Two weeks ago, during the victimology course in Dubrovnik, we attended a very interesting presentation by Prof. Hans-Jörg Albrecht and Anna-Maria Getos Kalac on 𝐟𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐝 (or femicide). The professors pointed out that classifying this behavior as a distinct crime actually has no preventive effect and that scientific studies do not support such criminalization; rather, it actually creates problems with law enforcement. The presentation caused a stir in the room, with one participant exclaiming, “𝐼 𝑑𝑜𝑛’𝑡 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑, 𝑑𝑜𝑛’𝑡 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑤𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑎𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠?” The tragedy in Cosmopolis highlights the need for 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 regarding domestic violence, gender-based violence, risk assessment, and other related issues. This need is essential in Romanian society (and beyond). However, just like the professors mentioned above, I believe that using criminal law to address this need must be viewed with caution. 𝐌𝐚𝐢 𝐢̂𝐧𝐭𝐚̂𝐢, 𝐜𝐞 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐥? The definitions proposed in

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.