The defendant was put under the charge of juvenile trafficking by the Public Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor argued that the defendant forced the victim (underage woman) to hold intercourse with him and with different other men, pretending to recover EUR 1,000 which he supposedly lend to the victim’s mother. The victim argued that she was taken against her will at the defendant’s home, with the consent of her mother, where she was forced to hold intercourse with different men.
The Court decided that the defendant had an insincere attitude, arguing that he has a close friendly relationship with the victim, as the testimonies of several witnesses proved that the victim was taken by the defendant every night to his home, where she was forced to practice prostitution.
罗马尼亚1st Instance:
Arges Tribunal
30 October 2007
Decision no. 13/MF
The Arges Tribunal changed the juridical qualification of the crime given by the Public Prosecutor, from juvenile trafficking into sexual intercourse with an underage person, convicted the defendant to 4 years imprisonment with suspension of execution of the punishment, and obliged him to pay RON 1,500 as court charges to the state.
2nd Instance:
Pitesti Court of Appeal
4 March 2008
Decision no. 23/A/MF
The Court admitted the Public Prosecutor’s appeal and partially reversed the previous sentence. The Court convinced the defendant to 8 years and 6 months imprisonment without suspension of the execution of punishment for juvenile trafficking and obliged him to pay RON 10,000 to the victim as civil damages.
3rd instance
Supreme Court of Justice
23 September 2008
Decision 2954
The defendant appealed this decision, but his appeal was rejected by Decision 2954/2008 of the Supreme Court of Justice.
It was held by the first court that there was not enough evidence to prove that the defendant can be convicted for juvenile trafficking under art. 13 para. (1) and (3) of the Law no. 678/2001 on preventing and combating human trafficking, but that the only crime which was undoubtedly proven was intercourse with an underage person, provided by art. 198 of the Romanian Criminal Court.
Article 13 para. (1) and (2) of the Law no. 678/2001 on preventing and combating human trafficking
2nd instance:
Pitesti Court of Appeal – admitted the Public Prosecutor’ appeal for error of law regarding the qualification of the crime and the individualization of the punishment and convicted the defendant for 8 years and 6 months imprisonment under art. 13 par. (1) and (2) of Law no. 678/2001 on preventing and combating human trafficking.
3rd instance:
Supreme Court of Justice – court of last resort. Rejected the defendant’s appeal and upheld the decision of Pitesti Court of Appeal.
Supreme Court of Justice
