The Constitutional Court, notified for the second time in the case of Victor Micula for non-compliance with the arms regime

“Admits the request of the accused appellants Micula Victor and Manea Iulian for referral to the Constitutional Court, with the exception of the unconstitutionality of the provisions of art. 156 para. (1) Criminal Code, provisions that would contravene those of art. 1 paragraph (5), art. 11 paragraph (1), art. 20 para. (1), art. 21 para. (3) of the Constitution of Romania and of art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”, it is stated in the closing minutes of the Oradea court.

Concretely, the CCR will have to rule on an exception of unconstitutionality regarding a rule of the Criminal Code that regulates the suspension of the criminal liability statute of limitations. “The course of the limitation period for criminal liability is suspended for as long as a legal provision or an unforeseeable or irremediable circumstance prevents the initiation of the criminal action or the continuation of the criminal process”, according to article 156 para. (1), the one referred to by the exception raised by Micula jr. and by Iulian Manea.

According to the lawyers of the two, this article contravenes the provisions of the Romanian Constitution regarding the observance of laws, international treaties to which our country is a party and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the right to a fair trial and the resolution of cases within a time limit reasonable.

The first exception, sent to the CCR in February 2024

It is the second referral request to the Constitutional Court made by Victor Micula during the trial of this file. The first one was admitted by the Oradea Court on the very day when the sentence was pronounced on the merits of sentencing the young businessman to prison with execution.

Then, the exception of unconstitutionality referred to article 342 para. (1) of the Criminal Code, regarding non-compliance with the weapons and ammunition regime: “Possessing, carrying, manufacturing, as well as any operation regarding the circulation of lethal weapons, ammunition, their mechanisms or devices or the operation of lethal weapons repair workshops, without the right , shall be punished with imprisonment from one to 5 years.”

The lawyer of Micula jr. showed that these provisions lack accessibility, predictability and clarity: “The normative modalities listed alternatively as being

activities that can constitute material acts of the crime of non-compliance with the weapons and ammunition regime can be interpreted in very different ways, a situation that leaves room for arbitrariness. The notions of “possession”, “port” and “any operation regarding the circulation of lethal weapons” do not have a clear regulation in the domestic legislation (…) regarding the weapons and ammunition regime.”

The file of this exception is at the CCR, in the report phase.

Convicted in the first instance, but escaped punishment in another trial

As Jurnal Bihorean and Bihon reported, Victor Micula was sentenced, in February of this year, to 2 years in prison with execution for non-compliance with the weapons and ammunition regime. The Oradea Court imposed the punishment on him for an incident on March 3, 2019, when Micula jr. he was accused of firing a gun at Oradea’s belt, but also for illegally purchasing several weapons.

In the same case, Sergiu Gabriel Hava – one year and 3 months of suspended prison for complicity in non-compliance with the weapons regime, Bogdan Cristian Matei – one year of suspended prison, also for complicity in the same crime, and Vasile Manea were also sentenced Iulian, who was charged with perjury and received a 10-month suspended prison sentence.

The sentence of the trial court was appealed shortly, so the trial moved to the Oradea Court of Appeal, which will give the final sentence in this case.

Meanwhile, at the beginning of March, Victor Micula escaped, with the help of the prescription, the charge of inciting false statements, in another case where he was suspected of having a friend lie to the Police and claim that he had an accident. This although, prosecutors claim, the young businessman would have instigated his relative to push his Mercedes G 500 car into a precipice, near Stâna de Vale, so that he could collect an insurance of 275,000 euros.