Autor: Adrian STAN

Publicat în: Revista Universul Juridic nr. 12/2016

Disponibil online: aici.

Abstract: The conducted study is based on the optical change of the new criminal code related to the unity and plurality of the offense, more specifically on the continued offense and the distinction between it and the offences competition. 

I realized a short review of the code regulations in force until 1st of February 2014, according to article 41 paragraph (2) of the former criminal code, the offense was continued “when a person commits on different periods of time, but in the realization of the same resolution, action or offense that presents, each in part, the content of the same offence”. 

The criminal code adopted in 2010, through the imposition of the unity of the passive subject condition, has desired to simplify things, but, even after less than three years from the entry into force, its seems that it complicated them more, the practice reaching sometimes shocking solutions and the doctrine being critical often relating to the criminal political option contemplated. 

Probably influenced by the rarely applied optional increase from art. 34 or even by the frequent orientation of the concurrent sentences for offenses to the minimum of the heaviest, without increase application, the commission that has drafted the new code has opted for the radical change, on the one hand of the rules for applying penalties for concurrent deeds, and on the other hand the drastic decrease of the incidence for the continued offense. 

Indeed, sometimes, the criminal politics may impose certain orientations. If these lead sometimes to the application of penalties till the general maximum for some deeds that, individually regarded, far from considering them derisory, are situated (from the point of view of the penalty limits) at the inferior limit of criminal repression, the public opinion and specialists must react.

Keywords: crime unity; plurality; continued offence; concurrent offenses; penalty increase.