Pre-trial chamber. Nullity of the means of evidence. Technical supervision. Irregularity of the document initiating proceedings before the court. Report of correction of certain alleged clerical errors. Tax avoidance offenses.

DREPT PENAL ȘI PROCESUAL PENAL

Abstract

The Romanian Intelligence Service has powers exclusively in relation to the interception warrants issued under Law no. 51/1991, so that it cannot participate in the criminal prosecution activities, not even by contributing from the technical point of view to enforce the interception and the record of phone conversations and in the environment authorized by the judge according to Art. 138 et seq. of the Code of criminal procedure. 
No clerical error was remedied according to the report of correction of the clerical error of the ordinance of the indictment remedy, instead, actually, the remedy ordinance was completed. Thus, this could not be deemed to be about the simple correction of a clerical error insofar as not only the replacement of a numerical benchmark allegedly recorded in an erroneous manner under the respective report, but numerous clarifications and amendments of the document instituting proceedings are brought therein. The error invoked is not clerical and obvious, but rather an appreciation and interpretation error, which cannot be corrected according to the procedure set forth under Art. 278 of the Code of criminal procedure. 
The description of the actions imposed on the defendants, sued for tax avoidance, is deficient, not allowing to establish the subject-matter of their sue at law. Therefore, the indictment does not show which are the invoices that the prosecutor considers to be fictitious, which is the damage estimated as being caused to the state budget by issuing these invoices, it does not precisely show the actions which the defendants are charged with and incriminated by criminal law, for what kind of offenses committed the prosecutor requests that the defendants incur criminal liability, the offenses are not described in such a manner to allow making a correspondence between the content of the referred offense and the constituent content of the offense for which it was ordered to be sued, and it is not even clear which are the material acts of the tax avoidance offense in continuous form, moreover, the actual contribution of each of the defendants to committing the offenses does not result in a clear manner.