\nModificarea a fost preg\u0103tit\u0103 sub forma unui proiect de ordonan\u0163\u0103 de urgen\u0163\u0103 care modific\u0103 Legea 135\/2010 privind Codul de procedur\u0103 penal\u0103, \u00een consultare cu Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii.<\/p>\n
\n“Este prev\u0103zut\u0103 o perioad\u0103 de 30 de zile, dar trebuie f\u0103cut\u0103 distinc\u0163ia \u00eentre luarea m\u0103surii, care se dispune pentru 30 de zile, \u015fi men\u0163inerea m\u0103surii \u00een faza de judecat\u0103, care se verific\u0103 \u00een termen de maximum 60 de zile”, au ar\u0103tat sursele.<\/strong><\/p>\n \nArticolul 222 din Codul de procedur\u0103 penal\u0103 care reglementeaz\u0103 arestul la domiciliu \u00een procedura de camer\u0103 preliminar\u0103 \u015fi \u00een cursul judec\u0103\u0163ii \u00een prim\u0103 instan\u0163\u0103 a fost declarat neconstitu\u0163ional de Curtea Constitu\u0163ional\u0103, \u00een 7 mai, pentru c\u0103 nu prevede durata pentru care aceast\u0103 m\u0103sur\u0103 poate fi dispus\u0103.<\/p>\n \nPlenul Senatului a votat luni proiectul care prevede modific\u0103rile \u00een cazul acestui articol, stabilind ca \u00een procedura de camer\u0103 preliminar\u0103 \u015fi \u00een cursul judec\u0103\u0163ii, m\u0103sura arestului la domiciliu s\u0103 poate fi dispus\u0103 pe o perioad\u0103 de cel mult 30 de zile, iar durata maxim\u0103 a arestului la domiciliu, \u00een cursul urm\u0103ririi penale, s\u0103 fie de 180 de zile.<\/p>\n \nDe asemenea, proiectul mai prevede c\u0103 \u00een tot cursul judec\u0103\u0163ii, instan\u0163a, din oficiu, prin \u00eencheiere, verific\u0103 periodic, dar nu mai t\u00e2rziu de 60 de zile, dac\u0103 subzist\u0103 temeiurile care au determinat men\u0163inerea m\u0103surii arest\u0103rii preventive \u015fi a arestului la domiciliu dispuse fa\u0163\u0103 de inculpat sau dac\u0103 au ap\u0103rut temeiuri noi, care s\u0103 justifice men\u0163inerea acestor m\u0103suri.<\/p>\n \n\u00cen Senat au fost 118 voturi “pentru”, dou\u0103 voturi “\u00eempotriv\u0103” \u015fi o ab\u0163inere.<\/p>\n \nVacan\u0163a parlamentar\u0103 va \u00eencepe miercuri.<\/p>\n \nCurtea Constitu\u0163ional\u0103 a decis, \u00een 7 mai, c\u0103 dispozi\u0163iile articolului 222 din Codul de procedur\u0103 penal\u0103 \u00eencalc\u0103 legea fundamental\u0103, \u00eentruc\u00e2t nu este precizat\u0103 durata maxim\u0103 a arestului la domiciliu \u00een procedura de camer\u0103 preliminar\u0103 \u015fi \u00een cursul judec\u0103\u0163ii \u00een prim\u0103 instan\u0163\u0103.<\/p>\n \nCurtea Constitu\u0163ional\u0103 a ar\u0103tat, \u00een motivarea deciziei, c\u0103 arestul la domiciliu reprezint\u0103 o m\u0103sur\u0103 intruziv\u0103 ce poate afecta drepturi \u015fi libert\u0103\u0163i fundamentale, respectiv libera circula\u0163ie, via\u0163a intim\u0103, familial\u0103 \u015fi privat\u0103, dreptul la \u00eenv\u0103\u0163\u0103tur\u0103 \u015fi munca \u015fi protec\u0163ia social\u0103 a muncii.<\/p>\n \n“Ingerin\u0163a analizat\u0103 nu este \u00eens\u0103 propor\u0163ional\u0103 cu cauza care a determinat-o, a\u015fa \u00eenc\u00e2t Curtea re\u0163ine c\u0103 dispunerea m\u0103surii arestului la domiciliu, \u00een procedura de camer\u0103 preliminar\u0103 \u015fi a judec\u0103\u0163ii \u00een prim\u0103 instan\u0163\u0103, f\u0103r\u0103 a se reglementa cu privire la termenele pentru care poate fi dispus\u0103 \u015fi durata maxim\u0103 a acesteia, nu asigur\u0103 un just echilibru \u00eentre interesul public \u015fi cel individual, \u00eentruc\u00e2t aceast\u0103 m\u0103sur\u0103 poate fi dispus\u0103 pentru o perioad\u0103 nelimitat\u0103 de timp”, conform motiv\u0103rii CC.<\/p>\n \nPotrivit textului de lege analizat de judec\u0103torii constitu\u0163ionali, “(1) \u00cen cursul urm\u0103ririi penale, arestul la domiciliu poate fi luat pe o durat\u0103 de cel mult 30 de zile”, “(2) Arestul la domiciliu poate fi prelungit, \u00een cursul urm\u0103ririi penale, numai \u00een caz de necesitate, dac\u0103 se men\u0163in temeiurile care au determinat luarea m\u0103surii sau au ap\u0103rut temeiuri noi, fiecare prelungire neput\u00e2nd s\u0103 dep\u0103\u015feasc\u0103 30 de zile”.<\/p>\n \nAcela\u015fi articol stipuleaz\u0103 c\u0103 “(3) \u00cen cazul prev\u0103zut la alin. (2), prelungirea arestului la domiciliu poate fi dispus\u0103 de c\u0103tre judec\u0103torul de drepturi \u015fi libert\u0103\u0163i de la instan\u0163a c\u0103reia i-ar reveni competen\u0163a s\u0103 judece cauza \u00een prim\u0103 instan\u0163\u0103 sau de la instan\u0163a corespunz\u0103toare \u00een grad acesteia \u00een a c\u0103rei circumscrip\u0163ie se afl\u0103 locul unde s-a constatat s\u0103v\u00e2r\u015firea infrac\u0163iunii ori sediul parchetului din care face parte procurorul care efectueaz\u0103 sau supravegheaz\u0103 urm\u0103rirea penal\u0103”.<\/p>\n \nNiciunul dintre alineatele acestui articol nu stabile\u015fte \u00eens\u0103 perioada maxim\u0103 de impunere a arestului la domiciliu \u00een procedura de camer\u0103 preliminar\u0103 \u015fi \u00een cursul judec\u0103\u0163ii \u00een prim\u0103 instan\u0163\u0103.<\/p>\n \nArestul la domiciliu poate fi de maxim 30 de zile \u00een cursul judec\u0103\u0163ii \u015fi de maxim 180 de zile \u00een cursul urm\u0103ririi penale, a decis luni Senatul, care a solu\u0163ionat astfel problema neconstitu\u0163ionalit\u0103\u0163ii articolului din Codul de procedur\u0103 penal\u0103 privind aceast\u0103 m\u0103sur\u0103.<\/p>\n \nConform Codului de procedur\u0103 penal\u0103, m\u0103surile preventive sunt re\u0163inerea, controlul judiciar, controlul judiciar pe cau\u0163iune, arestul la domiciliu \u015fi arestarea preventiv\u0103.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Guvernul vrea s\u0103 limiteze, prin ordonan\u0163\u0103 de urgen\u0163\u0103, durata arestului la domiciliu la 30 de zile \u00een faza de urm\u0103rire penal\u0103 \u015fi la cel mult 60 de zile \u00een procedur\u0103 de camer\u0103 preliminar\u0103 \u015fi \u00een cursul judec\u0103\u0163ii, au declarat agen\u0163iei MEDIAFAX surse oficiale. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[510],"tags":[11886,25974,9],"class_list":["post-123825","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-actualitate","tag-arest","tag-cod-penal","tag-guvern"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bm.dev.synology.me\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123825","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bm.dev.synology.me\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bm.dev.synology.me\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bm.dev.synology.me\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bm.dev.synology.me\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=123825"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bm.dev.synology.me\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123825\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bm.dev.synology.me\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=123825"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bm.dev.synology.me\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=123825"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bm.dev.synology.me\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=123825"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}