Categories
Uncategorized

Bodily injury by negligence in Romania (Article 196 Criminal Code) – how it really works in 2025

This article clarifies the conditions for criminal liability when injury is caused by negligence, including in traffic, workplace or medical contexts. It covers thresholds that decriminalise minor harm, the role of insurance and civil claims, and the main lines of defence when causation, foreseeability or contributory fault are genuinely disputed.

Bodily injury by negligence is the legal label that often appears behind real-life tragedies: a car crash with injured passengers, a worker who falls from scaffolding, a medical error that leaves permanent consequences, a construction accident where safety rules were ignored.

In Romanian criminal law, these situations usually converge around Article 196 of the Criminal Code – bodily injury by negligence. Understanding how this offence works in 2025 requires looking not only at Article 196 itself, but also at the network of provisions it refers to (Articles 193–195, 199, 157–158, 61 etc.) and at recent changes brought by Law no. 116/2025 and by the case-law of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ).

This guide explains, in practical terms, when an accident turns into a criminal file, how negligence is assessed, what the risk of punishment really is, how the victim’s prior complaint and its withdrawal work after the 2025 reform, and what tools both the accused person and the injured person actually have.

Disclaimer: this text is purely informative and cannot replace personalised legal assistance in an actual case.

1. Where is bodily injury by negligence regulated?

Bodily injury by negligence is part of Title I – Offences against the person, Chapter II – Offences against bodily integrity or health of the Romanian Criminal Code. It is found in a sequence of provisions that must always be read together:

  • Article 193 – Assault or other violence
  • Article 194 – Bodily injury
  • Article 195 – Assault or injury causing death
  • Article 196 – Bodily injury by negligence
  • Article 199 – Domestic violence

Article 196 does not define from scratch what “injury” means. Instead, it refers back to the intentional offences:

  • Paragraph (1) refers to Article 193(2) (the more serious version of “assault or other violence”, where the victim needs up to 90 days of medical care).
  • Paragraph (2) refers to Article 194(1) (serious consequences such as permanent infirmity, more than 90 days of medical care, serious and permanent aesthetic damage, abortion, or endangering life).

Doctrine has long underlined that Article 196 is full of cross-references, which makes it harder to read in isolation. A study by Nicolae-Elvis Cioabă (“Negligent injuries in the new Criminal Code”, University of Bucharest, 2015) precisely sets out to clarify the content and scope of Article 196 by constantly returning to the older and newer regulations on bodily integrity.

In practice, this means that in any bodily-injury-by-negligence file, the court first needs to establish:

  1. What kind of consequence the victim suffered (how many days of medical care, permanent effects, risk to life etc.); and
  2. Which intentional offence that consequence would correspond to (Article 193 or 194);

only then can it “translate” the scenario into the negligent version under Article 196.

2. The structure of Article 196 Criminal Code (current text)

According to the consolidated text of the Criminal Code as at 26 June 2024, Article 196 provides, in summary:

  • Article 196(1) –
    • If the conduct described in Article 193(2) (assault or other violence causing injuries requiring up to 90 days of medical care) is committed by negligence
    • by a person under the influence of alcohol or psychoactive substances, or
    • while performing an activity that is a criminal offence in itself (for example, driving with a blood alcohol level over the criminal threshold under Article 336),
    • the penalty is imprisonment from 3 months to 1 year or a criminal fine.
  • Article 196(2) –
    • If the consequences of Article 194(1) (e.g. permanent infirmity, more than 90 days of medical care, serious aesthetic damage, abortion, life-threatening condition) are produced by negligence,
    • the penalty is imprisonment from 6 months to 2 years or a fine.
  • Article 196(3) –
    • If the situation in paragraph (2) appears because someone failed to respect legal rules or safety measures while exercising a profession or trade or performing an activity,
    • the penalty increases to imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years or a fine.
  • Article 196(4) –
    • If the consequences described above affect two or more persons, the special limits of the penalty are increased by one third.
  • Article 196(5) –
    • If the breach of the legal rules or the activity causing the accident is itself a separate offence (for example, drink-driving), the general rules on concurrence of offences apply, so the court will combine penalties according to Article 39 Criminal Code.
  • Article 196(6) –
    • Criminal proceedings start only upon the victim’s prior complaint. This rule is, however, modified by Article 199(2) when the victim is a family member, as we will see below.

This structure shows that bodily injury by negligence is not a single-size offence:

  • It can cover anything from a “less serious” injury with relatively short medical care to consequences close to those of homicide.
  • It can originate from one moment of inattention or from systematic non-compliance with safety rules in a professional setting.

3. What does “negligence” mean in Romanian criminal law?

The Criminal Code defines negligence (“culpa”) in Article 16(4) as the situation where the offender either:

  • foresees the result but lightly assumes it will not occur, or
  • fails to foresee the result, though he or she should and could have foreseen it.

In Article 196 cases, courts typically look at:

  1. The existence of a duty of care or a clear legal rule
    • Road traffic rules (Road Traffic Code and related regulations);
    • Labour-safety rules and internal procedures;
    • Professional protocols (medical, construction, industrial etc.).
  2. The concrete behaviour of the person
    • Speed, alcohol level, use of phone while driving;
    • Compliance with safety equipment rules;
    • Compliance with medical standards, supervision duties etc.
  3. Causation
    • Whether the breach of duty can be linked, in a legally relevant way, to the injury suffered by the victim.

Legal scholarship stresses that not every accident is criminally relevant: only those situations where the result can be traced back to a significant breach of a legal or professional duty of care fall under Article 196.

4. Typical scenarios in practice

4.1. Road traffic accidents

Most files under Article 196 are linked to road traffic accidents: collisions, pedestrians hit on a zebra crossing, passengers injured in cars that skid off the road.

In a typical scenario, the pattern looks like this:

  • A driver ignores traffic rules (speed, distance, yielding, red light) or drives under the influence of alcohol or psychoactive substances.
  • An accident occurs and one or more people require medical care or suffer serious consequences.
  • The forensic medical report establishes the number of days of medical care and whether there is a permanent infirmity, a life-threatening condition, or other serious effects.

The legal classification then depends mainly on:

  1. The severity of the injuries – whether they correspond to Article 193(2) (up to 90 days of care) or Article 194(1) (over 90 days, infirmity, risk to life, abortion, etc.).
  2. The presence of aggravating circumstances – driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or breaching legal duties in a professional capacity (professional drivers, bus drivers, truck drivers etc.).

If the driver was also over the criminal blood-alcohol threshold (offence of drink-driving under Article 336 Criminal Code), then Article 196(1) interacts with Article 336 through concurrence of offences (Article 196(5) and Article 39 Criminal Code).

4.2. Multiple victims and the open question at the High Court

Paragraph (4) of Article 196 states that if the consequences affect two or more persons, the special limits of the penalty are increased by one third.

In 2025, the High Court was seized with a delicate question: what happens if several victims are injured, but only one withdraws the prior complaint?

A communication published by the Ministry of Justice on 11 June 2025 records that the ICCJ was asked to clarify, for Article 196(4), whether the offence remains a single “complex” offence when one victim withdraws the prior complaint, or whether the unity of the offence breaks down into separate offences, in light of Articles 157(2) and 158(2) Criminal Code.

At the date of that communication, the question had been referred but the solution was not yet included in the publicly available summary. I cannot confirm the final answer in this guide; anyone facing this issue should verify the latest ICCJ decision or consult a practitioner with access to updated case law.

4.3. Professional negligence (doctors, employers, specialists)

Paragraph (3) of Article 196 targets cases where serious consequences (those of Article 194(1)) are caused by failing to respect legal provisions or safety measures during a profession or activity. This wording is deliberately broad and can include:

  • A doctor ignoring basic diagnostic or treatment protocols;
  • A construction company failing to secure scaffolding or protective equipment;
  • An employer allowing work at height without proper harnesses;
  • A factory not implementing minimal machine-safety procedures.

Doctrine emphasises that in these cases the law reacts more harshly because the offender had a higher level of responsibility and specialised knowledge.

5. Penalties and the day-fine system after Law no. 116/2025

5.1. Imprisonment ranges

Based on Article 196, the main imprisonment ranges (before applying any increases for multiple victims or domestic violence) are:

  • 3 months – 1 year (or fine) for the basic negligent injury in paragraph (1);
  • 6 months – 2 years (or fine) for serious negligent injury in paragraph (2);
  • 6 months – 3 years (or fine) when serious negligent injury is connected with breach of legal duties in a profession/activity (paragraph (3)).

If the offence is committed against a family member, Article 199(1) increases the maximum by one quarter.

If two or more persons are injured, Article 196(4) increases both minimum and maximum by one third.

5.2. Criminal fines – the impact of Law no. 116/2025

Under Article 61 Criminal Code, the fine is calculated by multiplying:

  • a number of day-fines (between 30 and 400 days, with specific ranges depending on the alternative penalty), and
  • the amount of one day-fine.

Before 2025, the amount of one day-fine ranged from 10 to 500 lei. Law no. 116/2025, published in the Official Gazette on 23 June 2025 and in force since 26 June 2025, increased this interval to 60–600 lei per day-fine.

So, for example, if a court imposes:

  • 180 day-fines,
  • with one day-fine set at 100 lei,

the total criminal fine will be:

  • 180 (day-fines) × 100 lei (per day-fine) = 18,000 lei.

The same case, if the daily amount is set at the minimum 60 lei, would lead to:

  • 180 × 60 lei = 10,800 lei.

This simple calculation shows why the increase in the daily interval from 10–500 to 60–600 can significantly raise the real financial impact of a conviction for bodily injury by negligence.

If the fine is not paid in bad faith, Article 63 allows the court to replace the unpaid days with an equivalent number of imprisonment days; one day-fine equals one day of imprisonment.

6. Prior complaint and withdrawal after ICCJ Decision no. 30/2024 and Law 116/2025

6.1. The starting point – prior complaint (Articles 157–158 Criminal Code)

For offences such as bodily injury by negligence, criminal proceedings generally start only if the injured person files a prior complaint within three months from learning about the offender, according to Article 157 Criminal Code.

Article 158 provides that withdrawal of the prior complaint leads to the removal of criminal liability, as long as it takes place before a final judgment.

6.2. ICCJ Decision no. 30/2024 – when can the prosecution act ex officio?

In 2024, the High Court was asked whether, for offences that can be prosecuted either upon prior complaint or ex officio, the prosecutor can still proceed ex officio if a valid prior complaint already exists.

Through Decision no. 30/2024 (preliminary ruling on a point of law), the ICCJ held that:

  • When the victim has already filed a prior complaint, the action is considered to have been set in motion on the basis of that complaint,
  • Therefore, the victim retains the right to withdraw the complaint until final judgment, with the effects provided in Article 158 Criminal Code.

An article on avocatnet.ro summarises that the High Court thus rejected the idea of “switching” to ex officio prosecution once a prior complaint is on file, particularly in domestic-violence scenarios.

6.3. Law no. 116/2025 – the prosecutor’s veto over withdrawal

Law no. 116/2025 amended Article 158(4) Criminal Code. The new text provides that, for offences where prosecution is usually conditioned by a prior complaint, withdrawal of the complaint has legal effect only if the prosecutor agrees, regardless of whether the action was initially set in motion on the basis of a complaint or ex officio.

This is a major practical change for bodily injury by negligence, including traffic accidents and professional-negligence cases:

  • The victim still formally has the possibility to withdraw the complaint.
  • But the prosecutor must now “endorse” that withdrawal. Without this endorsement, the file cannot be closed on that basis.

The Leroy Law analysis explicitly emphasises this tightening of the rules: for offences prosecuted upon prior complaint, the victim’s intention to withdraw becomes necessary, but no longer sufficient; the prosecutor’s consent becomes a second, independent condition.

6.4. Domestic violence and bodily injury by negligence

Article 199 Criminal Code (domestic violence) introduces a special regime when bodily injury by negligence is committed against a family member:

  • The maximum penalty is increased by one quarter;
  • For offences under Articles 193 and 196 against a family member, criminal proceedings may also be initiated ex officio.

ICCJ Decision no. 30/2024 analysed this interplay in the context of domestic violence, stressing that, once a prior complaint exists, the action is considered based on that complaint, even if the law would also allow ex-officio prosecution.

After Law 116/2025, in such cases the victim’s safety and free consent become even more important: the prosecutor is expected to check that any withdrawal is not the result of pressure, dependence or intimidation.

7. The rights of the suspect or defendant in a bodily-injury-by-negligence case

Even if the case starts from an accident, once Article 196 is on the table, the person under investigation is a suspect (and later possibly a defendant) with full procedural rights under the Code of Criminal Procedure:

  • Right to be informed about the accusation and its legal classification;
  • Right to a lawyer, including state-appointed counsel in certain conditions;
  • Right to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself;
  • Right to propose and produce evidence (witnesses, technical expert reports, counter-expert reports, documents);
  • Right to challenge forensic medical reports or to request a commission of experts;
  • Right to challenge preventive measures (e.g. judicial control);
  • Right to appeal against judgment.

In bodily-injury-by-negligence files, the forensic medical report (legal medicine institute or service) is often decisive, because it sets the number of days of medical care and identifies any permanent consequences. Contesting or supplementing that report can substantially change the legal classification and therefore the penalty range.

8. What can the injured person do? Criminal complaint, civil damages and insurance

8.1. Filing the prior complaint

For Article 196, the prior complaint is normally indispensable (subject to the exceptions above). It must be filed within three months from the day the injured person finds out who the offender is, as provided by Article 157 Criminal Code.

The complaint should indicate:

  • The identity of the person complained against (if known);
  • A clear description of what happened;
  • The injuries suffered and available medical documents;
  • Any witnesses or evidence that can be identified.

8.2. Civil damages inside the criminal trial

The injured person may join the criminal trial as a civil party, asking for:

  • Material damages (treatment costs, lost earnings, other proven expenses);
  • Moral damages (pain and suffering, loss of quality of life).

If the accident involves a vehicle covered by mandatory third-party liability insurance (RCA), Law no. 132/2017 obliges the insurer to compensate the injured person up to the policy limits, for proven losses caused through the insured vehicle.

Article 21 of Law 132/2017 and related case law detail the deadlines and penalties applicable to insurers that delay payment of compensation.

In practice, the injured person can:

  • Claim compensation directly from the insurer (through an RCA claim);
  • Join the criminal case as civil party, asking the court to establish the full damages;
  • Or both, coordinating the two procedures with specialist help.

8.3. Relationship between civil and criminal outcomes

A conviction for bodily injury by negligence usually clarifies both fault and causation, which are also key elements in civil liability. However:

  • Even if the criminal case ends through withdrawal of the prior complaint (with the prosecutor’s consent), the injured person can still pursue a separate civil action to recover damages.
  • Conversely, an acquittal or dropping of charges in the criminal file does not automatically block any civil claim; the civil court can still assess liability on its own standards, though practical prospects will vary.

9. How a defence lawyer can make a difference in negligent-injury cases

Because Article 196 operates at the crossroads of criminal, traffic, labour-safety and insurance rules, these files can become complex very quickly. Practice and doctrine highlight several points where specialised defence work is crucial:

  1. Clarifying the factual dynamics of the accident
    • Technical expertise (reconstruction of road accidents, workplace-safety expertise);
    • Identification of alternative causes (behaviour of the victim, third parties, defective equipment).
  2. Challenging the legal classification
    • Demonstrating that the number of days of medical care has been over- or under-estimated;
    • Showing that the legal elements of Article 196(1) (alcohol, psychoactive substances, separate offence) are not fully met;
    • Arguing that the case should be qualified as a pure administrative offence or a civil matter, not a criminal one.
  3. Negotiating the outcome
    • Exploring conditions for suspension of sentence or fine instead of imprisonment;
    • Discussing with the prosecutor whether withdrawal of the complaint should be endorsed after Law 116/2025.
  4. Coordinating with the insurer and the civil side of the case
    • Ensuring that any agreements on damages are structured so as not to worsen the criminal position;
    • Using timely payment of damages as an argument for mitigation of punishment.

On the other side, a lawyer assisting the injured person can help to document the full extent of the harm, to ensure that forensic assessments capture all relevant medical and psychological consequences, and to structure civil claims both against the offender and against the insurer under Law 132/2017.

10. Key takeaways for 2025

  1. Bodily injury by negligence (Article 196) is a “network offence” – it cannot be understood without reading Articles 193–195, 199 and the general provisions on prior complaint and day-fines.
  2. The seriousness of the medical consequence (days of care, infirmity, risk to life) is central: it determines whether the case stays in paragraph (1) or moves to paragraphs (2)–(3), with higher penalties.
  3. Traffic and professional-negligence scenarios dominate practice, with frequent concurrence with other offences (e.g. drink-driving) and with specific safety regulations playing an important evidentiary role.
  4. Law no. 116/2025 has made both criminal fines and the withdrawal of complaints “tougher”:
    • The daily amount of a fine is now between 60 and 600 lei;
    • Withdrawal of the prior complaint has effect only if endorsed by the prosecutor, even when prosecution would also be possible ex officio.
  5. Domestic-violence contexts require special care: Article 199 increases penalties and allows prosecution ex officio; ICCJ Decision no. 30/2024 clarified that once a prior complaint exists, the action is considered based on it, preserving the possibility of withdrawal – subject, after Law 116/2025, to the prosecutor’s agreement.
  6. Multiple-victim accidents raise open questions, including how withdrawal by one victim affects the legal unity of the offence under Article 196(4); the High Court has been seized on this point in 2025, but the final interpretation needs to be checked against the latest decision.
  7. For both the accused person and the injured person, early and coherent legal strategy – including attention to forensic reports, insurance aspects and the new rules on withdrawal of complaints – can drastically influence the outcome.

Sources and further reading (selection)

These materials provide the legislative and doctrinal background necessary to navigate, in 2025, any case involving bodily injury by negligence under Romanian law.