You are under judicial control: what you are allowed to do, how you can request revocation and what you risk if you breach your obligations

If you are an entrepreneur, company director, manager or professional and you have just found out that you are placed under judicial control in a criminal case, your first thought is probably: “I am under judicial control – what exactly am I allowed to do?”. You immediately start wondering about business trips, signing contracts, attending meetings, access to your company and dealing with employees or partners.

Judicial control is a serious preventive measure, but it is not pre-trial detention. You remain at liberty, but subject to a list of clear obligations and with the risk that, if you deliberately breach them, you can quickly end up under house arrest or pre-trial detention. To navigate this period correctly, a lawyer specialized in judicial control can make the difference between a “manageable” regime and a regime that completely blocks your professional activity.

In this article we will explain, with practical examples:

• what judicial control is, who can order it and under what conditions, with references to the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code and Law no. 135/2010;
• which obligations can be imposed and how to read them in practice, so you understand what you can and what you cannot do;
• how judicial control affects you concretely as an entrepreneur or company director – business travel, access to the premises, signing documents, relations with partners;
• how you can request revocation or modification of the measure, which evidence and arguments matter and what “revocation of judicial control with a lawyer” means in practice;
• what you risk if you breach the obligations and when pre-trial detention becomes a real possibility;
• the link between judicial control, the final outcome (acquittal, conviction) and your criminal record.

For a more technical and detailed presentation of the regime of judicial control and judicial control on bail, you can also read the dedicated article on maglas.ro (in Romanian):
Măsurile preventive neprivative de libertate: control judiciar și control judiciar pe cauțiune – drepturi, obligații, încălcări.
This article goes further into practice and answers the question: “judicial control and entrepreneurs”.

The information below is general and does not replace a concrete assessment of your case. Every file has its own nuances and the measure of judicial control must be read and interpreted together with a lawyer.

1. What judicial control is and who can order it

1.1. A definition in plain language and the legal basis

Judicial control is a preventive measure regulated in Title V of the Criminal Procedure Code, alongside detention, judicial control on bail, house arrest and pre-trial detention (Article 202 CPC). Its core is simple:

• you remain at liberty, but under the supervision of the police;
• you must comply with a list of obligations set out in the prosecutor’s order or the judge’s ruling;
• breaching the obligations in bad faith can lead to more severe measures (house arrest or pre-trial detention).

Articles 211–215¹ CPC regulate the conditions, content and duration of judicial control. The general basis is Article 202 CPC: the measure must be necessary to ensure the proper conduct of the criminal proceedings, to prevent the suspect or defendant from absconding or to prevent the commission of another offence, and it must be proportionate to the seriousness of the allegations.

The Constitutional Court of Romania has examined these provisions in several decisions (for example, Decision no. 712/2014 and Decision no. 79/2018), emphasising that any preventive measure, including judicial control, must be limited in time and justified by real and current reasons.

1.2. Who can order judicial control and at what stages

According to Article 211 CPC and the general rules on preventive measures:

• during the criminal investigation, judicial control can be ordered by the prosecutor, by ordinance;
• in the preliminary chamber, the measure can be ordered by the preliminary chamber judge, by ruling;
• during the trial, the court can order the taking or maintenance of judicial control, also by ruling.

In all these stages, the law requires that the measure be reasoned and that the defendant be heard, with mandatory legal assistance. The Constitutional Court (for example Decision no. 614/2016) has stressed that extending the measure must comply with the safeguards laid down in Article 212 CPC, including the right to defence and the possibility to challenge the measure.

1.3. Duration of judicial control

Article 215¹ CPC governs the duration of judicial control:

• during the criminal investigation, the measure is ordered for up to 60 days and may be extended by successive acts of up to 60 days each;
• the total duration may not exceed:
  • 1 year if the offence is punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to 5 years;
  • 2 years if the offence is punishable by imprisonment of more than 5 years or life imprisonment.
• in the preliminary chamber and at trial, the measure is also ordered for periods of up to 60 days, with reasoned extensions subject to judicial review.

The Constitutional Court has held that the legislator is obliged to provide a maximum duration for each preventive measure, including non-custodial measures (Decision no. 79/2018 refers back to the reasoning in Decision no. 712/2014).

2. Obligations under judicial control: what you may and may not do

2.1. The “basic” obligations – appearances, change of residence, supervision

Article 215 (1) CPC sets out a “hard core” of obligations that apply in all cases of judicial control:

• to appear before the criminal investigation body, the preliminary chamber judge or the trial court whenever summoned;
• to immediately inform the judicial body of any change of residence;
• to report to the designated police authority supervising you, in accordance with the schedule laid down or whenever summoned.

These obligations exist regardless of the type of offence (economic crime, corruption, tax fraud, ANAF cases etc.). If your question is “I am under judicial control – what am I allowed to do?”, the first step is to read the ordinance or ruling carefully and understand exactly what is written under “obligations”. A specialised lawyer can translate the legal language into “business language”.

2.2. Prohibition on leaving the locality or the country

Among the additional obligations, Article 215 (2) (a) CPC allows the judicial body to impose on you an obligation not to leave a specific territorial area (locality, county, country) without prior approval. This is where the key question appears: “can I leave the country while under judicial control?”.

The answer depends on the exact wording of the ordinance or ruling:

• if there is no mention of a prohibition on leaving the country or locality, in principle you can travel, while complying with the other obligations (reporting to the police, responding to summonses etc.);
• if there are phrases such as “the defendant shall not leave the territory of Romania without the approval of the prosecutor/judge”, then you cannot leave the country without prior approval – each trip abroad must be authorised;
• if the territorial limit is the locality or county, business trips to other cities become possible only with prior approval; otherwise you run a real risk of being deemed to have acted in bad faith.

In practice, for entrepreneurs and managers, this obligation is among the most sensitive. In corruption or complex economic crime cases, a prohibition on leaving the country is almost standard, and the discussion with the court focuses mainly on adjusting and relaxing this prohibition in specific situations (authorised trips for meetings, fairs, negotiations, etc.).

2.3. Prohibition on exercising your profession or function

Article 215 (2) (e) CPC allows the judicial body to prohibit the defendant from exercising the profession, occupation or activity in the exercise of which the alleged offence was committed. For an entrepreneur or company director, this obligation can be devastating: it may mean that you can no longer sign documents on behalf of the company and you cannot continue your activity in the same capacity as before.

In practice, courts and prosecutors often impose this prohibition in corruption cases, EU funds fraud, embezzlement, tax evasion or other offences directly linked to the position held (for example, public officials or managers of state-owned companies). The case law on suspension from office for public officials often refers to this obligation, combined with rules from labour and public service legislation.

If you are a director or administrator and such a prohibition has been imposed, it is essential to analyse, together with your lawyer, how to reorganise the company’s structure (powers of attorney, delegation of powers, appointment of another director or general manager) to avoid completely blocking the activity and, at the same time, not to breach the obligation set out in the judicial control ruling.

2.4. Prohibition on contacting certain persons

Another common obligation is not to communicate with certain persons relevant to the case (the injured party, witnesses, other defendants, experts), as provided in Article 215 (2) (d) CPC. In economic crime, corruption or multi-defendant cases, this prohibition can seriously affect:

• relations with co-shareholders and business partners (who may be witnesses or even co-defendants);
• discussions with key employees (accountants, CFOs, project managers) who appear as witnesses in the case;
• communication with clients or suppliers in those situations where they are witnesses.

In practice, courts formulate this prohibition in a relatively detailed manner (e.g.: “the defendant shall not communicate, directly or indirectly, with witnesses X, Y, Z or with the injured party A”). It is crucial to respect this prohibition and avoid any contact, including via intermediaries or informal messages. “WhatsApp group” breaches or “just a quick phone call to clarify something at the company” are exactly the type of mistakes that can lead to replacing judicial control with pre-trial detention.

2.5. Other typical obligations under judicial control

The list in Article 215 (2) CPC is broad. Among the obligations frequently imposed are:

• not to visit certain places (for example, the premises of an institution or company);
• to wear an electronic monitoring device (electronic bracelet), in certain situations;
• not to drive certain vehicles or categories of vehicles;
• not to own, use or carry weapons;
• to report periodically information on your means of subsistence;
• not to take part in public events (demonstrations, sports events, etc.).

The High Court of Cassation and Justice analysed, for example, the obligation not to drive certain vehicles in Decision no. 18/2019 (Panel for the settlement of legal issues). The Court held that breaching this obligation does not, by itself, amount to the separate offence of driving with a suspended licence, but has consequences at procedural level (possible tightening of the preventive measure). Detailed analyses of this decision can be found in legal publications such as Universul Juridic or on specialised practice sites such as chirita-law.com.

3. Judicial control and your business: concrete impact for entrepreneurs and company directors

3.1. Business travel, fairs, conferences

In economic crime or corruption cases, many defendants are businesspeople who used to travel frequently: meetings with partners in other cities, conferences, fairs, negotiations abroad. Under judicial control, any territorial prohibition must be taken very seriously.

If your question is “can I leave the country under judicial control to attend a business fair?”, the realistic answer is:

• if you have an explicit travel ban, you must file a reasoned request for approval, explaining why the trip is essential and how you will comply with the obligations; the court or prosecutor may allow or reject it;
• if you do not have an explicit travel ban, it is still prudent to discuss with your lawyer and plan how to reconcile your travel schedule with your reporting schedule at the police or court dates.

In practice, courts are more willing to authorise specific, clearly delimited trips (for example, a short conference with fixed dates and location), if there are solid guarantees that you will return (family ties, business in Romania, no previous attempts to abscond, etc.).

3.2. Signing contracts and representing the company

Judicial control does not automatically suspend your signing rights or your mandate as director. Restrictions arise only if:

• you are expressly prohibited from exercising your profession/function (Article 215 (2) (e) CPC);
• you are prohibited from entering certain places or from contacting certain persons, which may make it impossible to represent the company in relation to certain partners or institutions.

In the absence of an explicit prohibition, in principle you can continue your activity, provided you respect the reporting schedule to the police and all summonses. But from a risk management perspective, it is advisable to:

• analyse with your lawyer and tax consultant whether it is more prudent to temporarily delegate some of your powers;
• review your ongoing contracts and clauses on change of control or criminal issues affecting the director;
• clarify your situation with partners within the limits allowed by law (without breaching contact prohibitions or confidentiality obligations).

In economic crime cases, the real stake is often your assets (seizure, special or extended confiscation). For a broader picture, you can read the (Romanian) article:
Confiscarea specială și confiscarea extinsă în dosarele economice: cum îți protejezi bunurile și conturile.

3.3. Attending shareholders’/board meetings, meetings with employees and partners

Contact prohibitions and bans on frequenting certain places can create complicated situations for a company director:

• if a key person (shareholder, CFO, accountant) is a witness or a co-defendant, you cannot attend meetings where this person is present if there is a contact prohibition;
• if the company’s premises are also the alleged location of the offence, the judicial body may ban access to those premises, in full or in part;
• if you are a public official or a manager in a public entity, there may also be disciplinary or administrative consequences (suspension from office, reduction of duties) correlated with the procedural measure.

In such situations, solutions are both legal and managerial: reconfiguring the management structure, appointing an interim director, using powers of attorney and electronic signatures, reorganising the decision-making process.

3.4. How to reorganise your company when the director is under judicial control

In many cases, the most realistic approach is to accept that, while judicial control is in force, you will not be able to control every detail of the business. Together with your lawyer and your (tax, HR, corporate) advisors, you can consider:

• appointing a director or CEO to take over the operational side;
• clearly dividing responsibilities so that you do not step into areas where you have prohibitions;
• protecting yourself and the company in case the criminal case drags on or escalates (including scenarios involving conviction and the impact on the sentence and criminal record).

For a better understanding of how sentences are calculated and how you can end up with a suspended sentence or with the postponement of the application of the sentence, you can read (in Romanian) the article:
Calcul pentru pedeapsa cu închisoare: câți ani de închisoare poți face pentru o infracțiune?, which also explains the effects of alternatives such as suspended sentences or postponement of the application of the sentence.

4. How you can request revocation, replacement or relaxation of judicial control

4.1. Legal basis: Articles 241–242 CPC

Article 241 CPC regulates the automatic termination of preventive measures (including judicial control), while Article 242 CPC deals with revocation and replacement of these measures. In short:

• the measure ends automatically in situations where the legal basis disappears (for example, when the case is finally closed or when the maximum statutory duration expires);
• revocation or replacement may be ordered at any time if the reasons justifying the measure no longer exist or if new, lighter or more serious reasons arise.

The Constitutional Court has analysed in detail the relationship between the duration of preventive measures and the obligation to limit and periodically review them, including in Decision no. 79/2018 and in other decisions on preventive measures. Legal scholarship (e.g. analyses published in Revista Pro Lege) underlines the need for effective judicial control over the duration and intensity of preventive measures.

4.2. Evidence and arguments that matter for revocation or relaxation

In practice, a request for “revocation of judicial control through a lawyer” succeeds or fails depending on the quality of the arguments and evidence. The following factors are particularly important:

• your behaviour during the measure: whether you strictly complied with all obligations, reported to the police on time, did not attempt to influence witnesses, etc.;
• the stage of the proceedings: if the main evidence has already been administered, the risk of influencing it decreases; if the investigation has just started, chances of revocation are usually lower;
• your ties to the community: family, stable job, consolidated business in Romania – all arguments against the risk of absconding;
• the impact of the measure on the company: documents showing lost contracts, blocked production flows or projects, loss of jobs if the measure is maintained in its current form;
• alternative safeguards: for example, proposing lighter obligations, a clear schedule of trips, accepting stricter reporting obligations in exchange for lifting a critical prohibition (such as the travel ban for a defined period).

A lawyer specialised in preventive measures will correlate these elements with the case law of the Constitutional Court and the High Court and with practice-unifying meetings of criminal judges, where lines of interpretation are clarified on proportionality and duration of preventive measures.

4.3. Practical steps in a revocation / modification request

Broadly speaking, a revocation or modification request regarding obligations under judicial control involves the following steps:

• Analysing the file and the measure – your lawyer studies the ordinance or ruling, the progress of the case and the reasons initially given for ordering the measure.
• Collecting evidence – contracts, financial statements, internal reports, medical certificates, documents from employers or partners showing the impact of the measure and your behaviour.
• Drafting a reasoned request – citing the legal provisions (Articles 241–242 CPC), describing the facts, the supporting evidence and the specific relief sought: revocation of the measure or replacement/relaxation of certain obligations.
• Submitting the request to the competent judicial body – prosecutor, judge of rights and freedoms, preliminary chamber judge or trial court, depending on the stage of the proceedings.
• Oral submissions before the court – explaining the impact on your business, your compliance with the obligations and the change in circumstances.
• Managing possible appeals – if the request is rejected, your lawyer will assess the opportunity of filing a challenge, under Articles 204–206 CPC.

These steps are part of the broader strategy in the case, especially where other preventive measures are in play (for example, transitioning from pre-trial detention to judicial control or vice versa). For an overview of more severe preventive measures, you may consult the (Romanian) articles:
Arestul preventiv – cum pot fi arestat preventiv? and
arestul la domiciliu – condiții, durată, restricții și diferențe față de arestul preventiv.

5. What happens if you breach your obligations: real risks, not theory

5.1. What “breach in bad faith” means

Article 215 (3) and (7) CPC requires that, in the act ordering the measure, the defendant be warned that breaching the obligations in bad faith may lead to replacing judicial control with house arrest or pre-trial detention. The concept of “bad faith” has been discussed in scholarship and case law, including in commentary on High Court Decision no. 18/2019 and in published cases analysed, for example, on chirita-law.com.

In essence, bad faith exists when:

• you know the obligation (it has been communicated in writing and explained to you);
• you have a real possibility to comply with it;
• you deliberately choose to breach it (for example, leaving the country without approval, contacting witnesses, repeatedly failing to appear before the police without a serious justification).

An occasional delay in reporting to the police, justified by force majeure, is not, in principle, equivalent to bad faith – but it must be proven immediately with documents (flight tickets, medical certificates, employer documents, etc.).

5.2. From warning to pre-trial detention

When the police or judicial body notes a breach of obligations, the usual procedure is:

• the police draft a report on missed appearances, unauthorised travel, communication with prohibited persons, etc.;
• the prosecutor or court is informed and, usually, a hearing is scheduled where you are asked to explain what happened;
• the judicial body decides:
  • either to warn you and maintain the measure, possibly with additional obligations;
  • or to replace judicial control with a more severe measure (house arrest or pre-trial detention).

For judicial control on bail, breaching the obligations may also lead to full or partial forfeiture of the bail, in addition to tightening the preventive measure, under Article 217 CPC.

5.3. Frequent mistakes made by persons under judicial control

From practice, some of the most dangerous mistakes are:

• leaving the locality or country “just for a day, without telling anyone” – generally treated as serious breach;
• contacting witnesses “as friends”, via messages, to “clarify” what they will testify;
• failing to inform the police or prosecutor when a problem arises (e.g. changing your residence without prior notice);
• relying on informal advice from other people (“nothing will happen if you go to the company for one hour”);
• failing to appear before the police or court for minor or unsubstantiated reasons (traffic, tiredness, misreading the date).

Any of these mistakes can turn a manageable situation into one where you end up in pre-trial detention, with enormous impact on your business and personal life. This is why constant cooperation with a lawyer specialised in judicial control is essential.

6. Judicial control, the outcome on the merits and your criminal record

6.1. How long judicial control lasts and when it ends automatically

Judicial control is not “for life”. It ends:

• when the maximum durations provided by Article 215¹ CPC (1 or 2 years during the criminal investigation) are reached;
• when a final solution of closure or acquittal is delivered;
• in other situations provided in Article 241 CPC (for example, when it is replaced by another measure).

The Constitutional Court repeatedly emphasised, in decisions such as Decision no. 712/2014, the requirement to limit preventive measures in time and to periodically review their justification – an idea reiterated in later case law and in doctrinal analyses such as those summarised in studies on Constitutional Court decisions regarding the Criminal Procedure Code.

6.2. What happens at indictment, acquittal or conviction

At the time of indictment, the court reassesses preventive measures and may:

• maintain judicial control in the same form;
• relax or tighten obligations (depending on the evidence and your behaviour);
• replace the measure with a more severe one in exceptional cases (for example, when new information appears regarding the risk of absconding or influencing evidence).

At the end of the trial, the final decision (acquittal, conviction, waiver of penalty or postponement of the application of the penalty) determines the fate of the preventive measure. Upon finality, judicial control naturally ends and is replaced, where applicable, by the consequences of the sentence (bans, supervision, etc.).

6.3. Judicial control and the criminal record

Law no. 290/2004 on the criminal record provides that the taking of preventive measures, including judicial control, may be recorded provisionally in internal criminal record databases (Articles 11 et seq.). However, these entries are intended for internal police use and are deleted once the case is finally solved.

In the criminal record certificate issued at your request, the main entries are final convictions and certain solutions relating to the application of penalties (Articles 17–18 of the same law). The mere taking of judicial control does not usually appear as such in the criminal record certificate issued to you, but only – if at all – in internal police databases.

The (Romanian) article on non-custodial preventive measures on maglas.ro explains this aspect in detail, with specific references to the Criminal Record Law.

7. Why a lawyer specialised in judicial control matters for entrepreneurs

7.1. Integrated criminal + business strategy

For an entrepreneur or company director, judicial control is not just a criminal law issue, but also a business issue. A lawyer with experience in economic crime cases can build a strategy that simultaneously considers:

• the risk of pre-trial detention or tightening of the measure;
• asset risks (seizures, special and extended confiscation, civil claims by injured parties – see also the article on confiscation in economic crime cases);
• the impact on the company’s reputation and relationships with partners and state institutions.

7.2. How a “judicial control lawyer” helps you in practice

The lawyer’s role is not limited to drafting challenges. A specialised lawyer can help you to:

• understand exactly what each obligation in the judicial control act means in practice;
• negotiate, within the limits of the law, the way obligations are formulated and enforced (reporting schedule, travel conditions, contact prohibitions, etc.);
• prepare in advance well-documented requests for relaxation or revocation, supported by solid business documents;
• coordinate the criminal strategy with the tax and civil side of related cases (for example, a tax inspection that triggered the criminal case – see the Romanian article Chemați la audieri ca suspecți după un control ANAF: ce faci în primele 7 zile ca administrator de firmă);
• be prepared, if a conviction with a suspended sentence or postponement of the application of the sentence is reached, to understand what supervision obligations you may have and how they will affect you (correlated with the explanations in the article on sentence calculation and alternative sanctions).

For a broader presentation of criminal law services, you can consult the dedicated page (in Romanian):
servicii avocat drept penal.

7.3. When it is the right time to request a fresh review of the measure

In practice, filing revocation requests at very short intervals, without new elements, is rarely effective. Typical moments when it is worth considering a revocation or relaxation request include:

• after the main evidence has been administered (searches, witness hearings, expert reports), when the initial risks have diminished;
• after a significant period during which you have strictly complied with all obligations;
• when important business events occur (major contracts, strategic projects) that require travel or contacts which cannot be avoided and can be argued as being in the legitimate interest of the company;
• when serious personal or medical reasons arise (treatment abroad, serious family situations).

In all these situations, a well-documented request, professionally argued by a lawyer, has significantly better chances of success than a simple, general plea.

Frequently Asked Questions about judicial control

1. Can I leave the country if I am under judicial control?

You can leave the country only if you do not have a prohibition on leaving Romania or, if such prohibition exists, only with the prior approval of the prosecutor or the court, pursuant to Article 215 (2) (a) CPC. Leaving the country without approval is usually treated as a breach in bad faith and can lead to house arrest or pre-trial detention.

2. Can I still run my company if I am under judicial control?

Yes, in principle you can still run your company if you have not been expressly banned from exercising your profession, occupation or position under Article 215 (2) (e) CPC and if you do not have prohibitions on accessing certain places or contacting certain persons essential to the business. Even so, it is advisable to reorganise some responsibilities and document the impact on your business, in order to later request a relaxation of the measure.

3. What are my chances of obtaining revocation of judicial control with a lawyer?

Your chances depend on the stage of the proceedings, your behaviour during the measure, the seriousness of the alleged offences and the quality of the evidence and arguments presented. A specialised lawyer can correlate these factors with relevant case law (Constitutional Court, High Court) and with court practice, significantly increasing your chances of a favourable outcome, especially where you have strictly complied with all obligations for many months.

4. If I accidentally breach an obligation (for example, I am late at the police), will I immediately end up in pre-trial detention?

Not automatically, but there is a real risk. The judicial body will examine whether it was an isolated, justified and promptly reported incident, or repeated behaviour showing disregard for the obligations. In the first case, you may receive a warning or additional obligations; in the second, the measure may be tightened. This is why it is crucial to communicate immediately and provide proof for any incident.

5. Will my judicial control show up in my criminal record?

The taking of judicial control may be recorded provisionally in internal criminal record databases under Law no. 290/2004, but it does not usually appear as such in the criminal record certificate issued at your request, which mainly lists final convictions and certain solutions regarding the application of penalties. Entries relating to preventive measures are deleted once the case is finally resolved.

6. Does judicial control mean that I have already been convicted?

No. Judicial control is a preventive measure, not a penalty. It is applied before any final judgment, precisely to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings and to prevent new offences. Conviction or acquittal is decided only by a final judgment of the court.

7. What is the maximum duration of judicial control?

During the criminal investigation, the total duration of judicial control may not exceed, according to Article 215¹ CPC, 1 year for offences punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to 5 years and 2 years for offences punishable by imprisonment of more than 5 years or life imprisonment. In the preliminary chamber and at trial, the measure is ordered and extended for periods of up to 60 days, with periodic review of its legality and justification.