type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Advertência jurídica importante
 |
 22004A1228(01)
 Acordo entre a Comunidade Europeia e o Governo da Ucrânia sobre o comércio de determinados produtos siderúrgicos
 Jornal Oficial no L 384 de 28/12/2004 p. 0023 - 0040
 AcordoEntre a Comunidade Europeia e o Governo da Ucrânia sobre o comércio de determinados produtos siderúrgicosA COMUNIDADE EUROPEIA, a seguir denominada "Comunidade",por um lado, eO GOVERNO DA UCRÂNIA,por outro lado,adiante denominados "Partes",ACORDARAM NO SEGUINTE:Artigo 1.o1. O presente acordo é aplicável ao comércio dos produtos siderúrgicos originários das Partes, enumerados no Anexo I do presente acordo.2. O comércio dos produtos siderúrgicos não enumerados no Anexo I não fica sujeito a limites quantitativos, regulando-se pelas disposições pertinentes do Acordo de Parceria e Cooperação, designadamente as disposições relacionadas com os processos anti-dumping e as medidas de salvaguarda.3. Relativamente às questões não abrangidas pelo presente Acordo, aplicam-se as disposições pertinentes do Acordo de Parceria e Cooperação.Artigo 2.o1. As Partes acordam em estabelecer e manter durante o prazo de vigência do presente acordo disposições em matéria de limites quantitativos que fixem os limites estabelecidos no Anexo II do presente acordo para as exportações da Ucrânia para a Comunidade dos produtos enumerados no Anexo I. Essas exportações estão sujeitas ao sistema de duplo controlo previsto no Protocolo A do presente acordo (adiante denominado "Protocolo A").2. As Partes reiteram o seu compromisso de, logo que estejam reunidas as condições, procederem à liberalização total do comércio dos produtos siderúrgicos enumerados no Anexo I.3. Relativamente aos grupos de produtos incluídos no Anexo I, as quantidades abrangidas pelas autorizações de importação emitidas pela Comunidade, com base na Decisão 2003/893/CE do Conselho, de 15 de Dezembro de 2003, a partir de 1 de Janeiro e até à entrada em vigor do presente Acordo, serão deduzidas dos limites quantitativos fixados no Anexo II.4. As importações de produtos em quantidades que excedam as referidas no Anexo II só serão autorizadas se a indústria comunitária não puder satisfazer a procura interna e daí resultar uma escassez no abastecimento de um ou mais dos produtos enumerados no Anexo I. A pedido de qualquer das Partes, serão realizadas consultas de imediato para determinar o grau de escassez. De acordo com as conclusões das consultas e com base em elementos objectivos de prova, a Comunidade dará início aos seus procedimentos internos para aumentar as quantidades fixadas no Anexo II.5. Qualquer das Partes pode, em qualquer momento, solicitar a realização de consultas relativamente:- aos níveis dos limites quantitativos fixados no Anexo II, sempre que se verifique uma deterioração ou uma melhoria significativas das condições relativas aos produtos abrangidos pelo Anexo I;- à possibilidade de transferência das quantidades fixadas no Anexo II não utilizadas de grupos de produtos subutilizados para outros grupos.Artigo 3.o1. As importações para o território aduaneiro da Comunidade tendo em vista a livre circulação de produtos siderúrgicos enumerados no Anexo I ficam sujeitas à apresentação de uma licença de exportação emitida pelas autoridades da Ucrânia, e de uma prova de origem, nos termos do Protocolo A.2. As importações para o território aduaneiro da Comunidade de produtos siderúrgicos enumerados no Anexo I não estão sujeitas aos limites quantitativos fixados no Anexo II, desde que esses produtos sejam declarados como destinados a reexportação no seu estado inalterado ou após transformação para fora da Comunidade, no âmbito do sistema administrativo de controlo existente na Comunidade.Artigo 4.o1. A fim de tornar o sistema de duplo controlo tão eficaz quanto possível e de minimizar as possibilidades de violação e de evasão:- as autoridades comunitárias informarão as autoridades ucranianas, até ao dia 28 de cada mês, sobre as autorizações de importação emitidas durante o mês anterior,- as autoridades ucranianas informarão a Comunidade, até ao dia 28 de cada mês, sobre as licenças de exportação emitidas durante o mês anterior.Se se verificar uma discrepância considerável, tendo em conta o tempo necessário para o fornecimento dessas informações, qualquer das Partes pode solicitar a realização de consultas que serão abertas de imediato.2. Sem prejuízo do n.o 1 e a fim de garantir o funcionamento eficaz do presente acordo, as Partes acordam em tomar todas as medidas necessárias para impedir, investigar e adoptar as medidas legislativas e/ou administrativas necessárias contra qualquer desvio ao presente acordo, através de reexpedição, mudança de itinerário, declarações falsas quanto ao país ou local de origem, falsificação de documentos, falsas declarações quanto às quantidades e à designação ou classificação das mercadorias. Nesse sentido, as Partes acordam em adoptar as disposições legislativas e os procedimentos administrativos necessários que permitam uma acção eficaz contra esses desvios, incluindo a adopção de medidas correctivas juridicamente vinculativas contra os exportadores e/ou importadores em questão.3. Se, com base nas informações disponíveis, uma das Partes considerar que se estão a efectuar desvios em relação ao presente acordo, pode solicitar a realização imediata de consultas com a outra Parte.4. Enquanto se aguarda o resultado das consultas referidas no n.o 3, se a Comunidade o solicitar e desde que sejam apresentados elementos de prova suficientes, o Governo da Ucrânia deverá, a título de medida cautelar, adoptar todas as medidas necessárias para garantir que os ajustamentos dos limites quantitativos que possam resultar das consultas referidas no n.o 3 se efectuam no ano civil em que foi apresentado o pedido de consultas nos termos do n.o 3, ou no ano seguinte, se o limite desse ano civil estiver esgotado.5. Se, no decurso das consultas referidas no n.o 3, as Partes não puderem chegar a uma solução mutuamente satisfatória e desde que seja apresentada prova suficiente de que os produtos enumerados no Anexo I, originários da Ucrânia, foram importados em desvio ao presente acordo, a Comunidade terá o direito de imputar as quantidades pertinentes aos limites quantitativos fixados no Anexo II.6. Se, no decurso das consultas referidas no n.o 3, as Partes não puderem chegar a uma solução mutuamente satisfatória e desde que seja apresentada prova suficiente de que as declarações relativas à descrição das quantidades ou à classificação são falsas, a Comunidade terá o direito de recusar a importação dos produtos em causa.7. As Partes acordam em cooperar plenamente para evitar e resolver eficazmente todos os problemas que possam decorrer de desvios do presente acordo.Artigo 5.o1. Os limites quantitativos fixados no presente acordo para as importações para a Comunidade de produtos siderúrgicos não podem ser repartidos por quotas regionais.2. As Partes cooperarão a fim de prevenir alterações súbitas e prejudiciais dos fluxos comerciais tradicionais para a Comunidade. Se se verificar uma alteração súbita e prejudicial nos fluxos comerciais tradicionais (incluindo uma concentração regional ou uma perda das importações tradicionais), a Comunidade pode solicitar a realização de consultas para encontrar uma solução satisfatória para o problema. Essas consultas serão realizadas imediatamente.3. A Ucrânia procurará assegurar que as exportações de produtos enumerados no Anexo I para a Comunidade sejam escalonadas o mais regularmente possível ao longo do ano. Se se verificar um aumento súbito e prejudicial das importações, a Comunidade pode solicitar a realização de consultas para encontrar uma solução satisfatória para o problema. Essas consultas serão realizadas imediatamente.4. Além da obrigação referida no n.o 3 e sem prejuízo das consultas previstas no n.o 7 do artigo 2.o, sempre que as licenças emitidas pelas autoridades ucranianas tiverem atingido 90 % dos limites quantitativos, qualquer das Partes pode solicitar a realização de consultas. Essas consultas serão realizadas imediatamente. Enquanto se aguardam os resultados dessas consultas, as autoridades ucranianas podem continuar a emitir licenças de exportação para os produtos enumerados no Anexo I, desde que não excedam as quantidades fixadas no Anexo II.Artigo 6.o1. Se considerar que as importações da Ucrânia para a Comunidade dos produtos siderúrgicos enumerados no Anexo I estão a ser efectuadas em condições que causem ou ameacem causar um prejuízo importante aos produtores comunitários de produtos similares, a Comunidade pode fornecer à Ucrânia todas as informações pertinentes a fim de encontrar uma solução aceitável para ambas as Partes. As Partes iniciarão imediatamente as consultas.2. Se no âmbito das consultas referidas no n.o 1 não se chegar a acordo no prazo de 30 dias a contar da data do pedido de consultas pela Comunidade, esta pode utilizar o direito de acção em relação às medidas de salvaguarda nos termos do Acordo de Parceria e Cooperação.3. O artigo 19.o do Acordo de Parceria e Cooperação é aplicável, não obstante o disposto no do presente Acordo.Artigo 7.o1. A classificação dos produtos abrangidos pelo presente acordo baseia-se na nomenclatura pautal e estatística da Comunidade (adiante denominada "Nomenclatura Combinada" ou, na sua forma abreviada, "NC"). As alterações da Nomenclatura Combinada, efectuadas de acordo com os procedimentos em vigor na Comunidade, relativas aos produtos enumerados no Anexo I ou as decisões relativas à classificação das mercadorias não podem implicar uma redução dos limites quantitativos fixados no Anexo II.2. A origem dos produtos abrangidos pelo presente acordo será determinada segundo as regras em vigor na Comunidade. Todas as alterações das regras de origem devem ser comunicadas ao Governo da Ucrânia e não podem resultar numa redução dos limites quantitativos previstos no presente acordo. Os procedimentos de controlo da origem dos produtos acima referidos estão definidos no protocolo A.Artigo 8.o1. Sem prejuízo do intercâmbio periódico de informações sobre as licenças de exportação e as autorizações de importação previsto no n.o 1 do artigo 4.o, as Partes acordam em proceder ao intercâmbio de todas as informações estatísticas disponíveis relativas ao comércio dos produtos enumerados no Anexo I a intervalos adequados, tendo em conta os períodos mais curtos em relação aos quais as informações são elaboradas. Essas informações abrangerão as licenças de exportação e as autorizações de importação emitidas nos termos do artigo 3.o, bem como as estatísticas das importações e das exportações relativas aos produtos em causa.2. Qualquer das Partes pode solicitar a realização de consultas se verificar a existência de qualquer discrepância significativa entre as informações comunicadas.Artigo 9.o1. Sem prejuízo das disposições relativas à realização de consultas em circunstâncias específicas previstas nos artigos anteriores serão realizadas, a pedido de qualquer das Partes, consultas sobre eventuais problemas resultantes da aplicação do presente acordo. Essas consultas serão efectuadas num espírito de cooperação e com o objectivo de resolver as divergências existentes entre as Partes.2. Quando o presente acordo preveja a realização imediata de consultas, as Partes comprometem-se a utilizar todos os meios razoáveis para a sua concretização.3. A realização de todas as outras consultas está sujeita às seguintes disposições:- o pedido de consultas será notificado por escrito à outra Parte;- se necessário, o pedido de realização de consultas será completado, dentro de um prazo razoável, por um relatório que indique os motivos da realização de consultas;- as consultas devem ter início no prazo de um mês a contar da data da apresentação do pedido;- as consultas deverão permitir chegar a um resultado mutuamente aceitável no prazo de um mês a contar do seu início, excepto se esse prazo for prorrogado por acordo entre as Partes.Artigo 10.o1. O presente acordo entra em vigor na data da sua assinatura e é aplicável até 31 de Dezembro de 2004, sob reserva de quaisquer alterações acordadas pelas Partes e desde que não seja denunciado nos termos do n.o 3 do presente artigo.2. Qualquer das Partes pode, a qualquer momento, propor alterações ao presente acordo, que exigirão o consentimento mútuo das Partes e produzirão os efeitos por elas acordados.3. Qualquer das Partes pode denunciar o presente acordo mediante um pré-aviso de, pelo menos, seis meses. Nesse caso, o acordo caduca no termo do prazo do pré-aviso, sendo os limites estabelecidos no presente acordo reduzidos proporcionalmente tendo em conta a data em que a denúncia produz efeitos, salvo decisão em contrário por acordo das Partes.4. Os Anexos I e II, as Declarações n.os 1,2,3 e 4, as Actas Aprovadas e o Protocolo A anexos ao presente Acordo fazem dele parte integrante.Artigo 11.oO presente acordo é redigido em duplo exemplar nas línguas alemã, checa, dinamarquesa, eslovaca, eslovena, espanhola, estónia, finlandesa, francesa, grega, húngara, inglesa, italiana, letã, lituana, maltesa, neerlandesa, polaca, portuguesa, sueca e ucraniana, todos os textos fazendo igualmente fé.Hecho en Bruselas, elV Bruselu dneUdfærdiget i Bruxelles denGeschehen zu Brüssel amBrüsselis'Eγινε στην Βρυξέλλες, στιςDone at Brussels,Fait à Bruxelles, leFatto a Bruxelles, addìBriselē,Priimta BriuselyjeKelt Brüsszelben,Magħmul fi Brussel,Gedaan te Brussel,Sporządzono w Brukseli, dniaFeito em Bruxelas,V BruseliV Bruslju,Tehty BrysselissäUdfärdat i Bryssel denВчинено в м.Por la Comunidad EuropeaZa Evropské společenstvíFor Det Europæiske FællesskabFür die Europäische GemeinschaftEuroopa Ühenduse nimelΓια την Eυρωπαϊκή KoινóτηταFor the European CommunityPour la Communauté européennePer la Comunità europeaEiropas Kopienas vārdāEuropos bendrijos varduAz Európai Közösség részérőlGħall-Komunità EwropeaVoor de Europese GemeenschapW imieniu Wspólnoty EuropejskiejPela Comunidade EuropeiaZa Európske spoločenstvoZa Evropsko skupnostEuroopan yhteisön puolestaFör Europeiska gemenskapenЗа Eвропейське СпiвтовариствоЗа Кабiнет Мiнiстрiв Украïни--------------------------------------------------


type: wikipedia

text:
Frekvens er et mål for hvor hurtigt regelmæssige gentagelser af et givet fænomen forekommer. Begrebet bruges ofte til at beskrive hvor hurtigt (sekund)-1 (s-1). Denne enhed kaldes også hertz (opkaldt efter tyskeren Heinrich Rudolf Hertz), og forkortes Hz.
 Angives en frekvens f.eks. til 35 Hz, skal det således tolkes sådan at det beskrevne fænomen gentager sig selv regelmæssigt 35 gange hvert sekund.
 En svingnings frekvens kan beregnes som 1/svingningstiden.
 Cyklisk frekvens og vinkelfrekvens
 Den "normale" frekvens kaldes også omdrejningsfrekvensen eller den cykliske frekvens og angives i matematiske og fysiske formler ofte med symbolet f.
 Vinkelfrekvensen (eller radianfrekvensen) angives ofte med det græske symbol omega () og forholdet til den cykliske frekvens er:
 Reference
 American National Standard for Telecommunications – Telecom Glossary 2000, T1.523-2001: frequency , hoved adresse
 Se også
 Bærebølge, radiofoni, frekvensbånd, Nyquist-frekvens, samplingsfrekvens, signal, signalbehandling, transmission
 dagblad, ugeblad, årbog
 Signalbehandling
 Fysik
 Datalogi
 Fysisk størrelse


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: US

text:
The cross-appeals in this case are from the rulings and inquisition of the Baltimore City Court on appeals taken to that tribunal from an award of the Burnt District Commission of Baltimore City. The award made by the commission was of damages and benefits for the widening of Pratt street eastwardly from its intersection with Light street. Those two streets intersect each other at what is practically a right angle. The wharf running along the south side of Pratt street abuts on the north side of the navigable waters of the basin, and the wharf running along the east side of Light street abuts on the west side of the same waters. The most important questions with which we have to deal relate to the respective water rights of the city of Baltimore as the owner of Pratt street and wharf and the Baltimore and Philadelphia Steamboat Company as the owner or lessee of a portion of the Light street wharf.
 All of the land involved in the present controversy including the beds of the two streets, was originally covered by the waters of the basin and has been filled up from the north and *Page 488
 west by the proprietors of adjacent lands under the provisions of the Acts of 1745, ch. 9; 1796, ch. 45; 1801, ch. 92; 1805, ch. 94, or some of them. These Acts have been construed by this Court in Page v. Baltimore, 34 Md. 558; Hazlehurst v.Baltimore, 37 Md. 199; Horner v. Pleasants, 66 Md. 475;Tome Institute v. Crothers, 87 Md. 584, and other cases, and it will not be necessary for us to refer at length to their provisions. Such portions of them as bear specially upon features of the present case will be noticed hereafter.
 The portion of Pratt street with which we are concerned was condemned and opened of its present width of 70 feet under the Act of 1817, ch. 71, as a highway and public wharf and substantial damages were awarded and paid to the owners of the land taken under the condemnation. The city thus acquired the wharf and riparian rights of the former owners of the land abutting on the north side of the basin.
 The Steamboat Company is the owner or lessee of contiguous lots on the west side of Light street having an aggregate front, extending from Pratt street southerly, of about 151 feet. As appurtenant to each one of these lots the company also owns the wharf lying opposite it on the east side of Light street. The wharf extends back from the water 14 feet so that the Steamboat Company has on the east side of Light street contiguous wharves 14 feet deep with an aggregate front on the basin of about 151 feet. In front of these wharves the company has, under various permits from the city, constructed out over the water what is practically a continuous pier, projecting from the east side of Light street into the basin eleven and a half feet at its north end, aud one hundred and seven feet ten inches at its south end and having a diagonal water front on its east side of one hundred and eighty-four feet, five inches. The Steamboat Company is also the lessee from the city, at an annual rent of $3,600, of a portion of the wharf on the south side of Pratt street extending 200 feet easterly from the corner of Light and Pratt streets.
 The general situation at the southeast corner of Pratt and Light streets being such as we have mentioned the Burnt District *Page 489
 Commission, acting under ch. 87 of the Acts of 1904 and Ordinance No. 66 of 1904, of Baltimore City, undertook to add fifty feet to the width of Pratt street easterly from its intersection with Light street. In the process of widening the street the commissioners condemned a strip of land fifty feet wide by three hundred and fifty-eight feet long lying immediately south of the original Pratt street. They divided this strip of land into three lots, designated A B C, for which they awarded damages. They at the same time assessed benefits upon three other lots, one lying in the basin immediately south of lots A B, and designated No. 312, the other two lying on the east side of Light street designated Nos. 313 and 314. All six of these lots were at the time covered by the navigable waters of the basin with the exception of a strip of the Light street wharf 50 feet, one and a half inches long by 14 feet wide, but over Lots 313 and 314 and Lot A were erected the piers, already referred to, owned or leased by the Steamboat Company. A nnmber of plats appear in the record which do not entirely agree in their lines but the following plat, made up from those filed by the commissioners with their return, designates the location and dimensions of the lots in question with sufficient accuracy for the purposes of this opinion. *Page 490
 [EDITORS' NOTE: PLAT IS ELECTRONICALLY NON-TRANSFERRABLE.] *Page 491
 The commissioners awarded $17,531.25 damages to the city and the Steamboat Company for Lot A, which includes the strip fifty feet, one and a half inches long by fourteen feet wide of Light street wharf owned by the company together with the pier built out from it into the basin and also the pier along the south side of Pratt street leased by the company from the city. They awarded $30,000 damages to the city for Lot B, which includes enough of the basin to make in connection with Lot A sufficient area to widen Pratt street fifty feet for the distance of two hundred and eight feet, seven inches easterly from Light street. They awarded $15,000 damages to the State of Maryland for Lot C, lying east of Lots A B and including enough of the basin to extend the widening of Pratt street for an additional one hundred and fifty feet easterly. They assessed $5 benefits to the city on Lot No. 312 lying in the basin immediately south of Lot B, and they assessed $658 and $885, respectively, benefits to the Steamboat Company on Lots Nos. 313 and 314, which lie in succession along the east side of Light street south of Lot A, and include a large portion of the wharf and pier of the Steamboat Company there being.
 Both the city and the Steamboat Company excepted to the awards and appealed to the Baltimore City Court, where the case was tried without a jury before STOCKBRIDGE, J., who by his inquisition filed in that Court allowed damages to the Steamboat Company for the value of the condemned portion of its Light street wharf and the improvements thereon and the loss of its right to moor and dock vessels on any part of the fifty feet taken for the widening of the street and the deprivation of the right of access by water over those fifty feet, and the extinquishment of its lease of the Pratt street wharf and the improvements thereon, damages aggregatieg $28,162.50, and assessed nothing against it for benefits to accrue to the portion of its property not taken under the condemnation. He allowed the city only the nominal damages of $5, because he held that it will have the same wharfage and riparian rights to the south side of the widened Pratt street and the water in *Page 492
 front of it that it now has to the south side of the present street and the water in front of it. The city and the Steamboat Company thereupon took the present cross-appeals from the rulings and inquisition of the City Court.
 At the hearing in the Court below the Steamboat Company offered eight prayers of which the 1st, 2d 4th, 5th and 7th were granted and the other three were rejected. The city offered no prayers. As both sides appealed we will review all of the rulings on the prayers, and in so doing will dispose of all of the questions presented by the record.
 The first prayer simply asserts that the owners of the lots on the west side of Light street who filled out their land to the east side of that street according to the provisions of the Acts of 1796, 1801 and 1805, acquired thereby the right to maintain wharves and load and unload vessels from and on them and to moor vessels to them and to dock them; in the waters of the basin on the east, to their respective wharves. As this prayer does not claim for the owners of the wharves any sole, exclusive or superior right to the use and occupancy of the waters of the basin, it was properly granted under the authority of the cases of Page, Hazelhurst and Horner, supra, in which it was held that although that the owners who had so filled out their land did not thereby acquire a technical fee in it they did acquire a perpetual use of it for the purpose of erecting and maintaining the wharves, which is defined in Horner's case as a license or franchise, which, so long as it is used, the State can no more annul than she could a patent in fee.
 The second prayer asserts that the Steamboat Company is the owner of the "property and rights" conveyed to it by certain enumerated deeds under which it claims title to its Light street lots and wharves. That prayer was properly granted.
 The fourth prayer is really a corollary to the second and asserts that neither the owners of the lots on the west side of Light street who had filled them out in accordance with the Acts of Assembly mentioned, nor their successors in title could be deprived of their wharfage rights and privileges, without their consent, by the State or the city except by condemnation *Page 493
 under the power of eminent domain. That prayer also was properly granted.
 The seventh prayer declares that the Steamboat Company is not estopped, by the lease from the city to it of the Pratt street wharf, from asserting in this case any right it may have to moor and dock vessels in the dock lying south of that wharf. We think that prayer was properly granted. This is not a case between landlord and tenant as such nor one calling in question, in behalf of one of them against the other, their respective rights under their lease. It is a proceeding in rem to condemn all property rights of every kind in the area necessary to be taken for widening Pratt street. The Steamboat Company claims certain rights in this property, i.e., in the basin, as incident to its ownership of the Light street wharf and other rights as lessee of the Pratt street wharf. All that the prayer does is to say that the company is not estopped by its lease of the Pratt street wharf from asserting any rights in the waters of the basin which it may have as an incident of its ownership of the Light street wharf.
 The fifth prayer asserts that the Steamboat Company is entitled to the use of such wharves and the land under them as the Court shall find that it extended into the basin under permits from the city, subject to the limitations or restrictions contained in the permits or imposed by law. The propositions embodied in this prayer are, when fully stated and properly understood, correct. Any right of the Steamboat Company to extend piers into the basin in front of its Light street wharves under permits from the city is of course subject to the limitations and restrictions, if any, imposed by the permit under which the right is claimed. It is equally clear that all such rights are subject to the limitations and restrictions imposed by law including those imposed by law upon the city's power to grant the permit or inherent in the nature of its title to the navigable waters into or over which the structure designated in the permit is intended to be built. The title and power of the city in relation to such waters being derived from the State cannot be greater than those of the State itself. It is well *Page 494
 settled that, although the State is said to be the owner of the navigable waters within its boundaries, it holds them, not absolutely, but as a quasi trustee for the public benefit and to support the rights of navigation and fishery to which the entire public are entitled therein, and, although the State can make a valid grant of privileges or interests in or over those waters, such grants are subject to the public rights of navigation and fishery. Browne v. Kennedy, 5 H. J. 196;Wilson v. Inloes, 11 G. J. 359; Phipps v. State,22 Md. 389; Dundalk, c., R.R. Co. v. Smith, 97 Md. 180; Woodworth
 v. N. Bloomfield Co., 18 F.R. 778; Newark Aqueduct Board v.Passaic, 45 N.J. Eq. 393. It is a familiar principle of the common law, which was recognized and in part relied on by us in the Dundalk R.R. Co's. case, that in a grant from the State nothing passes by implication but the grantee takes only that which is given him by express terms. For a long time previous to the granting of the permits referred to in this prayer there had been a public wharf along the south side of Pratt street east of Light street to which vessels navigating the basin were entitled to be moored and docked under such reasonable regulations as the city might from time to time adopt. There is no express provision in the permits in question indicating that it was the intention of the city in granting them to confer upon the grantee an interest in the waters of the basin inconsistent with or superior to the right of the public to the use of the basin in front of the Pratt street wharf, and no such intention should be implied from the grant. The fact appearing from the record that the city from time to time made leases from year to year of portions of the Pratt street wharf to individuals or corporations does not alter the principles applicable to the situation.
 We will now turn our attention to the rejected prayers. The third prayer asserts the proposition that any rights which the city has by virtue of the condemnation of Pratt street as a public street and wharf under the Act of 1817 to moor and dock vessels along the south side of that street easterly from Light street are subordinate to the rights of the Steamboat *Page 495
 Company as the successor of the owners of the lots mentioned in the first prayer, and that the city can only use its rights in that connection to such an extent as will not encroach upon or interrupt the user of the rights of the company. That prayer was properly rejected. The record affords no sufficient foundation on which to base the proposition asserted in the prayer.
 The contention of the Steamboat Company is that by the Acts of 1796, 1801 and 1805, which authorized the extension of the lots at the west end of the basin, eastwardly to the east side of Light street, the State undertook to grant to its predecessors in title exclusive "wharfage rights and privileges" in the navigable waters of the basin lying in front of the east side of Light street, and that therefore when the State or its agent the city thereafter in 1817, by the condemnation of Pratt street and wharf, acquired the riparian land to the north of those waters it was estopped from claiming any rights superior to or inconsistent with those granted by the earlier Acts of 1796, 1801 and 1805. That contention involves the concession that the Legislature by the passage of the last mentioned Acts intended to grant to the owners of the Light street lots rights in the basin superior to or exclusive of those vested in the owners of the land bounding those waters on the north.
 In order to ascertain the true intention of the Legislature in the passage of those Acts we must look to the then existing condition and situation of the property and rights upon which they were intended to operate and the general principles of law applicable to the field of legislation to which the Acts belong. When those Acts were passed the Act of 1745, authorizing the owners of land fronting on the basin to extend their land into the water by filling in or improving out, was in full force. This Court in construing that Act in B. O.R.R. v. Chase,43 Md. 36, said that it "was intended to encourage improvements on the water fronts of the harbor of Baltimore, for the convenience and accommodation of commerce; and as an inducement, the State agreed with and did thereby surrender to those improving, as contemplated by the Act, all its right as sovereign *Page 496
 in the shore of the river covered by such improvements below the ordinary water mark and declared that such improvements should be forever deemed the right, title and inheritance of such improvers, their heirs and assigns forever. By the construction of this Act, as settled by the decisions of our predecessors, the right of the lot owner fronting on the water to extend his lot or improve out to the limit prescribed by the authorities of the city is a franchise, a vested right peculiar in its nature but aquasi property of which the lot owner cannot be deprived without his consent."
 It appears from a copy, found in the record, of the original plat of Baltimore Town laid out in 1729, that Lot No. 45 lay on the east side of Light street north of the basin, the south side of the lot abutting on the basin. It further appears from the city's abstract of title contained in the record that in 1789, Harry Dorsey Gough conveyed to John Ellicott a lot of ground extending southwardly from Lot 45 to the water reciting that the lot so conveyed had been made and raised out of the water. In 1795 John Ellicott and others conveyed to Benjamin Rich 18 lots said to have been made and raised out of the water, south of and adjoining the ground conveyed in 1789 by Gough to Ellicott. Lot 18 which was then improved by a warehouse was reconveyed by Benjamin Rich to John Ellicott and others on June 6th, 1795. It appears from the description of this lot No. 18 and the proceedings for the opening of Pratt street in 1817 that the lot lay on the east side of Light street and extended southerly to within four feet of the present south side of Pratt street where it met the water.
 It thus appears that at the date of the passage of the Act of 1796, which is the earliest in date of those relied on by the Steamboat Company, the land lying north of the basin immediately east of Light street had been extended southwardly by filling in to within a few feet of the present north side of the basin. That land was entitled to riparian rights to the same extent as the other land abutting on the basin.
 It would be a violent assumption to hold that the Legislature, with such a state of facts before it, intended, if it could *Page 497
 have done so, by the passage of the Acts of 1796, 1801 and 1805, to deprive the owners of lots, already filled up to the north of the basin, of their riparian rights in favor of the owners of the lots lying west of the basin who were by those Acts authorized to thereafter fill out their lots to the east side of Light street where they would also bound on the basin.
 In Hazlehurst's case, supra, this Court in considering what portion of the made land constituting the bed of Light street which the Acts of 1801 and 1805, provided should be a highway forever, might be used by the owners of the wharves on its east side for the purpose of handling and protecting the freight shipped and received over their wharves, held that, in view of the purposes of the Acts of 1796, c., relating to that street, the grant and reservation of wharfage rights and privileges thereby made should not receive a narrow construction against the owners in favor of the highway. In that case however the Court had in view and referred to the use of the bed of Light street and neither considered nor passed upon the question of the respective or conflicting rights of the owners of the wharves on the north and west sides of the basin to use or occupy its navigable waters. Nor do we think, in view of what we have said, that the provision in the Act of 1805, that the persons who should fill up and wharf out to the east side of Light street under its provisions should "be solely and exclusively entitled to the emoluments arising from the wharfage upon such improvements," should receive such a construction as would override or destroy the riparian and wharfage rights of the persons who under the Act of 1745 had filled out their land southwardly to the present north boundary of the basin. The word wharfage is usually and ordinarily employed to designate the charge made for the use of a wharf for the purpose of loading or unloading freight on or from vessels lying by its side. The mere fact that the same word is sometimes used synonymously with dockage or moorage to describe the charge made by the owner of a dock or basin for the privilege of allowing a vessel to lie there, does not in our judgment under the circumstances of this case afford sufficient foundation *Page 498
 for implying from the Acts of Assembly under consideration an intention to grant to the private persons who filled out their lots to the line of the east side of Light street exclusive rights of use or occupancy of the navigable waters of the basin lying beyond that line.
 The rational and just construction of all the Acts of Assembly to which we have referred considered as a body of enactments relating to the rights of the owners of lands bounding on the basin requires us to hold that the Legislature by their passage intended to and did grant to the owners of the wharves on Light and Pratt streets concurrent rights to the use of the navigable waters of the basin lying in front of those wharves.
 It is to be observed that the question before us is not that of the right of riparian owers to wharf out to the deep waterline, which under the authorities must be exercised within side lines at right angles to a straight shore or if the shore be concave within converging side lines which proportionately divide the tide water shore among such owners. The question is as to the respective rights of riparian owners, who have already wharved out to the navigable water, to use the portion of such waters lying in front of their wharves, a right which must be exercised and enjoyed with due regard to the rights of other similarly situated to use the same waters. Nor does the record before us present a case dependent upon the relative priority of one of several deeds from the State after the passage of the Act of 1745, such as the issue considered and determined in B. O.R.R. v. Chase, supra. Here it does not appear which of the contestants claims under a prior grant from the State and it does appear that the grants from the State for all of the land affected by the controversy were made prior to 1745. It appears from the record that the title to the land lying north of the basin was derived from Charles Carroll, the common grantor, by a deed executed in 1730 and the land on the west of the basin was not conveyed by him to the persons under whom the Steamboat Company claims title until 1782 so that, in that sense, the city claims under a prior grant. *Page 499
 But as the deed from Carroll of 1730, under which the city claims was made prior to the passage of the Act of 1745 no such presumptions arise in its favor against those claiming under the deed of 1782 as were held to arise in B. O.R.R. v. Chase,
 in favor of those claiming in that case under the prior deed from the State executed after the Act of 1745 went into force.
 The sixth prayer asserts that, in determining the damages to which the Steamboat Company is entitled, the Court should take into consideration any injury which it should find from the evidence to any remaining part of the wharf and dockage rights of the company that are not being condemned in this proceeding. In support of this prayer the company relies not only upon the contention that it is legally entitled to an allowance, in this proceeding, for consequential damages but also upon the language used in secs. 8 and 9, ch. 87, of the Act of 1904, under which the present proceedings are being conducted. Sec. 8 requires the commission whenever it shall become necessary to exercise the powers of condemnation conferred on it to "ascertain whether any and what amount in value of damage will thereby be caused to the owner of any right or interest in any ground or improvement within said Burnt District for which, taking into consideration all advantages and disadvantages, such owner ought to be compensated." Sec. 9 of the Act provides that "when in the judgment of the commission a part of the whole of the improvements of any lot can be taken without destroying the whole of said lot or said improvement for the purposes for which the lot or improvement are used, or for building purposes the said commission shall only condemn such part of said whole lot or improvements as is necessary for the proposed object and shall award to the owner or owners of the part, of the lot, or improvements so taken such damages and assess upon the remainder thereof such benefit as in their judgment shall be right and proper."
 Even if we construe, as we think we should, the expression "any right or interest in any ground or improvement" used in sec. 8 to refer only to such ground or improvements as are *Page 500
 taken in the condemnation, the section still requires that, in estimating the damages for the taking, all of the advantages and disadvantages caused thereby should receive due consideration. This provision of the Act fixes a somewhat different measure of damages for the taking of property from its mere market value, as has been done by other Acts of Assembly authorizing condemnations of land for public purposes. In Shipley v. B. P.R.R.,34 Md. 336, a somewhat similar provision in the law authorizing the condemnation of land and other property for the purposes of the railroad was determined to be constitutional and held to authorize the jury "to estimate in the first instance and as an essential and primary element of damages the actual value of the land or property proposed to be taken and then to consider what other and incidental damages will result to the owner by reason of the use and occupation thereof for the purposes of the road" and then to set off against them the benefits or advantages to accrue to the owner by the construction of the road. The advantages and disadvantages to be considered under such a statute must of course depend upon the circumstances of each case and a prayer invoking the benefit of the statute should not be general in its terms but should direct the attention of the jury to the facts and circumstances which, if found by them from the evidence, should be taken into consideration as advantages or disadvantages in determining the amount of damages. The learned Judge below rejected the prayer now under consideration, but, apart from the fact that the prayer was very general in its terms, the Steamboat Company suffered no injury from its rejection because it appears from the enumeration of the different elements of damage, appearing in the inquisition filed by him in the Circuit Court, that in estimating the damages which the company suffered from the condemnation he had regard to all of the elements of advantage and disadvantage proper to be considered in the case.
 It appears from the inquisition, that, although there was nothing allowed to the company for the loss of emoluments to arise from wharfage in the strict sense of that term because *Page 501
 there was no evidence in the record that there had been any receipts from that source, its right to dock or moor vessels in front of the portion of its wharf taken by the condemnation was treated as "a distinctly valuable right" and compensation was allowed for the loss of that right. The Steamboat Company contended on its brief and in the argument that the Court below also erred in allowing it nothing for "loss of improvements erected on Light street in the exercise of its franchise." There is a distinct allowance in the inquisition of $1,500 "for the improvements erected upon the wharf on the Light street franchise," but because in an earlier part of the inquisition the Court described "the wharf franchise acquired by Calhoun" by filling out his lots as being "in a lot 14 by 50 feet 1 1/2 inches," the company contends that the allowance for improvements on the Light street franchise must be applied only to the portion of its Light street franchise which it claims under Calhoun and not to the improvements on the piers extended out under permits from the city. It being admitted that the improvements on the company's Light street property consisted of practically continuous frame structures or sheds, it is not to be presumed, in the absence of very specific statements to that effect, that the learned Judge below intended by his inquisition to allow damages for a portion only of the improvements on the condemned part of the property and to exclude from his consideration the remainder of these improvements.
 Copies of two resolutions of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore authorizing the issue of permits to extend the Light street wharves, into the part of the basin condemned in this proceeding, appear in the record. The first, passed June 8th, 1852, authorizes the extension of the wharf, from a point 22 feet from Pratt street southerly 45 feet on Light street, 22 feet into the basin. This permit is on its face revocable at any time on twelve months notice by the city. The second, passed June 2d 1866, permits a triangular extension, of which the length on Light street is not stated, at the southeast corner of Light and Pratt streets. This permit was on *Page 502
 its face revocable on six months notice by the city, and the record states that such notice has in fact been given by the city. The interests therefore of the company in the extension of its wharf into the condemned part of the basin must have been but temporary in its nature.
 Another ground of objection, urged by the Steamboat Company to the action of the Court below, is that nothing was allowed by way of consequential damages for the injury caused by the condemnation to the portion of its property not taken. Assuming without so deciding, that, under the language found in secs. 8 and 9 of the Act of 1904, creating the Burnt District Commission, to which reference has already been made, it was the duty of the Court to take into consideration in making its awards the collateral effect of the condemnation of part of a lot upon the remaining portion of the property and award damages or benefits therefor according to its conclusion as to whether the condemnation had proven injurious or beneficial, the record shows that the Court has done so in the present case. The award of the commission assessed against the Steamboat Company benefits amounting to $1,443, in all for the effect of the condemnation on its remaining property lying south of the condemned lot. The Circuit Court considered and passed upon that question and struck out the assessment of benefits and thereby improved the result to the company by the amount of those benefits. We do not pass upon the amount of damages or benefits awarded but upon the legal proposition involved in the action of the Court below.
 The eighth prayer asked the Court to rule that there was no legally sufficient evidence that the city had ever asserted any claim to any right to dock and moor vessels in the dock lying immediately east of Light street and immediately south of Pratt street, which would interfere or conflict with any such right the Court may find that the Steamboat Company had. That prayer was properly rejected. In the first place the question at issue was not the assertion but the possession of the right. In the second place the Steamboat Company *Page 503
 itself had for many years past been in possession and use of the waters of the portion of the dock referred to in the prayer as tenant from year to year of the city. We have held that lease did not estop the company from asserting any rights it had, as appurtenant to its Light street wharf, in the leased part of the dock. Neither did the lease estop the city from asserting any rights it had as appurtenant to its Pratt street wharf in that part of the dock.
 We think the learned Judge below properly held that the city will have the same wharfage and riparian rights to the navigable water in front of the south side of the widened Pratt street which she has to that in front of same side of the street in its present location. If the Steamboat Company is permitted to retainin situ the extension of its Light street wharf authorized by the ordinance of June 8th, 1852, the city's water front on the south side of Pratt street will be somewhat shortened, but as the city has the right at any time under the terms of that ordinance, to require upon twelve months notice the removal of that extension, it can relieve itself of that situation at any time.
 The permits for the extension into the basin of its wharves south of the portion covered by the ordinance of 1852 do not appear in the record. For that reason and for the further reason that that part of the extension is not involved in the present controversy we express no opinion as to the nature of the tenure by which it is held by the company.
 Finding no error in the rulings of the Court below on the prayers or in the inquisition they will be affirmed.
 Rulings and inquisition affirmed with costs, in both cases. *Page 504


type: other

text:
CONDAMNARE PENTRU OPRESCU – Fostul primar general al Bucurestilor Sorin Oprescu a fost condamnat la 4 ani si 4 luni de inchisoare cu executare in dosarul in care DNA l-a trimis in judecata pentru luare de mita. Hotararea Tribunalului Bucuresti nu este definitiva. Oprescu a stat in arest preventiv aproape 2 luni si alte 3 luni in arest la domiciliu (Minuta) CONDAMNARE PENTRU OPRESCU – Fostul primar general al Bucurestilor Sorin Oprescu a fost condamnat la 4 ani si 4 luni de inchisoare cu executare in dosarul in care DNA l-a trimis in judecata pentru luare de mita. Hotararea Tribunalului Bucuresti nu este def
 CONDAMNARE PENTRU OPRESCU – Fostul primar general al Bucurestilor Sorin Oprescu a fost condamnat la 4 ani si 4 luni de inchisoare cu executare in dosarul in care DNA l-a trimis in judecata pentru luare de mita. Hotararea Tribunalului Bucuresti nu este definitiva. Oprescu a stat in arest preventiv aproape 2 luni si alte 3 luni in arest la domiciliu (Minuta)
 Judecatoarea Iosefina Parvu (foto 2) de la Tribunalul Bucuresti a decis luni, 13 mai 2019, condamnarea fostului primar general al municipiului Bucuresti Sorin Oprescu (foto 1) la 4 ani si 4 luni de inchisoare cu executare in dosarul in care procuroarea DNA Ramona Valina Calarasu l-a trimis in judecata in 2015 pentru presupuse fapte de luare de mita, spalare de bani, abuz in serviciu si constituire a unui grup infractional organizat.
 Este de remarcat faptul ca aceasta condamnare vine la putin timp inainte ca judecatoarea Parvu sa se pensioneze, aceasta programandu-si iesirea din magistratura pe data de 1 iunie 2019.
 Amintim ca procuroarea Valina Calarasu l-a trimis in judecata pe Oprescu in noiembrie 2015, acuzandu-l ca ar fi fost liderul unui grup infractional organizat, constituit la nivelul Primariei Capitalei (grup pe care l-ar fi condus incepand cu anul 2013) in legatura cu numirea unor persoane la conducerea Administratiei Cimitirelor si Crematoriilor Umane Bucuresti.
 Precizam ca ex-primarul Oprescu a fost retinut de DNA pe 5 septembrie 2015 si arestat preventiv o zi mai tarziu. Eliberat pe 29 octombrie in acelasi an, fostul edil a stat in arest la domiciliu pana pe 18 ianuarie 2016.
 Iata minuta pronuntata de judecatoarea Iosefina Parvu in dosarul nr. 42389/3/2015:
 "Solutia pe scurt: Admite cererile/exceptiile formulate de inculpatii Constantinescu O, Oprescu Sorin , Stanca Cristian Constata nulitatea absoluta a punerii in executare a masurilor de supraveghere tehnica incuviintate /prelungite ,cf disp. art 281c pr pen cu ref la DEC CCR 302/2017 si DEC CCR nr 26/2019,prin urmatoarele MTS-uri : Mandatele de supraveghere identificate sub nr 3679/UP, 3680/UP, 3681/UP, 3683/UP 3684/UP, 3686/UP, si 3687/UP, emise de la data de 7.04.2015 , in baza incheierii nr 12143/3/2015 a TMB prin care s-a autorizat interceptarea si inregistrarea comunicatiilor , respectiv supravegherea video, audio, si prin fotografiere pt. inc Petroi A, Popa B, Bengalici Claudiu , Albu Romeo, Stanca C, Constantinescu Mircea Octavian; Mandatele nr 3991/UP ,3992/UP, emise la data de 16.04.2015 ,in baza incheierii nr 3749/3/2015 a TMB prin care s-a autorizat interceptarea si inregistrarea comunicatiilor , respectiv supravegherea video , audio si prin fotografiere pt. inc Oprescu Sorin ; Mandatele 4063/UP/ , 4064/UP emise la data de 20.04.2015 in baza incheierii nr 14075/3/2015 a TMB pt inc Oprescu Mircea si Stanca Cristian ; Mandatul nr 4210/UP emis la data de 23.04.2016 in baza incheierii nr 14730/3/2015 TMB pt. inc Popa Bogdan ; Mandatul nr 4556/UP emis in baza inchierii nr 15990 /3/2015 TMb pt. inc Petroi, Popa Bogdan , Oprescu S, si Stanca ; Mandatul nr . 5458/UP emis la data de 28.05.2015 in baza incheierii nr 19721/3/201 pt inculpatul Petroi ; Mandatul nr 5774/UP emis la data de 9.06.2015 in baza incheierii nr 30604/3/2015 pt. inc Popa si Albu R ; Mandatele 7776/UP 7777/UP emise la data de 19.08.2015 in baza incheierii nr 30604/2015 Ordonantele cu titlu provizoriu DNA identificate sub nr 181/P/din 9.05.2015 prin care s-a incuviintat pe o perioada de 48 ore interceptarea , inregistrarea omunicatiilor pt. Oprescu S ; 181/P/2015 din 9.05.2015 pt. inc Petroi , Popa Bogdan Cornel, Oprescu Sorin , Benagalici C, Albu romeo, Stanca Cristian si Constantinescu O ; 181/P/2015 din 18.06.2015 pt. inc Popa Bogdan.
 In temeiul disp. art 102 alin 2 -4 c pr pen va exclude din materialul probator procesele verbale de consemnare a rezultatelor activitatilor de supraveghere tehnica mentionate . Dispune indepartarea din dosarul cauzei a mijloacelor de proba dar si a suportilor ce contin rezultatul masurilor de supraveghere tehnica mentionate si eliminarea redarii continutului acestor mijloace de proba din cuprinsul ordonantelor 181/P/2015 din datele de 9.05.2015 si 18.06.2015 . cf DEC CCR nr 22 din 18.01.2018.
 Constata ca nu se impune restituirea cauzei la parchet, fiind administrate in cauza alte mijloace de proba .
 PETROI AVASILOAIE RUXANDRA In baza prev. art 289 alin 1 cod penal cu aplic. art 6 din Legea nr 78/2000 si art 396 alin 10 c pr pen condamna pe inculpata PETROI AVASILOAIE RUXANDRA , la pedeapsa de 2 ani inchisoare si 2 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 lit . a b cod penal . In baza art 367 alin 1 cod penal cu aplic. art 396 alin 10 c pr pen mai condamna pe inculpata la pedeapsa de 1 an inchisoare si 2 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit a b cod penal. In baza art 39 alin 1 lit. b cod penal inculpata va executa pedeapsa de 2 ani inchisoare la care adauga sporul de 1/3 din pedeapsa de 1 an inchisoare , in final inculpata executa pedeapsa de de 2 ani si 4 luni inchisoare si 2 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b cod penal executabila de la raminerea definitiva a hot de condamnare . In baza prev. art 91 cod penal suspenda sub supraveghere pedeapsa de 2 ani si 4 luni inchisoare aplicata inculpatei pe un termen de supraveghere de 3 ani , cf disp. art 92 cod penal. Pe durata termenului de supraveghere inculpata trebuie sa respecte urmatoarele masuri de supraveghere , cf disp. art 93 cod penal : - Sa se prezinte la serviciul de probatiune , la datele fixate de acesta , - Sa primeasca vizitele consilierului de probatiune desemnat cu supravegherea sa ; - Sa anunte in prealabil , schimbarea locuintei si orice deplasare care depaseste 5 zile ; - Sa comunice schimbarea locului de munca , - Sa comunice informatii de natura a permite controlul mijloacelor sale de existenta . In baza prev. art 93 alin 2 lit. d cod penal interzice inculpatei parasirea teritoriului Romaniei fara acordul instantei . In baza prev. art 93 alin 3 cod penal pe parcursul termenului de supraveghere inculpata va presta o munca neremunerata in folosul comunitatii pe o perioada de 60 de zile in cadrul Administratiei Publice locale oras Buftea si SC Amenajare Edilitara si Salubrizare SA judet Ilfov ,cu exceptia cazului in care , din cauza starii de sanatate nu poate presta aceasta munca Atrage atentia inculpatei asupra prev. art 96 cod penal ce privesc revocarea suspendarii sub supraveghere in situatia in care , cu rea credinta , nu respecta masurile de supraveghere sau nu executa obligatiile impuse ori stabilite de lege . Constata ca inculpata a achitat pe parcursul urmaririi penale suma de 14.900 lei cu chitanta seria TA nr 2511804 CEC Bank. In baza art 289 alin 3 cod penal dispune confiscarea sumei de 12.500 lei ( suma primita cu titlu de mita ) urmind a-i fi restituita suma de 2400 lei, cf art 404 lit f c pr pen . In baza prev. art 404 lit. c c pr pen dispune ridicarea masurii sechestrului asigurator asupra nudei proprietati ref imobil situat in orasul Buftea , str. X, nr. X , judet Ilfov ,format din cladire in suprafata de 77,55 mp si teren aferent in suprafata de 939,79 mp, dobindit prin contractul de vinzare/cumparare autentificat sub nr. Xla BNP Danacica Mihaela , intabulat sub nr. cadastral X si CFI X a localitatii Buftea . Constata ca inculpata a fost retinuta / arestata preventiv de la 6.09.2015 -2.11.2015 .
 SUPEALA FLORIN In baza prev. art 289 alin 1 cod penal cu aplic. art 6 din legea nr 78/2000, cu aplic. art 41 alin 1 cod penal si art 396 alin 10 c pr pen si art 75 lit a cod penal condamna pe inculpatul SUPEALA FLORIN , la pedeapsa 4 ani inchisoare si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b cod penal. In baza art 367 alin 1 cod penal cu aplic. art 41 alin 1 cod penal si art 396 alin 10 c pr pen si art 75 lit. a cod penal mai condamna pe inculpat la pedeapsa de 3 ani inchisoare si 2 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b cod penal . Constata ca inculpatul a fost condamnat prin sentinta penala nr 477/ 1.06.2012 pronuntata de TMB , definitiva prin Dec ICCJ nr 2283/27.06.2013 la pedeapsa rezultanta de 3 ani inchisoare , ( 3 ani si 1 an si 6 luni ) cu aplic, disp. art 86 /1 cod penal pe un termen de incercare de 7 ani ,( pedeapsa amenzii de 10.000 nemaifiind adaugata prin Decizia CAB ) in cauza fiind incidente disp. art 5 NCP cu ref Dec ICCJ 7/2014 si Dec CCR nr 265/6.05.2014 si art 41 alin 1 cod penal. In baza prev. art 97 alin 1 cod penal dispune anularea suspendarii sub supraveghere aplicata prin sentinta penala nr 477/1.06.2012 pronuntata de TMB , definitiva prin Decizia penala nr nr 2283/27.06.2013 ICCJ . In baza prev. art 34 lit b cod penal cu ref la art 5 NCP contopeste pedeapsa rezultanta de 3 ani inchisoare ( 3 ani si 1 an si 6 luni inchisoare ) cu pedepsele aplicate in cauza de 4 ani si respectiv 3 ani inchisoare in pedeapsa cea mai grea de 4 ani inchisoare , in final inc executa pedeapsa de 4 ani inchisoare si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b cod penal. executabila de la momentul raminerii definitive a hot de condamnare . Face aplica prev. art 65 cod penal interzicind inculpatului drepturile prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b cod penal pe o durata de 3 ani executabila de la momentul raminerii definitive a hot de condamnare si pina la momentul cind pedeapsa principala a fost executata sau considerata ca executata . Constata ca inculpatul a achitat pe parcursul urmaririi penale suma de 3000,00 RON cu recipisa de consemnare x si suma de 1o.ooo,oo RON cu recipisa de consemnare 4125059, ambele CEC Bank. In baza prev. art 289 alin 3 cod penal confisca suma de 12.500 lei primita cu titlu de mita urmind a-i fi restituita suma de 27.500 lei . In baza prev. art 404 lit. c c pr pen ridica masura sechestrului asigurator aplicata prin Ordonanta din 16.11.2015 asupra cotei indivize de 50% din imobilul situat in Bucuresti , sectorul 4, Aleea X, nr . X Bloc X , sc.X, ap. X , format din 3 camere si dependinte in suprafata utila de 68,30 mp si cota indiviza de 1,28 % din suprafata de folosinta comuna , cu nr. cadastral nr. X dobindit prin contractul de vinzare /cumparare autentificat sub numarul X la BNP Nemesis . Constata ca inculpatul a fost retinut / arestat preventiv de la 6.09.2015 -11.12.2015 ( inlocuit masura cu control judiciar ) , perioada ce se va deduce din durata pedepsei aplicata .
 NITA ION In baza prev. art 48 cod penal rap.la art 29 lit b din Legea nr 656 /2002 cu aplic. art 38 cod penal ( 2 fapte perioada 2013 si 2014 ) condamna pe inculpatul NITA ION la doua pedepse de cite 3 ani inchisoare si 2 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 lit. a b cod penal . In baza art 367 alin 1 cod penal mai condamna pe inculpat la pedeapsa de 1 an inchisoare si 2 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 lit. a b cod penal . In baza prev. art 39 alin 1 lit b cod penal inculpatul executa pedeapsa cea mai grea de 3 ani inchisoare la care adauga sporul de 1/3 din totalul celorlalte pedepse de 1 an si 4 luni ,in final inculpatul executa pedeapsa de 4 ani si 4 luni inchisoare si 2 ani interdictia drepturilor prev.de art 66 alin 1 lit a b cod penal. In baza prev. art 65 cod penal interzice inculpatului drepturile prev. de art 66 lit. a b cod penal pe o perioada de 2 ani executabila de la data raminerii definitive a hot de condamnare la momentul cind pedeapsa principala a fost considerata ca fiind executata . In baza prev. art 112 lit. d cod penal cu ref la art 33 alin 3 din Legea nr 656/2002 confisca de la inculpat suma de 309.579 lei ( comision de 8% din sumele retrase ) In baza prev. art 404 lit. c c pr pen mentine masura sechestrului asigurator dispusa prin ordonanta din 16.11.2015 asupra urmatoarelor bunuri : - autoturism BMW model X, serie motor X, serie sasiu X , dobindit cf factura nr 115/13.01.2014 , contra sumei de 319.706 lei ; - cota de 50% din terenul arabil intravilan in suprafata de 288 mp situat in T44 P140/1/4 , intabulat sub nr cadastral X , dobindit contra sumei de 25.000 lei , cf contract de vinzare/cumparare nr .X , autrentificat sub nr. X la BNP Pop Tania Monica , situat in Ccomuna X , str. X , judet Ilfov ; - cota de 50% din terenul arabil intravilan in suprafata de 980 mp situat in T43 P137/3/6 intabulat sub nr. cadastral X , dobindit conta sumei de 144.784 lei , cf contract vinzare/cumparare nr .X , situat in Comuna X , judet Ilfov ; In baza prev. art 404 lit. c c pr pen dispune ridicarea masurii sechestrului asigurator asupra urmatoarelor bunuri : - cota de 50% din imobilul situat in Bucuresti , Aleea X, nr.X, bloc X, ap. X, sectorul 4 , format din 2 camere si dependinte impreuna cu cota indiviza aferenta din partile si dependintele comune dobindit prin contractul de vinzare/cumparare nr 21/7.01.1999 ; --cota de 50% din auto mercedes Benz GL – Klasse , motor X serie sasiu X ; -cota de 50% din imobilul situat in comuna X, str X, nr. X judet Ilfov format din parter si etaj si terenul aferent in suprafata de 1874 , cu nr cadastral 3070 ; - cota de 50% din terenul arabil inhtravilan in suprafata de 983 mp situat in T43 P137/3/7 , intabulat sub nr cadastral 1271, dobindit cf contract nr 3298/2012 , SITUAT IN COMUNA X, Str . X, judet Ilfov .-cota de 505 din apartamentul situat in comuna X , str. X , nr. X , bloc X, sc X, parter judet Ilfov ,in suprafatta de 86,55 mp compus din 4 camere si dependinte si cota indiviza din de 6,97% din partile si dependintele comuna si terenul aferent in suprafata de 10,97 mp , intabulat in CF nr 68 sub nr 115/2014 . - cota de 505 din auto Audi A7 serie motor X , serie sasiu X ; - cota de 50% din auto Mercedes Benz GL – Klasse , serie motor X , serie sasiu X .
 CONSTANTINESCU OCTAVIAN In baza prev. art 289 alin 1 cod penal cu aplic. art 6 din Legea nr 78/2000 condamna pe inculpatul CONSTANTINESCU OCTAVIAN la pedeapsa de 3 ani inchisoare si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b k cod penal . In baza art 367 alin 1 cod penal mai condamna pe acelasi inculpat la pedeapsa de 1 an inchisoare si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b k cod penal . In baza prev-. art 39 alin 1 lit. b cod penal inculpatul executa pedeapsa cea mai grea de 3 ani inchisoare plus sporul de 1/3 din pedeapsa de 1 an inchisoare in final inculpatul executa pedeapsa de 3 ani si 4 luni inchisoare si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b cod penal . In baza prev. art 65 cod penal interzice inculpatului drepturile prev. de art 66 lit. a b k cod penal pe o perioada de 2 ani executabila de la data raminerii definitive a hot de condamnare la momentul cind pedeapsa principala a fost considerata ca fiind executata . In baza prev. artr 289 alin 3 cod penal dispune confiscarea sumelor de 400 euro , ridicata cu ocazia perchezitiei domiciliare , reprezentind diferenta pina la suma 4ooo euro primita cu titlu de mita si a sumei de 3600 euro consemnata la dispozitia DNA in cursul urmaririi penale. In baza prev. art 404 lit. f c. pr pen dispune restituirea catre inculpat a sumelor de 23.900 lei, 500 USD si 14.970 Euro , gasite / ridicate din locuinta situata in comuna Tamadaul Mare , sat Dirvari . Constata ca inculpatul a fost retinut/arestat preventiv de la 6.09.2015 – 26.11.2015 ( inlocuit masura arestului preventiv cu masura arestului la domiciliu ) -19.02.2016 ( inlocuit masura arestului la domiciliu cu masura controlului judiciar ) .
 ALBU ROMEO Respinge cererea f de inculpat de schimbarea a calificarii juridice a faptelor retinute in sarcina sa din 2 infr prev. de art 48 rap. la art 29 lit. b din Legea nr 656/2002 ( 2 fapte ) intr-o fapta prev. de art 48 rap. la art 290 cod penal . In baza prev. art 48 cod penal rap. la art 29 lit. b din Legea nr 656/2002 ( 2 fapte 7.a si 7b ) cu aplic. art 396 alin 10 c pr pen condamna pe inculpatul ALBU ROMEO , la doua pedepse de 3 ani inchisoare si 2 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b cod penal . In baza prev. art 367 alin 1 si 5 cod penal cu aplic art 396 alin 10 c pr pen mai condamna pe acelasi inculpat la pedeapsa de 9 luni inchisoare si 2 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b cod penal . In baza prev. 48 rap. la art 48 rap. la art 290 cod penal cu aplic. art 6 din Legea nr 78/200 cu aplic. art 396 alin 10 c pr pen mai condamna pe inculpat la pedeapsa de 2 ani inchisoare si 2 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b cod penal . In baza prev. art 39 alin 1 lit. b cod penal inculpatul executa pedeapsa cea mai grea de 3 ani inchisoare la care adauga sporul de 1/3 din totalul celorlalte pedepse de 1 an 11 luni inchisoare in final inc executa pedeapsa de 4 ani si 11 luni inchisoare si 2 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b cod penal executabila de la raminerea definitiva a hot de condamnare. In baza prev. art 112 lit. d cod penal confisca de la inculpat suma de 140.000 lei (5000 lei x 28 luni ) . Constata ca inculpatul a fost arestat la domiciliu in perioada 7.09.2015 – 23.06.2017—(inlocuit masura cu control judiciar ) . In baza prev. art 404 lit. c cpr pen ridica masura sechestrului asigurator aplicat prin ordonanta din16.11.2015 asupra urmatoarelor bunuri : - Ceas de mina barbatesc inscriptionat Ulysse Nardin din metal culoare galben cu bratara din silicon ; - Cota de 50% din apartamentul situat in Bucuresti , Drumul X , nr. X , parter, sector 1 impreuna cu cotele parte3 din drumul de acces , spatiu de depozitare si tehnic in suprafata de 107,76 mp achizitionat cf ctr nr 2064/19.06.2015 ; In baza prev. art 404 lit. c cpr pen mentine masura sechestrului asigurator asupra sumelor de 25.500 lei, 1300 euro si 2900 lei , ridicate/predate de inc cu ocazia perchezitiei domiciliare si a cotei de 50% din apartamentul situat in Bucuresti , Bd. X, nr. X, ap. X dobindit in baza actului autentificat sub nr X .
 BENGALICI CLAUDIU Admite cererea formulata de inc Bengalici ref schimbarea calificarii juridice a faptelor retinute in sarcina sa . In baza prev. art 386 alin 1 c pr pen schimba calificarea juridica a faptelor inc din art 48 cod penal rap. la art 29 lit. b din Legea nr 656/2002- 3 fapte ( pct 9a, 9b, 9c ) si art 367 alin 1 cod penal penal toate cu aplic. art 38 alin 1 cod penal in art : 48 cod penal rap. la art 29 lit. b din Legea nr 656/2002 cu aplic. art 35 alin 1 cod penal ( 3 acte materiale ,( 9a , 9b si 9 c perioada octombrie 2013 - octombrie 2014 ) , art 367 alin 1 cod penal si art 396 alin 10 c pr pen , cu aplic. art 38 alin 1 c od penal . In baza prev. art 48 rap. la art 29 lit. b din Legea nr 656 /2002 cu aplic. art. 35 alin 1 cod penal ( 3acte materiale ) si art 396 alin 10 c pr pen condamna pe inculpatul BENGALICI CLAUDIU la pedeapsa de 4 ani inchisoare si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b cod penal . In baza prev. art 367 alin 1 cod penal cu aplic. art 396 alin 10 c pr pen mai condamna pe inculpat la pedeapsa de 1 an inchisoare si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b cod penal . In baza art 39 alin 1 lit. b cod penal inculpatul executa pedeapsa de 4 ani inchisoare la care adauga sporul de 1/3 din pedeapsa de 1 an inchisoare de 4 luni , in final inculpatul executa pedeapsa de 4 ani si 4 luni inchisoare si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. b cod penal . In baza prev. art 65 cod penal interzice inculpatului drepturile prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b cod penal executabila de la data raminerii definitive a hot de condamnare la momentul cind pedeapsa principala a fost considerata ca fiind executata . In baza prev. art 112 lit. d cod penal cu ref la art 33 din Legea nr 656/2002 confisca de la inculpat suma de 666.347 lei ( comision 13,5% din c/val retrageri ) . In baza prev. art 404 lit c cpr pen mentine masura sechestrului asigurator asupra sumelor de : -19.976 ,99 lei aflati in contul X deschis pe numele Bulancea Bogdan la ING Bank N.V Amsterdam, suma ce va fi consfiscata . -14.996,00 lei aflati in contul X deschis pe numele Dinu Constantin la ING BANK N.V. Amsterdam,suma ce va fi confiscata . - 11.868,49 lei aflati in contul X deschis pe numele Gogu Petru Eusebiu la ING Bank N:V Amsterdam , suma ce va fi confiscata . -sechestru asigurator prin poprire asupra sumei de 68.216,48 lei pe care tertul SC Anna Maria Holiday SRL o datoreaza catre SC Delta Construct Invest SRL si care reprezinta o plata nedatorata suma achitata pe parcursul urmaririi penale cu recipisa de consemnare nr 4132924/1 , suma ce va fi confiscata . . Constata ca inculpatul a fost retinut/arestat preventiv in perioada 6.09.2015-23.11.2015 ( inlocuit masura arestului preventiv cu masura arestului la domiciliu ) -9.06.2016( inlocuit masura cu control judiciar ) perioada ce se va deduce din durata pedepsei .
 POPA BOGDAN CORNEL Admite in parte cererea formulata de inculpat ref schimbarea calificarii juridice a faptelor retinute in sarcina sa . In baza prev. art 386 alin 1 c pr pen schimba calificarea juridica a faptelor retinute in actul de sesizare din ART: - art 289 cod penal cu aplic. art 6 din Legea nr 78/2000 ( 4 infr pct: 2 a, 2e,2f,2m in concurs real ); - art 48 rap. la art 289 cod penal cu aplic. art 6 din Legea nr 78/2000; ( pct 2 o ) - art 290 cod penal cu aplic. art 6 din Legea nr 78/2000 ( 2 infr. - pct : 2p si 2 q ); - art 48 rap. la art 290 cu aplic. art 6 din Legea nr 78/2000 ; ( pct 2 n ) ; - art 291 cod penal cu aplic. art 6 din Legea nr 78/2000 (5 infr pct : 2b ,2c, 2f, 2g ,2 r ) ; - art 29 lit. b din Legea nr 656/2002 ( 4 infr : pct 2d,2 h ,2i, 2 k ) ; - art 297 c pen , cu aplic. art 13/2 din Legea nr 78/2000 ( pct 2 L ) ; - art 12 lit. a din Legea nr 78/2000 ( trei infr , in forma continuata pct : 2s,2ş,2 t ) ; - art 367 alin 1 cod penal, toate cu aplic. art 38 alin 1 cod penal . in ART : - 1. art 289 cod penal cu aplic. art 6 din legea nr 78/2000 cu aplic. art 35 alin 1 cod penal ( 4 acte materiale- 2a,2e, 2j si 2m ) cu aplic. art 396 alin 10 c pr pen si art 19 din Legea nr 682/2000 ; - 2. Art 48 rap. la art 290 cu aplic. art 6 din Legea nr 78/2000 ( pct 2 n ) cu aplic. art 396 alin 10 c pr pen si art 19 din Legea nr 682/2000 ; - 3. Art 48 rap. la art 289 cu aplic. art 6 din Legea nr 78/2000 ( pct 2o ) cu aplic. art 396 alin 10 c pr pen si art 19 din Legea nr 682/2000 ; - 4. Art 291 cod penal cu aplic. art 6 din legea nr 78/2000 si art 35 alin 1 cod penal ( 5 acte materiale pct 2b , 2c , 2f , 2g , 2r ) cu aplic. art 396 alin 10 c pr pen si art 19 din legea nr 682/2000; - 5. Art 12 lit. a din Legea nr 78/2000 cu aplic. art 35 alin 1 cod penal ( 3 acte materiale pct 2 s , 2ş, 2 t ) cu aplic. art 396 alin 10 c pr pen si art 19 din Legea nr 682/2000 ; - 6. Art 290 cod penal cu aplic. art 6 din Legea nr 78/2000 cu aplic. art 38 cod penal ( 2 fapte Supeala si Petroi pct 2 p 2 q ) cu aplic. art 396 alin 10 c pr pen si art 19 din Legea nr 682/2000 ; - 7. ART 29 lit. b din Legea nr 656/2002 ( 4 infr in concurs real- 2d , 2h , 2i , 2k) cu aplic. art 396 alin 10 c pr pen si art 19 din Legea nr 682/2000; - 8. Art 297 cod penal cu aplic. art 13/2 din Legea nr 78/2000 ( pct 2 L ) cu aplic. art 396 alin 10 c pr pen si art 19 din Legea nr 682/2000 ; - 9. Art 367 alin 1 cod penal cu aplic. art 396 alin 10 c pr pen si art 19 din Legea nr 682/2000 , toate cu aplic. art 38 alin 1 cod penal . 1,- In baza art 289 cod penal cu aplic. art 6 din legea nr 78/2000 , art 35 alin 1 cod penal ( 4 acte materiale 2 a , 2 e , 2 j , 2 m ) cu aplic. art 396 alin 10 c pr pen si art 19 din Legea nr 682/2000 condamna pe inculpatul POPA BOGDAN CORNEL , la pedeapsa de 3 ani si 4 luni inchisoare si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. b k cod penal . In baza art 289 alin 3 cod penal confisca de la inculpat sumele primite cu titlu de mita in suma totala de 8.170.995,50 lei la care se adauga echivalentul in lei la momentul executarii a sumei de 2500 EURO ( mita pct 2 m 1 din 5000 Euro ) . 2.- In baza prev. art 48 rap. la art 290 cod penal cu aplic. art 6 din Legea nr 78/2000 ( 2 n ) cu aplic. art 396 alin 10 c pr pen si art 19 din Legea nr 682/2000 mai condamna pe inculpat la pedeapsa de 2 ani si 4 luni inchisoare si 3 ani interzicerea drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b k cod penal . In baza art 290 alin 5 cod penal confisca de la inculpat suma de 3000 euro in echivalentul in lei la momentul executarii ( diferenta de pina la 7000 euro din mita 4000 euro remisa inc Constantinescu). 3.- In baza Art 48 rap. la art 289 cu aplic. art 6 din Legea nr 78/2000 ( pct 2o ) cu aplic. art 396 alin 10 c pr pen si art 19 din Legea nr 682/2000 mai condamna pe inculpat la pedeapsa de 3 ani si 4 luni inchisoare si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. b k cod penal . 4.- In baza Art 291 cod penal cu aplic. art 6 din legea nr 78/2000 si art 35 alin 1 cod penal ( 5 acte materiale ) cu aplic. art 396 alin 10 c pr pen si art 19 din legea nr 682/2000 mai condamna pe inculpat la pedeapsa de 2 ani si 4 luni inchisoare si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b k cod penal( sub forma pretinderii ) 5. In baza art 12 lit. a din Legea nr 78/2000 cu aplic. art 35 alin 1 cod penal ( 3 acte materiale ) cu aplic. art 396 alin 10 c pr pen si art 19 din Legea nr 682/2000, mai condamna pe inculpat la pedeapsa de 1 an si 8 luni inchisoare . 6. In baza art 290 cod penal cu aplic. art 6 din Legea nr 78/2000 cu aplic. art art 38 cod penal penal ( 2 fapte Supeala si Petroi ) cu aplic. art 396 alin 10 c pr pen si art 19 din Legea nr 682/2000 mai condamna pe inculpat la doua pedepse de cite 2 ani si 4 luni inchisoare si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 lit. a b k cod penal . 7. In baza art 29 lit. b din Legea nr 656/2002 ( 4 infr in concurs real- 2d , 2h , 2i , 2k) cu aplic. art 396 alin 10 c pr pen si art 19 din Legea nr 682/2000 mai condamna pe inculpat la patru pedepse de cite 3 ani si 4 luni inchisoare si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b k cod penal . 8. In baza art 297 cod penal cu aplic. art 13/2 din Legea nr 78/2000 ( pct 2 L ) cu ref la art 147 alin 2 rap. la art 145 din OUG nr 34/2006 cu aplic. art 396 alin 10 c pr pen si art 19 din Legea nr 682/2000 mai condamna pe inculpat la pedeapsa de 3 ani si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b. k cod penal( profit personal pt inculpat in suma de 92.789,35 lei ) . In baza prev. art 112 lit. e confisca de la inculpat suma de 92.789,35 lei . 9. In baza art 367 alin 1 cod penal cu aplic. art 396 alin 10 c pr pen si art 19 din Legea nr 682/2000 , mai condamna pe inculpat la pedeapsa de 1 an si 8 luni inchisoare si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b si k cod penal . In baza prev. art 39 alin 1 lit. b cod penal inculpatul executa pedeapsa cea mai grea de 3 ani si 4 luni inchisoare la care adauga sporul de 1/3 din totalul celorlalte pedepse ( 30 ani ) de 10 ani , in final inculpatul executa pedeapsa de 13 ani si 4 luni inchisoare si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b k cod penal . In baza prev. art 65 cod penal interzice inculpatului drepturile prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b k cod penal executabila de la data raminerii definitive a hot de condamnare la momentul cind pedeapsa principala a fost considerata ca fiind executata. Constata ca inculpatul a fost arestat la domiciliu in perioada 7.09.2015 -23.06.2017 ( inlocuit masura cu control judiciar ).
 OPRESCU SORIN MIRCEA In baza prev. art 16 lit. b cu ref la art 17 alin 2 c pr pen achita pe inculpat pt. infr prev. de art 29 lit. a din Legea nr 656/2002 . In baza prev. art 289 alin 1 cod penal cu aplic. art 6 si art 7 lit. a din Legea nr 78/2000 condamna pe inculpat la pedeapsa de 4 ani inchisoare si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b k cod penal . In baza prev. art 289 alin 3 cod penal dispune confiscarea sumei de 25.000 euro . In baza prev art 367 alin 1 cod penal condamna pe inculpat la pedeapsa de 1 an inchisoare si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b si k cod penal . In baza art 297 cod penal cu ref la art 13/2 din Legea nr 78/2000 mai condamna pe inculpat la pedeapsa de 3 ani inchisoare si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit., a b k cod penal . In baza art 39 alin 1 lit. b cod penal inc executa pedeapsa de 4 ani inchisoare la care adauga sporul de 1/3 din totalul celorlalte pedepse de 1 an si 4 luni ,in final inculpatul executa pedeapsa de 4 ani si 4 luni inchisoare si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b k cod penal . In baza prev. art 65 cod penal interzice inculpatului drepturile prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b k cod penal executabila de la data raminerii definitive a hot de condamnare la momentul cind pedeapsa principala a fost considerata ca fiind executata. Constata ca inculpatul a fost retinut/arestat preventiv 6.09.2015 -27.11.2015 ( arestat la domiciliu ) -14.01.2016 ( control judiciar ) . Respinge cererea privind aplicarea masurii confiscarii extinse prev. de art 112/1 cod penal pt. martora Nica Adriana. In baza prev. art 403 lit. c cpr pen ridica masura sechestrului asigurator asupra imobilului situat in Bucuresti , sector 1, str. x , nr. x apartinind martorei Nica Adriana . In baza prev. art 112 /1 cod penal confisca de la inculpatul Oprescu suma de 695.871 lei ( perioada ( 2013- septembrie 2015 . ) . In baza prev. art 403 lit. c cpr pen mentine masura sechestrului asigurator asupra cotei indivize de 5/6 din imobilul situat in Bucuresti, str. x, nr. x , sectorul 1 format din apartament patru camere de locuit si dependinte cu o suprafata utila de 172,34 mp ,loc de parcare demisol si boxa demisol si cota parte indiviza de 101,64 mp teren identificate cu nr cadastrale x, x intabulate in cartea funciara x, sector 1 pina la concurenta sumei de 1.264.531,8 lei . In baza prev. art 403 lit. c c pr pen ridica masura sechestrului asigurator asupra imobilului situat in sat Ciolpani , comuna Ciolpani in suprafata de 526 mp si teren cu suprafata de 895 mp . In baza prev. art 403 lit. f c pr pen dispune restituirea catre a inculpat a sumelor de 31.350 lei , 9000 euro, 31.050 lei ,40.000 lei 500 euro , ridicate cu ocazia perchezitiilor domiciliare .
 STANCA CRISTIAN In baza prev. art 48 rap. la art 289 cod penal cu aplic. art 6 din Legea nr 78/2000 condamna pe inculpat la 4 pedepse de cite de 3 ani inchisoare si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b cod penal( 3 a ,3 c ,3 d ,3 f ) . In baza art 289 alin 3 cod penal confisca de la inculpat suma de 2500 euro . In baza art 48 rap. la art 290 cod penal cu aplic. art 6 din Legea nr 78/2000( 2 fapte 3 b si 3e mai condamna pe inculpat la doua pedepse de cite 2 ani inchisoare si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b cod penal . In baza prev.art 367 alin 1 cod penal mai condamna pe inculpat la pedeapsa de 1 an inchisoare si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b cod penal . In baza prev. art 39 alin 1 lit. inc va executa pedeapsa cea mai grea de 3 ani inchisoare sporita cu 1/3 din totalul celorlalte pedepse ,- 4 ani si 8 luni - in final inc executa pedeapsa de 7 ani si 8 luni inchisoare si 3 ani interdictia drepturilor prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b cod penal . In baza prev. art 65 cod penal interzice inculpatului drepturile prev. de art 66 alin 1 lit. a b cod penal executabila de la data raminerii definitive a hot de condamnare la momentul cind pedeapsa principala a fost considerata ca fiind executata. Constata ca inculpatul a fost retinut/ arestat preventiv in perioada 6.09.2015 -26.01.2016 ( arest la domiciliu )-7.12.2016 ( control judiciar ) . Dispune restituirea catre martorii denuntatori Gogonea si Petroi a sumelor de 25.000 euro , 400 euro ,100 lei ( puse la dispozitia DNA ) . In baza prev. art 274 c pr pen obliga pe inculpati la cite 50.000 lei cheltuiuelio judiciare catre stat . Onorariu expert desemnat de instanta raport expertiza contabila in suma de 60.000 lei se va avansa din fondul MJ . Onorarii partiuale avocati oficiu 8 cf protocol ) pt. inculpatii Oprescu , Constantinescu , Nita si Stanca se vor avansa din fondul MJ:; Cu drept de apel in termen de 10 zile de la comunicare . Pronuntata in sedinta publica azi 13.05.2019 .
 Document: Hotarâre 807/2019 13.05.2019"
 Redam comunicatul prin care DNA a anuntat trimiterea in judecata a lui Sorin Oprescu:
 „Procurorii din cadrul Directiei Nationale Anticoruptie – Sectia de combatere a coruptiei, au dispus trimiterea in judecata,
 -complicitate la luare de mita (4 infractiuni),
 -complicitate la dare de mita, (2 infractiuni),
 -constituire a unui grup infractional organizat,
 -constituire a unui grup infractional,
 -complicitate la spalare de bani (3 infractiuni),
 -spalare de bani
 -abuz in serviciu, daca functionarul a obtinut pentru sine sau pentru altul un folos necuvenit,
 -constituire a unui grup infractional organizat
 -luare de mita (4 infractiuni),
 -dare de mita (2 infractiuni),
 -trafic de influenta (5 infractiuni),
 -efectuare de operatiuni financiare, ca acte de comert, incompatibile cu functia, atributia sau insarcinarea pe care o indeplineste o persoana ori incheierea de tranzactii financiare, utilizand informatiile obtinute in virtutea functiei, atributiei sau insarcinarii sale, in scopul obtinerii pentru sine sau pentru altul de bani, bunuri ori alte foloase necuvenite, in forma continuata(3 infractiuni),
 -constituire a unui grup infractional organizat.
 -complicitate la spalare de bani (2 infractiuni),
 -complicitate la complicitate la dare de mita
 Pe masura ce alte persoane, sesizand activitatea grupului, au aderat la acesta in vederea obtinerii unor foloase materiale, in paralel cu demersurile liderului in vederea extinderii activitatii pentru marirea mitei, structura si functionalitatea grupului au suferit modificari, culminand la finalul anului 2013 cu instalarea unui nou lider (seful autoritatii publice locale executive), crearea unui esalon de 'secunzi' ai sai (o persoana de incredere si fostul lider), dar si a unui palier mai larg al factorilor de decizie necesari din alte institutii.
 Prin aceasta conduita, Primarul al Municipiului Bucuresti nu a facut altceva decat sa 'valideze' activitatea infractionala desfasurata de inculpatii Stanca Cristian si Popa Bogdan Cornel, dar si mentinerea acestuia din urma in functia de director al Administratiei Cimitirelor si Crematoriilor Umane, cu luarea in considerare a posibilitatii numirii sale ca director la A.L.P.A.B., desi stia ca acesta comite infractiuni de coruptie.
 -sa dispuna virarea cu prioritate a sumelor necesare catre institutia respectiva pentru a se putea achita lucrarile executate de societatea martorilor denuntatori,
 -sa fie de acord cu executarea lucrarilor pentru beneficiarul C.C.P.B.P.B., aflat in subordinea lui, de catre societatea denuntatoare,
 -sa prinda in bugetul C.C.P.B.P.B., aferent anului 2014, suma necesara pentru executia unor lucrari.
 -prin crearea aparentei ca intre societatea denuntatoare si firmele administrate de ultimii trei au existat relatii contractuale,
 -prin solicitarea ca societatea denuntatoare sa-i achite o suma de bani prin achizitia de produse si materiale, in vederea amenajarii restaurantului la care este asociata o ruda de-a inculpatului Popa Bogdan Cornel,
 -prin subcontractarea catre societatea denuntatoare de la una dintre firmele controlate de inculpatul Popa Bogdan Cornel a unor lucrari la o valoare net inferioara celei existente in documentele incheiate intre aceasta din urma si institutia publica condusa de inculpat, creandu-se astfel aparenta ca, diferenta de valoare reprezinta valoarea profitului si nicidecum mita si pretul influentei.
 Sursa foto Oprescu: Adevarul.ro
 # bulealalagreu 13 mai 2019 20:19 0
 Hai ca nu mai merita nici ca independent sa fii primar. O inteleg si pe firea, acum... Haituiti, vanati, infierati, mai ca torturati....DEMOCRATIE :)
 # ?????? 13 mai 2019 23:31 0
 ,, a pretins, prin intermediari, de la aceeasi denuntatori suma de 852.626, 5 lei, din care au primit suma de 5.000 euro" ? Suma exactă de 852.626, 5 lei ,,pretinsă" o fi fost dovedită cu mijloacele de supraveghere tehnică, ? ,,In perioada ianuarie 2013 - 23 august 2015, desi ocupa o functie de conducere in cadrul Primariei Municipiului Bucuresti, inculpatul Popa Bogdan Cornel a condus activitatea mai multor firme pe care le controla si care au derulat contracte cu institutiile pe care le conducea." Ăsta a avut o singură funcție și a condus mai multe instituții, ? Etc., ? Opinați că judecători aflați în prag de pensionare, mai puțin cunoscuți, posibil și în căutare de notorietate pe spezele inculpaților cu notorietate publică ,ar putea accepta și rechizitorii mai puțin bine întocmite de mai tinerii apărători ai legii, ?
 # ?????? 13 mai 2019 23:38 0
 La ăștia totuși nu se organizau și licitații publice pentru atribuirea contractelor din bani publici, ?
 # un mizantrop 14 mai 2019 01:53 +2
 Judecatoarea asta si-a platit ultima rata catre binom, ca s-o lase sa-si manance pensia, altfel o ridicau ca pe Mustata (Dmnezeu sa-l odihneasca!) din complet...Hai, ca pute rau - daca toate inregistrarile si procesele verbale ale supravegherilor au fost anulate de instanta, denuntatorii fiind persoane interesate si probabil santajate de DNA, unul chiar cu o condamnare anterioara, despre ce probe mai vorbim si cata credibilitate mai are DNA dupa linsajul mediatic de tip cocalar la care a supus un om? Despre tortura din timpul arestului, cand tot omul cu bun simt a inteles ca se va merge pana la distrugerea fizica a doctorului, stie onorata instanta?Totusi, unde sunt romanii, aia ajutati de doctor, aia care stiu ca omul e nevinovat?! Tacerea poate fi complice cu crima, nu se ajungea aici daca oamenii care au vazut, ar fi si vorbit...
 # GigelContra 14 mai 2019 11:13 -1
 Ce rau imi pare...mi se rupe... sufletul
 # ?????? 14 mai 2019 18:43 0
 Deci, ați remarcat și dacă toate sumele din rechizitoriu despre care se zice că au fost "pretinse și primite" sunt în integralitatea lor menționate ca fiind însușite de inculpați și dacă se zice despre acele sume ,,pretinse ;i primite" și că ar fi fost înregistrate și în contabilitățile firmelor care ar fi beneficiat de contracte din bani publici și cum au fost sumele evidatențiate în contabilitățile acelor firme, ? Remarcați totuși că în articol nuîn totalitae sumele pretinse și primite, la care articolul face referire în cazul prezentat, ar fi însușite de inculpații din cazul pe care articolul îl prezintă, ? Ce s-ar fi pretins și primit nu prea ar fi aceleși sume și la inculpați ,însușite, sumele, că ar fi beneficiat inculpații de acele sume de bani oferite de firmele care au beneficiat de contractele din bani publici, ?
 # ?????? 14 mai 2019 21:15 0
 Deci, parcă mai lipsesc niște bani din ce au zis procurorii că s-a dat și s-a primit și ce ar fi zis procurorii că ar fi luat fiecare inculpat, ? Cam așa s-ar constata din ceea ce prezintă articolul, ?