The Declaration of a judge inclined in favour of balance of his friend. MOTIVATION

A judge is the main prosecution witness in the trial of a friend of his is the aggrieved party in the wake of a scandal that emerged in a night club. Judge Gabriel Turcu B2, researched by the Judicial Inspection after it was given to the Prosecutor General, is the only one who saw that the defendant, a former employee at a security firm, would be seated on his friend Adam Laszlo, a former director at culture House of Students (CCS), which was in shambles.

Motivation of the sentence from the Court in the case of the incident in 2014 from Euphoria Club Music Hall, in which he was involved former CCS director Adam Laszlo and guard to Protect, PP shows what happened that night in the club, as they arrived at the intervention of the security agents and unearth the close friendship between Adam Laszlo , politician (former PDL member) and business, and judge Gabriel Turcu B2, transferred from the Cluj-Napoca Court the Court..

Initially there were three security agents being investigated, Prosecutor Laura Hardin, MSC sanctioned for how he spoke with those who heard he sent Sue, who worked on a temporary basis as a salesperson, Chef training. Moreover, the defendant now works as a chef in Italy.

The Court postponed the application of substantive punishment: "Establishes the responsibility of the defendant Andrei Falusi Cano 10 months jail, for committing the crime of abusive conduct, prev. by art. 296 paragraph 1. (2) in the Outlet Defer sentencing 10 months jail established in task and fix the term FCA accused supervisors of two (2) years from the date of this judgment whether definitive. "

I forced the Court, but the accused and on responsible civilmente PP Protect SRL to pay, jointly and severally, the sum of 10,000 lei to the civil side, Adam Lalude, with non-pecuniary damages, and lei, 1,301 pecuniary damages.

Adam Laszlo has sought damages of 50,000 lei. It also demanded the introduction of express concerned as party responsible civilmente SC PP Protect LLC. Remember that, after the incident, the company has terminated the contract of guard that you have with the injured party for the dwelling.

Rechizitoriul this case and the sentence of the Court shows that the balance was tilted witness statement to the judge, the only Ramen, besides Adam Laszlo, who claimed that the latter was țintuit to the ground by security guards.

Rechizitoriul indicates the incident judged because of a scandal flared up in the club between Adam Laszlo and another man. Otherwise, the administrator, Teodor Pop PP Protect Pușcaș, said shortly after the incident that former CCS director was drunk and get girls.

Extracted from reliable sources

"On the night of Feb. 28th/person, 01.03.2014, Adam Lalude, together with Picoş, Pădurean witnesses Andrei Andrei Ionut Pop and B2 were Gabriel Turcu Club Euphoria Music Hall in Cluj-Napoca, and at some point between the injured person and an unidentified male, remainder, a conflict broke out, expletives and conflict summary at îmbrânceli.

Noting the conflict broke out, the defendant Andrei Bader, Magan Guard within SC PP Protect SRL, located in the performance of job duties, there was originally trying to separate what's involved in doing so, trapping the injured person Adam Lalude hands with shirt, neck and then trying hitting the same people injured with his fist in the face area, action not completed Since witnesses spoke Picoş Andrei Pădurean and Andrei Ionut Pop which caught him by the arms.

The purpose of corking incident, intervened two security guards (remaining unidentified) who picked up an injured person Adam Lalude and led it to the exit, the exit of the club, which is again taken up by two other security guards, respectively, the defendants Faluşi Magu and Piglet Cano. Immobilisation and removal of the intending person injured Adam Lalude from club, defendant Piglet Kimmy took this one a handful while defendant Andrei Faluşi Cano caught it on the other hand, in fact it towards the door, there, the defendant Andrei Faluşi Cano pushing it outwards.

As a result of kinetic force by the defendant printed Faluşi Cano, person, Andrei Lalude, Adam fell and, although being fallen the same culprit and continued aggressive action, understanding to climb with full body on it, taking it immobilized facing the ground.

As a result aggression exerted on to the injured person, Adam Lalude suffered damage to the left front epicranian level with the adjacent excoriation, curable initially in 8-9 (eight to nine) days of medical care, forensic certificate nr. 1154/I/a/261 dated 03. 03. 2014.

According to the conclusions withheld by completing the forensic certificate nr. 1154/I/a/261 dated 03. 03. 2014, any person aggrieved Adam Lalude presented fracture of humeral head lesion of the left, he could date from the day of 01.03.2014 and which required for healing 30-35 (thirty-thirty-five) days of medical care.

Popular discontent culminated in hearing the defendant Andrei Bogdan Magan in connection with the offence be forfeited in his task, he denied any aggressive action on the injured person's Adam Lalude, arguing consistently that his intervention was limited to trying to tear apart the injured party conflict initially, defense will be retained and witness statements noting the ambiguity of Picoş

Andrei Pădurean and Andrei Ionut Pop, witnesses who could not predict with certainty whether or not the defendant struck the injured party. Neither defendant Piglet Fallas did not recognize actions of assaulting the person harmed, noting that indeed took it from some colleagues for the purpose of driving outside the Club, but his work consisted only in catching a hand of the person injured, defence will be detained, noting that the concerned there is objective evidence for indictments, none of the witnesses heard neindicându him as the aggressor.

From the statement of the defendant Andrei Faluşi Cano was an attitude of non-recognition of the damage caused to the person who has suffered injury warranting Adam Lalude through an accidental fall, respectively, to prevent its out of the club because of a threshold at the door and his fall over the injured party, the defense which, though it corroborates with the statement the accused Piglet Magu, will be discarded as being formulated pro causa as long as the injured person and witness Adam Lalufanthege B2 Talukdar George claim that the defendant is actually satisfied the victim continuing to keep grounded face on the ground. "

Excerpt from the statement of the witness Gabriel Turcu B2: "step out in the club, I noticed that my friend Loți stood fell to the ground, face against concrete tiles, and one of the bodyguards is on it. I've found that person, i asked bodyguardului to give off of him, demanding explanations "

The evacuation of the injured party in the club, as told in the motivation of sentence

"Two security guards drove a person injured up the area where the wardrobe left her, moments in which he had a brief conversation with the Club's Manager, Michael, who witnessed the Damayanti stood in that room at the exit of the club. According to the witness, when he saw the injured party became agitated, without being aggressive, demanding explanations for what had occurred. In those moments, the injured party were isolated both from his friends, except witness B2 and Gabriel Turcu by people involved in the altercation in the club, so it does not present any threat to the integrity of the body of any customer.

Witness Piglet Faline said that the injured party has tried to spit on the defendant at the time the Faluşi were trying to escort him out of the club. The defendant argued that the person you request security agents that led to him leaving the club to compete with him (the Declaration of f. d.u.p. 28-29). These two statements do not corroborate with any other sample from the dossier of the case.

In the output area, being bruscată, the injured party, which no longer have the ability to move freely, it was unbalanced and fell on the concrete slabs on the outside of the Club. Although security guards have put it on the injured party unable to have freedom of movement, the two were not concerned about protecting the integrity of the body. Thus, the witness stated that Piglet, seeing that the person aggrieved was tripped, gave way to the hand which was holding the one leaving her to fall. The defendant took the injured person's hand back dezechilibrându to turn.

Of the samples did not result beyond any doubt that the defendant fell upon any person aggrieved (contrary to the claims of the injured person). Thus, Miga witness Andrei (f. 183-184, vol. I dos. the Court stated that the defendant Faluşi) could not be prevented by the output threshold, but was stretched in tearing after it, and when it came near the ground gave way and soon was positioned on him (…). Perhaps Manley agent gave way to Adam Laszlo after it has been tripped. I don't think the agent Faluşi was prevented by the door fram[…]e.

What is certain is that, in the context in which it was not able to protect themselves using their hands, because they were grounded as a result of the fall, the person injured was hit in the head and the shoulder. Furthermore, although the defendant was responsible for the downfall of the injured person that put her in the position of not being able to protect, after contact with the horizontal plane, not to let her get up, pinning him with his hands on his head and body, as concrete tiles would be shaken. In this regard, relevant statements by the injured person's Adam Lalude (f. 91-92, vol. I dos. instance, f. 1617 d.u.p.) which corroborate witness statements in part B2 Talukdar George (f. 132-133, vol. I dos. and (f). 22-23 d.u.p.) and the witness (Fallatah f Manley. 141-142, vol. I dos. and (f). 59-60, 87-94 d.u.p.).

The defendant and witness Piglet argued that it was necessary to the immobilization of the injured party, because he was agitated and aggressive, referring only to verbal aggression. Or, in this case would not have been necessary to use force.

Assuming it were real assertion that the injured party would have prevented the entrance threshold, this issue cannot constitute in a suitable error removing criminal liability, whereas the threshold was not causing injury to the injured person, but merely a State of things which favored fall. In this regard, note that the defendant and judge the witness were leading him and dragged the Piglet on Adam Lalude to the exit using numerical and physical ascendancy over it. Exactly these actions of the two security guards plus immobilizing the injured person's arms have caused the fall and hitting the person injured. However, from the report of finding criminal No. 372343 dated 24.10.2014 (f. 115-118 d.u.p.) It follows that, being asked whether he lied when he said that Adam fell Lalufanthege because it has been prevented in the doorway leading out of local, responding that there, the defendant presented Psychophysiological changes that could be associated with simulated behaviour.

Although the relevant circumstances in which the Act was committed, the conduct of the injured person inside the Club cannot constitute in a challenge, considering that in the first incident the defendant had no participation. The only aspect that you knew the defendant was that two of his colleagues have led a person injured towards the door, since it was involved in an altercation. Thus, the Court observes that it cannot discuss the violent action of the injured person to be made a touch serious dignity of the defendant.

After it was positioned over the injured person, the defendant held a fixed bottom for about 30 seconds, after which, at the request of the witness Gabriel Turcu B2 which meanwhile had gone out in the club, the witness Piglet told the defendant to allow the injured party to rise.

The dossier of the case is not in the video, the reason it was kept being uncertain, the parties accusing each other of its demise before being claimed by the prosecution.

On the other hand, the defendant would have had to be very careful to conduct, given that the part of the defendant's customers at the shop waiting to be legitimately defend the possible perils, not to be passive subjects of brutal actions, even assuming that the background of alcohol consumption would be an inappropriate behavior. Security guards must be even more cautious with persons under the influence of alcohol, in a context where they are much more vulnerable, and not to bruscheze.

On the other hand, is retained and that the defendant reacted unduly violently in a context in which the injured party had an inappropriate language, and the incident was initially off, and there is no any danger to the customers premises or goods.

Further, the Court retains that the defendant does not have a criminal record, committing the deed of this question having an isolated character. Moreover, the defendant did not have any experience in the field, his occupation being a chef, and the activities that the security guard had temporary, ceasing in the aftermath of this incident.

In addition, please note that, although the Court did not recognize the act committed, the defendant gave evidence of collaboration with the judicial organs, posing the most chemărilor, so in the course of criminal proceedings and the judgment. Finally, the Court retains that defendant is young, aged 25 years, secondary education, engaged in work, being integrated into society. "

The Court about monetary claims of Adam Laszlo "is retained to conduct the wrong person total injured"

"In terms of damages, in the assessment of the injury the Court will take into consideration the conduct of the injured person who was involved in an incident with another customer. In this regard, in accordance with art. paragraph 1, 1371. URC.civ (1), where the victim has contributed wilfully or through negligence to causing injury times increase or not, in whole or in part, though being able to do so, at called to respond will be kept only for the damage which he has caused her.

Thus, it is inappropriate to retain total conduct of the person injured was involved in a scandal with another person within the Club, causing disruption to the other clients of the restaurant, and then, after being escorted in the wardrobe area, to the words and phrases insulting security agents.

Thus, you cannot withhold an injury or a violation of the dignity of the person injured since the very conduct of the person who caused this damage. Moreover, the newspaper published articles on this topic have generally rendered including these aspects. In addition, claims administrator SC PP Protect LTD can not be analyzed in this context criminal procedure law, but on a separate track.

With regard to preventing the person injured to follow a specific program of physical training, it should be noted that the evidence showed that administered it does not follow a regular schedule in the period in which the Act was committed.
Furthermore, the Court takes into account the fact that the injured party has not complied with medical indications to keep restrained arm constantly for a certain period of time for quick healing of fracture of the shoulder. In these circumstances, it cannot retain the victim avoided increasing injury-art. paragraph 1, 1371. (1) in URC.civ.

In this context, taking into account the number of days of care set out in question and the sufferings caused to the injured person, the Court considers that the amount of 10,000 lei, by way of moral damages, it is equitable. "reads the sentence.

Judgment of the Court of Justice Cluj-Napoca was attacked with call for all parties concerned, the appeal court being the Court of Appeal. At first, the two judges abstained, Maiwada because you know Adam and Alison in the V because it has contracted with for home guard Protect PP.

On October 18, a panel of the Court of Appeal upheld the sentence above: "pursuant to article 13. 421 PTS. 1 letter b URC.pr.pen. dismisses as unfounded calls declared by the civil side Adam Kayla Lalli and defendant Andrei Falusi Cano against criminal Sentence nr. 316/26.02.2016 Court. Binding on the defendant-caller and calling on the civil-how many judicial expenses 500 lei in favor of the State. Binding on the defendant-caller and civil side calling at 675-lei each by way of judicial expenses (onoariu avocaţial) the party responsible for civilmente SC PP Protect LTD is final. "



Lasă un răspuns

error: Conținut protejat. Contactați-ne la office@clujust.ro dacă vreți să preluați! Apăsați CTRL+P dacă vreți să printați pagina