Suspended prosecutor Bucurică seeks release through annulment appeal at ICCJ following arrest warrant issuance
Suspended prosecutor George Radu Bucurică has lodged an annulment appeal at the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ) to obtain his release, after the supreme court issued a preventive arrest warrant against him on Thursday.
Suspended "gun-wielding" prosecutor attempts to exit custody through extraordinary legal remedy
Suspended prosecutor George Radu Bucurică — the magistrate who used tear spray against a police officer and fled from agents whilst carrying a firearm with live ammunition in the chamber — has lodged an annulment appeal at the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ), requesting his release. The legal move comes shortly after the same supreme court issued him a preventive arrest warrant on Thursday, according to Gândul.
An annulment appeal represents an extraordinary legal remedy, governed by article 426 of the New Code of Criminal Procedure (NCPP). This may be filed, ordinarily, against final criminal rulings following completion of the substantive and appellate stages of criminal proceedings. However, Bucurică's case is currently in the investigation stage, with investigators from the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Court of Appeal Alba not yet having completed their inquiries, and the case not having been brought before any court of law.
The ICCJ will analyse whether this extraordinary legal remedy is admissible under the current procedural conditions and whether it can continue to examine the request on its merits.
Caught barefoot in Lidl supermarket near Snagov
According to Gândul sources, the pursuit of the magistrate lasted several hours, with police officers searching for him across three counties. Officers from the Investigation Service in the capital identified him by tracking the route of Bucurică's personal vehicle through public surveillance camera recordings from the moment he left ICCJ headquarters.
Investigators eventually intercepted him on the grounds of a Lidl store in the Snagov area. To limit risks in the presence of shop customers, Bucurică was discreetly approached by an officer from the local police station who knew him personally. The officer observed that the magistrate was walking barefoot through the store. When asked why, Bucurică reportedly answered simply: "my shoes were hurting me".
Witness statements, including that of the barman from Ribița
Judicial sources with whom Gândul spoke explained the circumstances that led the ICCJ to order the issuance of the preventive arrest warrant. Investigators from the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Court of Appeal Alba submitted to the case file the statements of three witnesses present at the premises in Ribița commune where Bucurică had presented himself dressed in black, wearing latex gloves and with a pistol holster on his belt.
One of the three witnesses is the barman at the premises itself, who served drinks to the magistrate. He reportedly told investigators that Bucurică was already affected by alcohol upon arrival and that he attempted to provoke a disturbance both with him and with other persons present at the premises.
Bucurică, interview upon leaving ICCJ: "Strictly professionally, you must read the evidence"
Upon leaving the supreme court's headquarters, the suspended prosecutor spoke with a Gândul reporter, answering questions about the events in Ribița, about his future following the Superior Council of the Magistracy's (SCM) decision to suspend him from office, and about the firearms with lethal ammunition that he possesses.
Bucurică chose to answer from a strictly professional perspective, placing himself hypothetically in the role of investigator of his own case.
"Strictly professionally, in a situation of fact like this, let's say a similar one, you must read the evidence from the file, analyse whether all those pieces of evidence were administered objectively and legally by the proper authorities, ascertain whether the persons involved represented state authority or not and whether they acted within the bounds of the law, ascertain whether weapons exist or not, whether a state of danger exists or not, whether there is a disturbance of public order or not — that is how I would proceed as a prosecutor," Bucurică stated for Gândul.
The magistrate added that in the case of a suspect with a similar situation of fact, he would carefully verify the competence and identity of the persons present at the scene and would treat the case "in the most serious manner".
What the NCPP provides regarding annulment appeal
Pursuant to article 426 of the NCPP, an annulment appeal may be filed against final criminal rulings in several cases: when the appellate hearing took place without legal notification of a party or when that party was unable to appear and could not inform the court; when the accused was convicted although evidence existed of a ground for termination of criminal proceedings; when the ruling was pronounced by a different bench than the one which participated in the hearings; when the court was not composed in accordance with the law or there was a case of incompatibility; when the hearing took place without the participation of the prosecutor or the accused, where this was mandatory; when the accused did not benefit from mandatory legal assistance; when the hearing was not public, outside of legal exceptions; when the court did not proceed to hear the accused present, if hearing was legally possible; or when two final rulings were pronounced against the same person for the same act.
The ICCJ will determine whether Bucurică's request falls within any of these cases and whether it can be examined under the current conditions of the case.
Source: Gândul