Criminal Law Writings (Caiete de Drept Penal)

Criminal liability of judges for abuse of office

2025-12-19T22:09:46+00:00

The criminal liability of judges for abuse of office is undoubtedly one of the sensitive issues in any legal system. In Romania, the matter raises particular concerns, given that the offense of abuse of office is formulated in a concise manner, lacking specific details, thereby placing the burden on the legal doctrine and case law to interpret the legal provision in a manner as predictable as possible in order to ensure compliance with the principle of legality.
This article seeks to examine how the principles of judicial independence, the pursuit of truth, and the legality of criminal proceedings serve to narrow the scope of the offense under analysis within this legal context.
A particular challenge lies in identifying an appropriate criterion for objectively understanding and defining the unlawfulness of a judge’s conduct, viewed through the lens of its potential contradiction with the law. Another defining element of the analysis concerns the clarification of the subjective component – namely, the existence of bad faith.
Last but not least, the article also examines the relationship between the criminal liability of magistrates (especially judges) for the offense of abuse of office and their disciplinary liability for performing their duties in bad faith. Within this framework, the issue of res judicata is also addressed.

Acts of aggression committed by military personnel and against military personnel during or in connection with the exercise of official duties

2025-12-19T22:09:49+00:00

This article aims to address, from a general to a specific perspective, several scenarios in which acts of aggression committed by military personnel or against military personnel during or in connection with the exercise of official duties with the goal of determining the correct legal qualification. Due to the excessive regulation present in the Criminal Code, the overlaps between incriminating provisions, and the outdated nature of some criminal law norms, this endeavour may be proven challenging for legal practitioners. The issue under discussion is also difficult because of the lack or insufficiency of case law and special literature guidance.
As such, the practitioner tasked with establishing a legal qualification in such cases is compelled to return to fundamental principles and basic rules in interpreting criminal law norms.
Although the proposed topic could be explored in depth in monographs or specialized textbooks, this brief article aims to provide reasoned solutions for certain scenarios that may arise in practice and to serve as a wake-up call for improving the legislation.

Statute of limitations of criminal liability in the perspective of Romanian courts. Analysis of the case law of national courts up to 12 April 2025

2025-12-19T22:09:51+00:00

The Court of Justice of the European Union has recently ruled (in 2023) on the relationship between the fundamental rights of citizens of the European Union and the principle of supremacy of Union law in conjunction with the obligation of Member States to apply effective and dissuasive measures to combat serious fraud against the financial interests of the European Union. In particular, the case law of the CJEU analyses the relationship between the guarantees of the principle of legality and punishment and the obligation of Member States to sanction serious fraud against the EU’s financial interests. I proceeded to a concrete analysis of the obligations incumbent on the courts resulting from the case law of the CJEU, namely the Judgment of July 24, 2023, delivered by the CJEU (Grand Chamber) in Case C-107/23 PPU [Lin], the Order (Ninth Chamber) of January 9, 2024 delivered in Case C-131/23 and the Order (Ninth Chamber) of January 9, 2024 delivered in Case C-75/23. Thus, this article includes an analysis of how national courts have applied the CJEU case law.

Internal and international transport of drugs by postal services

2025-12-19T22:09:54+00:00

In this study we aim to analyse the causes of the proliferation of drug transportation through postal networks in the light of the legislative loopholes identified in the postal services legislation regarding effective forms of control of the content of mailings. The suitability of criminal prosecution of postal agents who, in fact, participate in the trafficking chain of drug delivery with specific acts of execution of co-perpetrators, in relation to their law prescribed duties of checking the correspondence will also be examined.
The issue will also be approached from the angle of international law and specialized literature. We will analyse the degree of compliance by the domestic legislator with the recommendations on combating this phenomenon set out in the Universal Postal Union Convention and the 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. The measures adopted by German and Spanish legislators to control postal consignments will also be studied with the purpose of identifying solutions to this problem.
Lastly, proposals will be put forward to amend domestic postal legislation, which could be categorized as necessary interference with the constitutional principle of the inviolability of the secrecy of correspondence. Such measures will help to reduce the use of this means of transportation by traffickers, but also to regulate certain obligations for postal service operators, whose failure to comply with these duties shall be susceptible of criminal liability.

The good faith exception – hypothesis for the covering of the effects of absolute nullity. Notes to the Minute of the Supreme Court no. 95 of the 12th of February of 2025

2025-12-19T22:09:56+00:00

Starting from a specific criminal case, this note addresses the relevance of the good faith exception doctrine – established in U.S. law – within the framework of Romanian criminal procedure. The authors argue that the sanction of absolute nullity should be contingent upon the negligence of the authorities in the unlawful administration of evidence. Conversely, it should not apply in instances where it can be proven that judicial authorities acted in good faith and with the requisite diligence to comply with legal provisions, such that the procedural violations cannot be imputed to them.

Lack of proportionality: the possibility of claiming self-defence for someone who intervened in support of the initial attacker

2025-12-19T22:09:58+00:00

The authors approach a case from both procedural and substantive angles, analyzing whether self-defence can be recognized for interveners supporting the initial attacker. In the initial section, they address the burden of proof and standard of proof relevant when the accused raises self-defence. While the court correctly assigned the burden of proof to the party invoking self-defence, the authors argue that the appropriate standard should be the preponderance of evidence, rather than the sufficiency standard referenced in the court’s decision. Subsequently, it is emphasized that a third party cannot invoke self-defence against a legitimate defence but can benefit from this justifying cause if the victims’ defence exceeds the bounds of proportionality, becoming an unjust attack. The court’s solution, though substantively correct – by recognizing self-defence in the context of an objective unjust attack – presents debatable reasoning with respect to error. In the final part, the discussion centers on the extent to which the disturbance of public order and peace committed through an act covered by self-defence can, in turn, be covered by self-defence.