Categories
Uncategorized

Complaint against the prosecutor’s solutions in Romanian criminal law (discontinuance, waiver of prosecution, indictment): steps, deadlines and strategies

This article sets out who can complain against which prosecutorial solutions, how to structure arguments and what timelines you must respect. It also offers strategic tips on evidence, coordination with civil claims and when a complaint is helpful or counterproductive.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Any concrete case must be analysed individually together with a qualified defence lawyer, in the light of the procedural documents, the competent prosecutor’s office or court and the law in force at that time.

1. Why the complaint against the prosecutor’s solutions matters

In Romanian criminal proceedings, the prosecutor’s decision at the end of the investigation can radically change the course of a person’s life: the case may be closed, prosecution may be waived, or the defendant may be sent to trial. All these are “solutions” adopted under the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure (“Codul de procedură penală”).

Once such a solution is adopted, Romanian law provides specific remedies that allow a person affected to challenge it. The main instrument is the complaint against the prosecutor’s acts and solutions, regulated especially by Articles 336–341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 135/2010). This complaint can be lodged either:

  • inside the Public Ministry – to the hierarchically superior prosecutor; and/or
  • before a judge – the preliminary chamber judge (“judecătorul de cameră preliminară”).

The Constitutional Court has repeatedly emphasised that this complaint is an essential guarantee of the right to an effective remedy, because it allows judicial control over decisions such as discontinuance of prosecution (“clasarea urmăririi penale”) and waiver of prosecution (“renunțarea la urmărirea penală”). In Decision no. 681/2024, the Court expressly links Articles 336, 339 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the constitutional right of access to justice.

At the same time, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has shown in the landmark case Mihalache v. Romania (Grand Chamber, 2019) that a prosecutor’s order discontinuing criminal proceedings can, under certain conditions, be treated as a “final acquittal or conviction” for the purposes of the ne bis in idem principle (the prohibition of being tried or punished twice for the same facts). This makes the way in which discontinuance decisions are adopted and challenged even more important.

For a person who has just received a notice of discontinuance, waiver of prosecution or indictment in Romania, the natural questions are:

  • Can I challenge this solution?
  • Within what time-limit?
  • Which court or prosecutor’s office is competent?
  • What realistically can change if I file a complaint?

This article offers a step-by-step overview of these issues, using accessible language and referring to the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to case-law of the Constitutional Court and the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ), as well as to recent doctrinal analyses.

2. What solutions can the prosecutor adopt and where does the complaint fit?

2.1. The prosecutor’s options at the end of the investigation

When the criminal investigation phase is completed, the prosecutor must decide how to solve the case. Article 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lists the main options: indictment (committal for trial), case dismissal (including discontinuance of prosecution) and waiver of prosecution. These are detailed in further provisions, such as Articles 315 and 318 of the Code, regarding the grounds and conditions for these solutions.

In practice, this means that at the end of the investigation you may receive one of the following:

  • Order of discontinuance of prosecution (“ordonanță de clasare”) – the prosecutor concludes that:
    • the act does not exist or is not provided by the criminal law;
    • the act is not serious enough to justify a criminal reaction (for example, it lacks the level of social danger);
    • a case preventing criminal liability applies (statute of limitations, amnesty, death of the suspect, etc.); or
    • there is not enough evidence to send the suspect to trial.
  • Order of waiver of prosecution – under Article 318 of the Code, the prosecutor may “waive” prosecution when, although the act is a crime and evidence exists, the concrete circumstances (low gravity, certain conduct of the suspect, etc.) justify the conclusion that a criminal trial would be excessive and other measures (for example, administrative) are sufficient.
  • Indictment (“rechizitoriu”) – the prosecutor orders the defendant’s committal for trial, seizing the court with the accusation. This act is regulated in detail by Articles 327–331 of the Code and is examined from a legality point of view in the preliminary chamber procedure.

For a more detailed analysis of these options, you can consult the dedicated English article on the indictment – “The Criminal Indictment (‘Rechizitoriu’) in Romanian Law: Why the Quality of the Charging Document Really Matters” – which explains how the prosecutor’s decision to send a case to trial is structured and controlled in practice.

2.2. General right to complain against acts and measures (Article 336 CPC)

Article 336 paragraph (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides, in essence, that any person whose legitimate interests are harmed by a measure or act of the criminal investigation bodies may lodge a complaint. The constitutional validity and scope of this provision were analysed by the Constitutional Court in Decision no. 465/2020, which considered that the complaint is an integral part of the framework of guarantees for the right to a fair trial and the right of access to justice.

From a practical perspective, this means that, during the criminal investigation, you can complain not only against the final solution (discontinuance, waiver, indictment), but also against intermediate measures such as:

  • placing you under the status of suspect or defendant;
  • ordering a body search or a house search;
  • seizure of assets;
  • refusal to admit evidence you requested;
  • other acts or omissions of the prosecutor or the criminal investigation bodies that harm your legitimate interests.

These complaints are addressed, as a rule, to the hierarchically superior prosecutor, based on Articles 336 and 339 of the Code.

2.3. Specific complaints against non-prosecution solutions (Articles 339–341 CPC)

For solutions of non-prosecution (discontinuance or waiver of prosecution), the legislator has established a special two-step mechanism, detailed in Articles 339–341:

  1. First step – Complaint to the hierarchically superior prosecutor (Article 339):
    • must be lodged within 20 days from the date when the solution was communicated to you;
    • is solved by the hierarchically superior prosecutor, who can uphold, modify or quash the contested solution.
  2. Second step – Complaint to the preliminary chamber judge (Articles 340–341):
    • if the superior prosecutor rejects the complaint, you can address the preliminary chamber judge within 20 days from the communication of the prosecutor’s decision;
    • the judge examines the legality and soundness of the solution and may, depending on the case, uphold it or quash it and order further measures.

The strict character of these time-limits has been reaffirmed in recent Constitutional Court case-law, particularly in Decision no. 681/2024, which emphasises that the deadlines and the sequence of steps (prosecutor – judge) are designed as a coherent system of guarantees, but must be interpreted in a way that does not empty the right to an effective remedy of its substance.

In parallel, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, in its Decision no. 9/21 March 2022 (appeal in the interest of the law), clarified that when the hierarchically superior prosecutor changes the solution (for example, modifies the grounds of discontinuance), the complaint to the preliminary chamber judge will be examined by the judge attached to the prosecutor’s office that issued the last solution. This decision ensures a uniform practice regarding the competent court in such situations.

2.4. Reopening of criminal prosecution (Article 335 CPC) and its connection with the complaint

Reopening (“redeschiderea urmăririi penale”) is a distinct institution, regulated by Article 335 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It allows the prosecutor to reopen a criminal investigation closed by a discontinuance decision, in situations such as:

  • emergence of new evidence or new circumstances; or
  • need to ensure an effective investigation, particularly in serious cases or where previous investigation was inadequate.

According to recent doctrinal analyses – for instance, the study “Reopening the criminal prosecution to ensure an effective investigation”, published in the International Journal of Legal and Social Order – reopening must be understood as an exceptional remedy, closely linked to both national constitutional guarantees and to ECtHR jurisprudence on effective investigation (Article 2, 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights).

The relationship between reopening, the complaint against the solution and the ne bis in idem principle is not merely theoretical. In Mihalache v. Romania, the ECtHR analysed precisely the situation where criminal proceedings discontinued by a prosecutor’s order, accompanied by an administrative fine, were later reopened, and considered that this had led to a violation of the prohibition of double punishment for the same offence.

3. Complaint to the hierarchically superior prosecutor: who, when and how

3.1. Who can lodge the complaint?

The first step when challenging a solution of discontinuance or waiver of prosecution is the complaint to the hierarchically superior prosecutor, under Article 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Persons who are usually entitled to lodge such a complaint include:

  • the person who made the criminal complaint (injured person);
  • the suspect or defendant, if the discontinuance/waiver solution affects their rights or legal situation (for example, through the reasoning or the classification of facts);
  • other persons whose legitimate interests are directly affected (for example, civil parties or third parties whose goods have been seized).

The Constitutional Court has underscored that the formula “any person whose legitimate interests have been harmed” must be interpreted broadly, so that access to the complaint is not artificially restricted to a narrow category of formal “parties” to the proceedings. Decision no. 465/2020 explicitly confirms this interpretation, noting that Article 336 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes a general right to complain, linked to the concept of legitimate interest.

3.2. Time-limit: 20 days from communication

Under Article 339 paragraph (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complaint against a prosecutor’s solution of non-prosecution (discontinuance or waiver) must be lodged within 20 days from the date when the solution was communicated.

Several practical points are important here:

  • The time-limit normally starts from the date when you receive the notice (or when it is deemed communicated under the procedural rules).
  • It is essential to keep the envelope or the acknowledgment of receipt, because the date on the postal stamp or on the confirmation may be relevant in calculating the 20 days.
  • If the communication was done defectively (for example, to an old address known as no longer valid), this may be an argument in the complaint to the judge (second step), but it is safer to act as soon as you become aware of the solution.

Recent Constitutional Court jurisprudence (for example, Decision no. 681/2024) insists that these time-limits are part of the “architecture” of the effective remedy, but that interpretation and application must avoid disproportionate formalism that would make the complaint illusory in practice.

3.3. Where is the complaint filed and what should it contain?

The complaint is filed at the prosecutor’s office that issued the contested solution (prosecutor’s office attached to a court, specialised office such as DNA or DIICOT, or, where applicable, the prosecutor’s office attached to the EPPO in mixed cases), which forwards it to the hierarchically superior prosecutor.

For example:

  • if the solution was issued by the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the District Court, the complaint is solved by the prosecutor’s office attached to the Tribunal;
  • if the solution was issued by the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal, the complaint goes to the prosecutor’s office attached to the Court of Appeal;
  • if the solution was issued by the prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court or by a specialised directorate (DNA, DIICOT), the superior hierarchical structure is determined by law.

Although the law does not impose a rigid template, in practice a well-drafted complaint should include at least:

  • identification data of the petitioner (name, address, contact details, capacity – injured party, suspect, defendant, civil party, etc.);
  • identification of the contested document (number, date, issuing prosecutor’s office, file number);
  • short description of the factual situation (what happened, what was claimed, what the prosecutor found);
  • the arguments for which the solution is considered unlawful or unfounded:
    • errors in establishing the facts;
    • incorrect legal classification;
    • omission to administer essential evidence requested by the parties;
    • breach of rights (for example, the injured person was not heard);
    • insufficient or contradictory reasoning.
  • concrete requests (for example, quashing the solution and sending the case back for further investigation; change of the classification; formal acknowledgement of the injured party status; lifting of a seizure, etc.).

At this stage, the prosecutor may re-examine the file on the merits, can order the administration of new evidence, may change the classification or the solution itself, including by reopening the investigation under Article 335 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3.4. How is the complaint solved and what are the possible outcomes?

Article 339 paragraph (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the hierarchically superior prosecutor must, as a rule, solve the complaint within 20 days. In practice, this term is often exceeded, but the delay does not generally lead to the nullity of the solution; however, it can be relevant when assessing the effectiveness of the remedy from the perspective of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The hierarchically superior prosecutor may:

  • dismiss the complaint as unfounded and uphold the solution (discontinuance or waiver);
  • partially admit the complaint, for example by rephrasing the reasoning, changing some aspects of the classification, or ordering the administration of additional evidence; or
  • admit the complaint in full, quash the contested solution and:
    • order the reopening of the criminal investigation; or
    • adopt another solution (for example, indict the defendant, if the legal conditions are met).

The doctrine has analysed in detail the powers of the hierarchically superior prosecutor. A recent article in the “Universul Juridic” journal, dealing with re-examination of discontinuance decisions, emphasises that the superior prosecutor’s review should be a substantive one, not a purely formal confirmation, considering the entirety of the evidence and legal arguments.

Once the superior prosecutor has ruled, the person who lodged the complaint can still address the preliminary chamber judge, if they are dissatisfied with the new solution.

4. Complaint to the preliminary chamber judge (Articles 340–341 CPC)

4.1. Time-limit and competent court

Under Article 340 paragraph (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complaint against the solution of non-prosecution, after the hierarchically superior prosecutor has ruled, must be lodged within 20 days from the date of communication of the latter’s decision.

The complaint is filed with the preliminary chamber judge at the court to which the prosecutor’s office that issued the contested solution is attached. This rule was confirmed and clarified by the High Court of Cassation and Justice in its appeal in the interest of the law no. 9/2022, mentioned above, which settled divergences in judicial practice concerning cases where the hierarchically superior prosecutor changed the classification or other elements of the solution.

4.2. How does the preliminary chamber procedure unfold?

Initially, Article 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided for the possibility that complaints against the prosecutor’s solutions be solved in camera, without the parties’ participation. However, the Constitutional Court, through Decision no. 599/2014, declared unconstitutional the provision allowing the judge to rule without the parties’ presence, emphasising the need for an oral and adversarial procedure.

Subsequent decisions (such as Decision no. 408/2015 and Decision no. 243/2019) reaffirmed this approach and contributed to the current shape of Article 341, which ensures:

  • the right of the petitioner, the prosecutor and the person concerned by the solution to participate in the hearing and to present arguments;
  • the obligation of the judge to analyse both the legality and the soundness of the prosecutor’s solution;
  • the judge’s obligation to give reasons for the decision, with reference to the evidence and legal reasoning of the prosecutor.

In practice, the preliminary chamber judge:

  • examines the case file transmitted by the prosecutor’s office;
  • listens to the parties who appear and respond to the arguments in the complaint;
  • may request clarifications or additional documents (for example, proof of communication dates);
  • issues a motivated ruling, subject to appeal (under conditions and within the time-limits provided by law).

4.3. What can the judge decide?

Article 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for several possible solutions. Without reproducing the text word for word, the main options are:

  • Dismissing the complaint as unfounded – the judge finds that the prosecutor’s reasoning and the solution (discontinuance or waiver) are lawful and well-founded; the file remains closed in the criminal aspect (without affecting, where appropriate, the right to a civil action).
  • Admitting the complaint and quashing the solution – the judge may:
    • send the case back to the prosecutor’s office, with instructions on the issues to be clarified (for example, to hear a witness, perform an expert report, examine a certain document);
    • order the reopening of the criminal investigation, where the conditions of Article 335 are met.
  • In certain cases, referring the case directly to trial – following the changes required by the Constitutional Court, the law provides only strictly regulated situations in which the preliminary chamber judge may directly seize the court with the case; in practice, the most frequent solution when the complaint is admitted remains the quashing of the solution and sending the case back to the prosecutor.

Specialised literature – for example, the study “Verification of the discontinuance solution by the preliminary chamber judge” published in Forum Juridic – highlights that the judge’s role is not to substitute themselves for the prosecutor as regards the opportuneness of the criminal policy, but to ensure that the decision to discontinue or waive prosecution is based on a correct and complete assessment of the evidence and the law.

4.4. Can new evidence be produced before the judge?

The question whether new evidence can be produced at this stage has been controversial. The Constitutional Court and doctrine have generally taken the view that the preliminary chamber judge examines the legality and soundness of the solution based on the evidence existing in the file when the solution was adopted. New evidence is usually to be administered by the prosecutor, after the judge orders the reopening or further investigation.

From a practical standpoint, however, parties often attach documents supporting procedural arguments (for example, proof of late communication, evidence of a conflict of interest, new decisions of the Constitutional Court or ECtHR) to the complaint filed with the judge.

5. Complaints related to the indictment and other prosecutorial acts

5.1. Can you complain against the indictment itself?

The indictment is both the act by which the prosecutor orders the committal for trial and the document seizing the court. As such, its legality and content are primarily scrutinised in the preliminary chamber procedure, under Articles 342–345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Nevertheless, Article 336 of the Code allows a person to complain about “acts and measures” of criminal investigation bodies whenever their legitimate interests are harmed. In practice, there is a debate whether and to what extent an indictment can be attacked through a hierarchical complaint to the superior prosecutor, especially once the case has been forwarded to the court.

The prevailing opinion in case-law and doctrine is that, once the file has reached the court, the appropriate framework for contesting the indictment is the preliminary chamber, not the hierarchical complaint. The High Court of Cassation and Justice, in Decision no. 23/2022 on a preliminary question, underlined that defects of the indictment must be raised and analysed within the preliminary chamber, which is the natural “filter” for the legality of the referral to court.

For a detailed explanation of how the indictment is controlled in the preliminary chamber, you can consult the article already mentioned, “The Criminal Indictment (‘Rechizitoriu’) in Romanian Law: Why the Quality of the Charging Document Really Matters”.

5.2. Complaints against other acts and measures (Article 336 CPC)

Beyond non-prosecution solutions and indictment, complaints under Article 336 of the Code can target a multitude of acts and measures taken during the investigation, such as:

  • ordering, extending or modifying preventive measures (for example, judicial control);
  • authorising technical surveillance, searches or seizures;
  • refusing to carry out certain evidentiary acts requested by the defence or the injured party;
  • classification of the act in a way that affects the rights of the suspect/defendant;
  • refusal to acknowledge the status of injured person or civil party.

Some of these measures can also be challenged by other specific remedies (for example, complaints against search warrants or against orders authorising technical surveillance), but the general mechanism of Article 336–339 remains a key instrument in the strategy of the defence and of the injured party.

6. Strategic considerations: how to use the complaint effectively

6.1. For the person whose complaint was rejected by discontinuance or waiver

If you are an injured person whose criminal complaint has been dismissed by a discontinuance or waiver solution, the complaint mechanism is often the only way to obtain a full judicial review of the decision.

Some strategic points:

  • Analyse the reasoning carefully: the discontinuance order must contain the factual and legal grounds. If the reasoning is summary, contradictory or ignores essential evidence, these are important arguments for the complaint.
  • Check whether all your evidentiary requests were examined: if the prosecutor rejected, without explanation, key evidence that could clarify the case (for example, an expert report, witness hearing, obtaining documents), this may indicate an incomplete investigation.
  • Look at the legal classification: sometimes, the prosecutor classifies the act in a way that leads to limitation of criminal liability (for instance, uses a less serious offence with a shorter limitation period). This can be challenged if the facts show a different, more serious offence.
  • Correlate with ECtHR standards: in certain types of offences (ill-treatment by authorities, domestic violence, serious bodily harm, sexual offences), ECtHR case-law requires an effective investigation. A premature or superficial discontinuance may be criticised in light of these standards, with reference to ECtHR judgments such as Stăvilă v. Romania and other cases on ineffective investigations.

6.2. For the suspect or defendant seeking to avoid an indictment

Paradoxically, a suspect or defendant may sometimes be dissatisfied with a solution of discontinuance or waiver, for example:

  • where the reasoning leaves room for doubts or insinuations that may affect reputation;
  • where certain aspects remain open (for example, the possibility of reopening based on new evidence);
  • where the waiver of prosecution is accompanied by obligations or sanctions considered excessive.

In such cases, the complaint can be used to seek a clarification of the reasoning, a more favourable classification or even the full acknowledgement that the act does not constitute a crime. However, the strategy is delicate and should be carefully assessed with a lawyer, especially given the potential interaction with ne bis in idem and the possibility of reopening based on Article 335.

6.3. The relationship with reopening and ne bis in idem

From a strategic perspective, it is essential to keep in mind that:

  • a discontinuance or waiver solution that becomes final may, depending on the circumstances, be treated as a “final acquittal or conviction” within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights;
  • reopening of criminal prosecution without new evidence or fundamental defects in the original proceedings may raise ne bis in idem issues, as shown in Mihalache v. Romania and analysed in depth in academic literature on dual administrative and criminal sanctions.

At the same time, doctrinal contributions focused on reopening (for example, studies published in the International Journal of Legal and Social Order) highlight that reopening, when used correctly, is an instrument for bringing domestic practice in line with ECtHR standards regarding the effectiveness of investigations, especially in serious cases involving state agents.

6.4. Typical mistakes to avoid

Experience in practice shows several recurrent mistakes in complaints against prosecutorial solutions:

  • Missing the time-limit: many complaints are rejected as out of time simply because the 20-day time-limit (towards the superior prosecutor or towards the judge) was calculated incorrectly or the petitioner waited too long after receiving the notice.
  • Exclusively emotional reasoning: complaints based only on dissatisfaction (“I feel it is unfair”) without concrete references to evidence and law have a low chance of success.
  • Failure to address the prosecutor’s arguments: an effective complaint should respond directly to the reasons mentioned in the discontinuance/waiver order, not just repeat the initial criminal complaint.
  • Confusing the roles of the prosecutor and the judge: the preliminary chamber judge does not replace the prosecutor in the choice of criminal policy; arguments should focus on legality and soundness, not only on disagreements with the general orientation of the case.

7. The role of the defence lawyer in complaints against prosecutorial solutions

Although the law allows individuals to lodge complaints personally, practice shows that the assistance of a lawyer specialised in criminal law can make a significant difference, both in the quality of the arguments and in complying with procedural rules.

The article “Practical guide for a defendant ‘under siege’ in an EPPO case” illustrates, in the specific context of EPPO proceedings, the importance of a coherent defence strategy from the earliest stages of the investigation, including when challenging measures or solutions of the prosecution.

In complaints against discontinuance, waiver of prosecution or indictment, a lawyer can:

  • analyse in detail the reasoning of the prosecutor and identify legal weaknesses (for example, contradictory evaluation of evidence, incorrect application of limitation rules, failure to consider relevant ECtHR or CJEU case-law);
  • structure the complaint in a clear, concise and persuasive way, avoiding unnecessary digressions;
  • argue the case in the hearing before the preliminary chamber judge, answering the judge’s questions and responding to the prosecutor’s position;
  • coordinate the complaint strategy with other possible remedies (for example, future requests in the preliminary chamber, constitutional challenges, or even potential applications to the ECtHR).

For questions related to fees and the cost of such assistance, you can consult the article “Minimum fee for a lawyer in Bucharest: does a ‘minimum rate’ really exist and how do you actually choose the right lawyer for your case?”, which explains the structure of legal fees in Romania and the criteria used in practice.

8. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. How much time do I have to complain against a discontinuance or waiver of prosecution?

As a rule, you have 20 days from the date when the discontinuance or waiver solution is communicated to you to lodge a complaint with the hierarchically superior prosecutor (Article 339 paragraph (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). If the superior prosecutor rejects your complaint, you have another 20 days from the communication of this decision to address the preliminary chamber judge (Article 340 paragraph (1)).

2. Where do I file the complaint?

The complaint against the solution of discontinuance or waiver is filed with the prosecutor’s office that issued the contested solution, which forwards it to the hierarchically superior prosecutor. If you subsequently complain to the preliminary chamber judge, this complaint is filed with the court to which the prosecutor’s office that adopted the contested solution is attached.

3. Do I need a lawyer to file the complaint?

The law does not oblige you to be represented by a lawyer to file the complaint, but in practice the assistance of a criminal defence lawyer is strongly advisable. The issues involved (classification of the act, statute of limitations, completeness of the investigation, interaction with ECtHR case-law) are technical, and the complaint must respect strict time-limits and procedural rules. A specialised lawyer can help you build coherent arguments and avoid formal pitfalls.

4. Can I bring new evidence in the complaint to the judge?

As a rule, the preliminary chamber judge examines the legality and soundness of the solution based on the evidence existing in the file when the prosecutor adopted the decision. If your arguments require new evidentiary acts (for example, an expert report or hearing of new witnesses), the usual path is for the judge, if they admit your complaint, to quash the solution and send the file back to the prosecutor with instructions to administer that evidence.

5. What can the preliminary chamber judge decide regarding my complaint?

The judge can:

  • dismiss your complaint and uphold the prosecutor’s solution (discontinuance or waiver);
  • admit the complaint, quash the disputed solution and send the case back to the prosecutor’s office, with instructions regarding the issues to be clarified (for example, additional evidence, reconsideration of legal classification);
  • in strictly regulated situations, seize the court directly with the case (for example, when the judge considers that the legal conditions for committing the defendant for trial are met and that a new discontinuance would be manifestly unfounded).

6. Does filing a complaint suspend the effects of the discontinuance?

Generally, the discontinuance solution remains in force until the hierarchically superior prosecutor or the preliminary chamber judge decides otherwise. However, in practice, certain measures (such as the lifting of seizure or deletion of data from records) may be postponed until the solution becomes final. If you have an urgent interest (for example, access to seized assets), you should discuss with your lawyer whether additional requests are necessary.

7. Can the prosecutor reopen the case even if I did not file a complaint?

Yes. Under Article 335 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutor may reopen the criminal investigation ex officio, for example when new evidence appears that significantly changes the case or when it is necessary to ensure an effective investigation in line with ECtHR standards. However, reopening must comply with both domestic constitutional rules and the ne bis in idem principle as interpreted by the ECtHR in cases such as Mihalache v. Romania.

8. What happens if I miss the 20-day time-limit?

If the complaint is lodged after the expiry of the 20-day time-limit, the risk is that it will be dismissed as out of time. Constitutional Court case-law insists that time-limits must not be interpreted in a way that empties the right to an effective remedy of its content, but, in practice, courts apply these time-limits strictly. If you consider that the solution was not properly communicated, this argument should be expressly raised in the complaint, with supporting evidence (for example, postal documents).

9. Can I still bring a civil action if the discontinuance is maintained?

Yes. The discontinuance of criminal proceedings does not prevent you from pursuing a civil action for damages in civil courts. Article 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure explicitly regulates the hypothesis where the victim or their successors choose to bring the civil claim before a civil court, independently of the criminal proceedings or after the criminal court leaves the civil action undecided.

10. How much does a complaint against the prosecutor’s solution cost?

Unlike certain civil actions, complaints against prosecutorial solutions are not generally subject to court fees in the same way. However, you will have to consider:

  • the lawyer’s fee for drafting the complaint and representation before the prosecutor and the preliminary chamber judge;
  • any translation or expert costs if documents in foreign languages or expert opinions are necessary.

To understand how lawyers’ fees are structured in Bucharest and how to assess whether a fee is reasonable, you may consult the article “Minimum fee for a lawyer in Bucharest…”, which explains the main types of fees and the criteria used in practice.