130 ION RUSU, ANA-ALINA IONESCU-DUMITRACHE
There is a clear similarity of the incrimination, as well as the author's views
quoted by the text of incrimination and the current doctrine.
Title IV with the marginal title “On the Concurrence of Several Crimes and
Recurrence” includes Art. 40-46. As the marginal name also indicates, the
provisions are in place in the texts in question to regulate the two institutions,
namely the offense and recidivism concurrence.
It has been recognized in the case-law that if “the defendant was first
sentenced to one year's imprisonment on the basis of art. 125 Criminal Code, for
the offense of falsification of public documents and later to 6 months
imprisonment on the basis of art. 127 of Criminal Code, for the offense of forgery
of private acts, is the place where the six-month penalty has been merged into that
one year, because the defendant is convicted of offenses subject to different
punishments, you only apply the worst punishment rather than the maximum 5
years provided by art. 125 of Criminal Code, as motivated by the substantive court
only by misapplication of the last paragraph of art. 40 of Criminal Code, instead of
applying the first paragraph of that article (Case II, No. 924/914 - Jurispr, R.
20/914, p. 317)25
We find a fundamental difference from the current regulation of the crime
concurrence and, in particular, the way it is sanctioned. However, there is some
resemblance to the criminal sanctioning provisions of the Criminal Code of 1969.
This Criminal Code, in the sense of an essential distinction in the matter of the
sanction of the crime concurrence, provided for the possibility of the court to grant
a penalty increase to the highest penalty.
Regarding the definition of the recurrence, the doctrine stated that “The
recurrence, from the point of view of the Romanian law, is the state of an offender,
who, after having been convicted and executed the punishment, commits one or
more offenses in a determined time.”
The recurrence word comes from re and fall, fall again, being understood as in
crime. But this word is not Latin. The Romans did not have proper expression with
our word: recurrence; old Latin writers used the reiteratio expression, which can be
equivocal, because today it means repeating the same crimes.”26
25 Paul I. Pastion, M.I. Papadopolu, Codul penal adnotat, cuprinzând: textul român, francez, prusian,
jurisprudena român, francez, prusian, doctrin comparat în legtur cu Codul penal din Transilvania/ The
Annotated Criminal Code, comprising: the Romanian, French, Prussian, Romanian, French, Prussian
jurisprudence, comparative doctrine in connection with the Criminal Code of Transylvania, Editura librriei
Socec & Comp., Societate Anonim, Bucureşti, 1922, p. 65.
26 Ioan I. Tanoviceanu, Tratat de Drept si Procedur Penal/Treaty of Criminal Law and Procedure, 2nd
Ed. Cursul de Drept si Procedur Penal, revzut si completat, doctrina de Vintil Dongoroz, referine la
legislaiunile din Bucovina & Ardeal, dr. Corneliu Chiseli si dr. Ştefan Laday, jurisprudena de Eugen
C. Decusear, cu o prefa de N.C. Schina, vol. I, / Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure, revised &
completed, doctrine of Vintil Dongoroz, references to the laws of Bucovina & Ardeal, dr. Corneliu Chiseli &
dr. Ştefan Laday, the jurisprudence of Eugen C. Decusear, with a preface by N.C. Schina, vol. II, TIP
„CURIERUL JUDICIAR”, Societate anon. Pe aciuni, Bucharest, 1924, str. Artei 5, lâng Palatul
Justiiei, p. 352.