Court of Appeals rejected OCR’s appeal.
3rd instance:
The defendant filed appeal again at the Supreme Court of Justice, stating that he was not present at the trial and could not defend himself. The Supreme Court of Justice admitted his appeal, reversed and remanded the decision back to the Bucharest Court of Appeal.
Retrial:
The Bucharest Court of Appeal, in retrial, admitted only the Public Prosecutor’s appeal, and increased the imprisonment sentence for O.C.R. from 5 to 7 years, by Decision 63/A/10 March 2009.
O.C.R. appealed this decision, but his appeal was definitively rejected by the Supreme Court of Justice by Decision 3227/2009.
Article 13 para. (1) and (2) of the Law no. 678/2001 on preventing and combating human trafficking and art. 26, art. 74 let. a) and art. 76 let. c) of the Romanian Criminal Code
2nd instance:
By Decision 329/A/16 October 2007, the Bucharest Court of Appeal admitted the Public Prosecutor’s appeal and changed N.V.I.’s sentence from 6 months (as ruled by the Teleorman Tribunal) in 1 year.
3rd instance:
The files of the two defendants were associated and when OCR filled an appeal against the decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, his appeal produced effects also on N.V.I.’s situation. The Supreme Court of Justice admitted his appeal, reversed and remanded the Decision back to the Bucharest Court of Appeal.
Retrial:
By Decision 63/A/10 March 2009, the Bucharest Court of Appeal sentenced N.V.I to 3 years imprisonment for complicity at juvenile trafficking.
Supreme Court of Justice
