- And the court is convinced that the execution of the sentence is sufficient, and even without its implementation, the accused will not commit other crimes, but it is necessary to monitor his behavior for a certain period.
The Lehliu-Garo Court sentenced a citizen who was found guilty of the worst accident in the history of Autostrada Suarelui, Bucharest-Constante, to two years imprisonment and five months suspended.
The accident occurred on November 5, 2016, and according to investigators, 30 cars, two minibuses and a truck were involved in the accident. 60 people were involved in this horrific accident, 41 were taken to hospitals, and 16 others refused to be transferred.
Unfortunately, four people died.
To motivate the guilty verdict, the judges of the Lehleu-Garau Court held, among other things, that “in determining the duration of the sentence, the court took into account the general criteria for individualizing the punishment prevailing. From Art. 74-NCP, respectively, the seriousness of the crimes And the seriousness of the accused, taking into account the following criteria: the nature of the crimes – the wrongful acts, the manner and circumstances of committing the acts – multiple collisions – such as “Karom.”, where 32 damaged cars were identified (4 dead, 50 others injured), one of the features of the accident – Almost all vehicles collided head-on in front of them, hit simultaneously or consecutively, several times, vehicles traveling in the rear creating a cohesive mass and changing course after each hit, not adapting the speed to road conditions, not maintaining sufficient distance from the vehicle Which led to a traffic accident that resulted in the death of two people. Persons and bodily injury to three other persons, on the history of the social repercussions represented by such actions, which affect the life, physical integrity or health of the person or the defendant (…)”, according to the National Jurisprudence Portal.
In view of all these aspects, the Court considered that in this case it would be entirely appropriate and justified to retain the extenuating judicial circumstances provided for in Article 75 para. 2 lit. b) the NCP, in relation to circumstances relating to the act committed that reduce the seriousness of the offense or the gravity of the offender, as a result of reducing the penalty limits established by law by one third, in accordance with Art. 76 paragraph. 1 point of contact.
Given the above individual criteria, the court found that the purpose of sentencing and rehabilitation of the accused could be achieved by applying a sentence of two years and two months for the offense of “intentional murder” and a sentence of 9 years imprisonment Monday for the offense of “bodily harm censured,” with its appreciation, in At the same time, that during the entire period of the criminal trial, the defendant was aware of the seriousness of the acts committed.
With regard to the judicial exclusivity of the execution of the judgment, in relation to the defendant, the court also evaluated:
Execution of the sentence is not required, and it is found, beyond reasonable doubt, that the facts exist, constituting crimes, committed by the defendant and that the conditions relating to the stay of execution of the sentence are cumulatively satisfied (…) and
The resulting sentence applied under this sentence is 2 (two years) and 5 (five) months imprisonment (obtained after the application of Section 39 paragraph 1 letter b) NCP in connection with the agreement on offences), the accused is no longer previously sentenced to imprisonment,
The defendant agreed to perform unpaid work for the benefit of society, and in relation to the defendant’s person, his behavior, which are prerequisites for his social reintegration, in accordance with the above criteria, did not prevail in any of the cases. of art. 91 paragraph. 3 lit. a) – c) the NCP, respectively, only the penalty of a fine was not applied, the application of the penalty was not initially postponed, tacitly, it was not canceled, the accused did not escape criminal prosecution or trial, did not attempt to thwart the finding of the truth or identification against the offender or participants and his criminal prosecution,
The fact that the defendant tried to formulate a defense, taking into account all the circumstances of the incident, as indicated above, does not lead to the conclusion that the truth was not known, therefore the court is satisfied that the punishment is sufficient and even without its implementation, the defendant would not commit other crimes, but from It is necessary to monitor his behavior for a certain period.
Documentation source / motivation National Jurisprudence Portal – rejust.ro
It should be noted that, in addition to the guilty verdict, the court ordered the award of civil shares of about 1.5 million lei and 154,000 euros, as moral compensation – equivalent to lei at the NBR exchange rate from the date of payment.
The decision of the Lehliu Garo Court is not final.
Through Indictment No. No. 561 / P / 2016 of 01.07.2021 issued by the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of Călărați, the prosecutors decided to refer the defendant (DS) for trial, in a state of liberty, for the commission of crimes: “intentional murder”, ex. of art. 192 paragraph. 2 and 3 NCP and “accidental bodily injury” prev. of art. 196 paragraph. 2, 3 and 4 NCP, both with art application. 38 paragraph. 2 point of contact.
In the process of court notification, the plaintiffs showed, among other things, that on the morning of May 11, 2016, while driving a Mercedes minibus, the Benz Sprinter model, km. 66 + 824 m, against the background of not adapting the travel speed to the conditions of forward visibility (a significant decrease – thick fog), the defendant crashed into a group of vehicles consisting of a tractor and a semi-trailer.
Investigators say the car was parked in front of him on the same track.
The accident killed two people, as well as injured three other victims (all passengers of the minibus).
Prosecutors also said that the minibus was moving on the A2 route, on the first lane, at a speed inappropriate for road conditions, in conditions of low visibility, a succession of fog alternating in intensity, so that at a given moment, in how many space. 66, the defendant was surprised by the presence of a semi-trailer (consisting of a group of vehicles consisting of a DAF tractor and a SCHMITZ semi-trailer loaded with sunflower seeds), which were on the first track, in front of him, their speed close to zero.
Although he braked abruptly, the defendant violently entered with the front of the minibus behind the semi-trailer, which was necessary to move the assembly to facilitate release.
After the specific investigations were completed, judicial sources announced, to ZIUA de Constanța, that the driver referred to the court is accused of the death of two out of the four who lost their lives in this accident.
In the second group of cars, which were involved in the accident, the guilt of the driver of the minibus was found, who did not adapt the speed to road conditions, respectively, in conditions of thick fog, and hit directly into the rear of the car. A road train that managed to stop without hitting another group of cars involved in the accident in front of it.
According to investigators, in the first part of the collection, it was not possible to establish the guilt of some of the people responsible for the deaths of two victims. (Two victims died in two different cars.)
“The responsibility of two people who could have been employed did not lead to their prosecution, because the victim did not file a complaint. It was the fault of someone who was driving at low speed in lane No. 2. It was the first car for all this craziness. In this case, both experts noted that he was going fast. less in the second lane. And the fault of the one who hit this car (the second) who did not cover the normal distance from the car in front of him and because of that he could not stop. These two guilts were proven by both experts. There was a victim in the second car who did not file a complaint. Then, in The second car hit all the other cars coming from behind. They all crashed into this car. Can’t blame anyone who was injured. Some even managed to stop without hitting the front, but they were hit five or six times in the back by other cars. In this way, the death of the two victims in the first incident also occurred, ”the judicial sources of ZIUA de Constanța announced.
Law 190 of 2018, in Article 7, states that journalistic activity is exempt from certain provisions of the GDPR, if a balance is maintained between freedom of expression and protection of personal data.
The information in this article is in the public interest and is obtained from open public sources.
Filed a lawsuit against one of the most famous companies in Constanta! The process begins