I hear or read a lot lately, either in court or in doctrinal articles, that precautionary measures ordered in criminal proceedings should be lifted because 𝒅𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒂 𝒍𝒐𝒓 𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒕𝒆 𝒆𝒙𝒂𝒈𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕 𝒅𝒆𝒆 𝒎𝒂𝒓𝒆. I also heard this sentence when the measures had been in place for a few months, but also for 4-5-6 or even 10-11 years. Invariably, ECHR case law on the matter is invoked, in particular the 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐸𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑐. 𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑖 𝐶𝑒ℎ𝑒, sometimes also 𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑡 𝑃𝑟𝑎ℎ𝑎 𝑐. 𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑖 𝐶𝑒ℎ𝑒, and more recently also 𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑡 𝐸𝑢𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝐿𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐿𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐. 𝑅𝑜𝑚𝑎̂𝑛𝑖𝑒𝑖 or 𝑊𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝐿𝑡𝑡𝑑. 𝑐. 𝑅𝑜𝑚𝑎̂𝑛𝑖𝑖𝑒𝑖. How much is actually too much in this matter, according to the ECHR? First of all, it should be noted that 𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚̆𝐢𝐞𝐫𝐢 𝐂𝐄𝐃𝐎 𝐂𝐄𝐃𝐎 𝐧𝐮 𝐬𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐞 𝐜𝐚̆ 𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐦𝐚̆𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐚̆𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐫𝐚̆𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐢 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐫𝐮𝐥 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐫𝐮𝐥 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐮 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚̆ 𝐫𝐞𝐭̦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐚 𝐢̂𝐧𝐜𝐚̆𝐥𝐜𝐚̆𝐫𝐢𝐢 𝐢̂𝐧𝐜𝐚̆𝐥𝐜𝐚̆𝐫𝐢𝐢 𝐚𝐫𝐭. 𝐝𝐢𝐧 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐥 𝟏 𝐥𝐚 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭̦𝐢𝐞 (𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭̦𝐢𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐚̆𝐭̦𝐢𝐢). Specifically, in the cases cited above: - In 𝐹𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑐. 𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐶𝑒ℎ𝑒, the length of the proceedings is 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐚̆ 𝐜𝐮 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐚

Law No. 70/2025 was published in the Official Gazette No. 452 of May 15, 2025 (in force since May 18, 2025), amending three articles on precautionary measures in criminal proceedings. I have read a few summaries of the amendments, including in the press (in the "shock and awe" category and with references to confiscation) and pretty much all of them present the Law as something that fundamentally changes the philosophy of precautionary measures. In reality, what has really changed is that all precautionary measures (so including those ordered by the pre-trial judge or the court) are taken 𝐟𝐚̆𝐫𝐚̆ 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐞 - new para. (6³) of art. 249 C.pr.pen. I have written several times about the inconsistency between taking precautionary measures without citation in civil vs. criminal proceedings (where it was concluded that citation is necessary, as this is the rule for proceedings before the court), how citation (or postponing the judgment for

On February 4, 2025, the High Court of Cassation and Justice referred to the Constitutional Court, at our request, the constitutionality of the provisions of Article 438 para. (1) C.pr.pen. In support of the application we pointed out that the legal provisions in question do not allow the lodging of an appeal in cassation in the event that the criminal proceedings were wrongly not terminated, although the cause of termination (not submitted to the parties) was examined by the appellate court. This infringes several provisions of the Basic Law.

Lawyers Andra Trandafir and Mihaela Ghirca-Bogdan successfully argued for the lifting of a precautionary measure amounting to more than 40 million EUR maintained on our client's accounts for 9 years, including after the criminal case was closed. The case raised several legal issues, including: - The lack of clear rules in civil procedure applicable after the criminal case has been dismissed; - the scope of the precautionary measure ordered in the course of criminal proceedings on the civil claims of a party both from the perspective of the civil party's civil action in the criminal proceedings and the separate action brought before the civil court; - the legality and proportionality of maintaining the precautionary measure in the light of ECHR case-law. This case law marks an important development in clarifying the limits and conditions for the maintenance of precautionary measures ordered in criminal proceedings and continued in civil proceedings after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.

Between November 7-9, 2024, Ms. Andra-Roxana Trandafir participated, for the second time in the last two years, as a legal expert in an arbitration that took place in London, within the ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes). The participation in the hearings crowned the work done in drafting the legal opinion over the last months.

On July 4, 2024, our company obtained on July 4, 2024, the dismissal of the case and the referral of the case to the prosecutor's office for further prosecution in a case concerning the commission of the crime of construction fraud. This is the second time that the case has been dismissed by the court. A challenge concerning the length of the criminal proceedings was also upheld in the same case.

The Chief Prosecutor of the Prosecutor's Office of the Galati Tribunal admitted the complaint lodged by our client (a non-governmental organization working in the field of human rights), dismissed a decision to dismiss the case (on the grounds that the act did not exist) by the Prosecutor's Office of the Galati Court and reopened the criminal prosecution in a case in which investigations were conducted into a rape committed against a disabled institutionalized person. The complaint formulated for our client - the organization that exercised its right to challenge the dismissal under art. 4 lit. i) sentence II of Law no. 8/2016 - mainly took into account the incompleteness of the criminal prosecution, the lack of conclusive evidence taking into account the special situation of the victim of the alleged crime of rape - a person with mental disabilities, institutionalized, vulnerable, materially and emotionally dependent on the staff of the centre where she is interned and in

The High Court of Cassation and Justice ruled, in a judgment handed down in the appeal for our client, that the professional obligations incumbent on the medical professional have the significance of the predicate situation of the offence of manslaughter which had been held against him in the decision handed down on appeal. According to the same judgment, the determination by the Court of Appeal in cassation of those obligations, by reference to the factual situation found by the Court of Appeal, constitutes an assessment of the case in law. In carrying out that analysis, the Supreme Court acquitted on the ground that the act was not provided for by criminal law - Article 16(1)(b) of the Criminal Code - and that the offence was not covered by the criminal law. (1) letter b) first sentence C.pr.pen.