Training in bucharest romania

The Court held that this incident cannot be considered a component of the offense for which the 2 defendants were prosecuted, because on the one hand some injured parties had already made contact with the authorities giving statements on 17.10.2008 and on the other hand it was not confirmed whether A.H took their passports or not in order to constraint the foreign citizens, since the witnesses heard in the case including D.G.N. said that the injured parties were to receive their passports on request after completing a particular form. Even in the conditions where it is alleged that after this meeting the defendant A. threatened the employees and they continued to work, it does not amount to the offence of human trafficking just because they were dissatisfied with the payment conditions and, in addition, as a constitutive element of the offence, the concept of exploitation involves an extended time in which the defendants benefit from the work of exploited persons without the payment thereof. As was noted above in the case it was held that the Honduran citizens received accommodation facilities, internet, mobile phone, free transport and money in return for the work performed.

On 31.10.2008, all thirteen injured parties were found carrying out gainful activities in the newspaper stands of the company belonging to the 2 defendants. At the same time, at the Romanian Immigration Office (now the General Inspectorate for Immigration), based on a minutes the defendant L.F. submitted a number of 13 passports which he stated they were available to the company and they were brought by an employee of the company to be handed over.

The Court considers that nor in this case the offense established by the judgement could not be sustained given the short period in which they worked from their arrival in the country and until they were found by the police; moreover, they could not receive any money, except for the amount of 100 lei received on arrival in the country for a few days of work.

The Court held that those retained in the case did not amount to the offense of trafficking in persons, as the case did not involve any exploitation activity unde the law.

Given the solution of the criminal case as well as the fact that in the case did not involve any form of work labor exploitation, the Court held that the civil action brought by the injured parties are unfounded, being therefore dismissed.