Discontinuance of criminal prosecution in Romania

This article is for general information only and does not represent legal advice. Criminal cases are highly fact-specific. If you are involved in a criminal file (as suspect, defendant, injured party or civil party), you should seek personalised advice from a criminal defence lawyer.

1. Introduction – where does “clasarea urmăririi penale” fit in a Romanian criminal case?

In Romanian criminal procedure, not every criminal investigation ends with an indictment and a trial. In many files, the prosecution phase ends with a decision that the criminal prosecution will not continue – a solution known as “clasarea urmăririi penale”, usually translated in English as discontinuance of criminal prosecution or case dismissal at the investigation stage.

The solution of “clasare” is regulated mainly by Article 315 of the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code</strong (Codul de procedură penală), adopted through Law no. 135/2010. Article 315 connects directly with Article 16 of the Code, which lists the cases that prevent the initiation or continuation of the criminal action (for example, where the act does not exist, is not an offence, is time-barred, or the suspect is dead).

In practice, “clasarea urmăririi penale” is one of the most frequent outcomes at the prosecution stage. It can be favourable to the suspect or defendant (for instance when the act did not exist or they did not commit it), but it can also be unfavourable for the injured party (for example when the prosecutor considers that the facts do not constitute an offence or that criminal liability is time-barred).

Romanian law also provides multiple layers of control over such solutions: administrative complaints within the prosecution hierarchy and judicial review by the judge of the preliminary chamber, under Articles 340–341 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The purpose of this article is to explain, in accessible language:

what “clasarea urmăririi penale” means in Romanian criminal procedure;
which legal grounds allow the prosecutor to order discontinuance of the prosecution;
how the procedure works and who is notified;
what effects this solution has for your criminal record, seized assets and civil claims;
how you can challenge a solution of “clasare” if you consider it unlawful or unfair;
how Romanian case law (High Court of Cassation and Justice – ICCJ, Constitutional Court – CCR) and European rules (ECHR, EU law) influence the interpretation of such decisions.

Where relevant, we will refer to official sources such as the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code (Law no. 135/2010), decisions of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, decisions of the Constitutional Court of Romania, as well as case law and guidance of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and EU Directive (EU) 2016/343 on the presumption of innocence.

2. Legal framework of “clasarea urmăririi penale” in Romanian law

2.1. Main provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code

The key legal provisions governing “clasarea urmăririi penale” are:

Article 16 Criminal Procedure Code – “Cases preventing the initiation and exercise of the criminal action”. It lists situations where the criminal action cannot be initiated or, if it was initiated, cannot be further exercised (for instance: the act does not exist, the act is not provided by criminal law, there is no evidence that a person committed the act, the act is time-barred, amnesty, death of the suspect, previous final judgment, etc.).
Article 315 Criminal Procedure Code – regulates “Clasarea” (discontinuance of the prosecution). It explicitly states that “clasarea” is ordered when there is one of the cases listed in Article 16 or when the conditions for initiating the prosecution are not met. It also describes what the prosecutor’s order must contain (factual and legal reasons, measures concerning preventive measures, seizures, evidence, costs, etc.).
Articles 339–341 Criminal Procedure Code – govern the complaint against prosecutors’ acts and solutions, including those ordering discontinuance of the prosecution, and the procedure before the judge of the preliminary chamber (judecător de cameră preliminară).
Article 315(2) and related provisions – regulate how the order is served and how measures (such as seizure or preventive measures) are maintained or lifted.

The full official text of Law no. 135/2010 can be consulted on the Romanian government’s legislative portal: legislatie.just.ro. There are also consolidated versions and article-by-article breakdowns in professional databases such as Sintact or Lege5.

2.2. Soft-law guidance from the Public Ministry and Ministry of Justice

Beyond the code itself, there are practical guides and notes explaining how prosecutors should motivate and communicate discontinuance orders. For example:

A note of study by the Public Ministry on “Motivating the order of discontinuance”, which emphasises the obligation to state factual and legal reasons and to properly communicate the order to suspects and interested parties.
The Ministry of Justice brochure “Procesul penal pe înţelesul tuturor”, which explains, in accessible language, the stages of a criminal case, including decisions not to prosecute.

While these documents do not have the force of law, they help practitioners – and indirectly the parties – understand how a solution of “clasare” should be reasoned and communicated in practice.

2.3. Constitutional and high-court case law relevant for “clasare”

Certain constitutional and supreme court decisions have had a significant impact on the way discontinuance decisions are controlled and motivated. Two important examples:

Constitutional Court Decision no. 599/2014 – declared unconstitutional the version of Article 341(5) Criminal Procedure Code which allowed the judge of the preliminary chamber to rule on complaints against decisions of non-prosecution in a non-public procedure without summoning the parties, holding that this violated the right to a fair trial and access to justice.
High Court of Cassation and Justice Decision no. 47/2023 – gave a preliminary ruling on how to apply Article 16(1)(f), Article 309(1) and Article 315(1)(b) Criminal Procedure Code (conditions for discontinuance based on lack of reasonable suspicion) in the preliminary chamber phase. The High Court clarified, among others, how courts should verify whether the evidence supports the prosecutor’s conclusion that there is no reasonable suspicion justifying continuation of the prosecution.

These decisions influence, in practice, the way prosecutors motivate their orders and the way judges review them when a complaint is lodged.

3. What does “clasarea urmăririi penale” actually mean?

3.1. A decision that the criminal prosecution will not go further

“Clasarea urmăririi penale” means that the public prosecutor decides not to continue the criminal prosecution, either because it cannot be initiated at all, or because, once initiated, it cannot be further exercised due to one of the legal grounds of Article 16 Criminal Procedure Code.

In practical terms, “clasarea” is a decision that:

the criminal investigation is stopped and no indictment is sent to court on that particular charge against that particular person; and
the prosecutor closes the file, subject to possible complaints and judicial review.

However, the exact meaning and consequences of such a decision differ substantially depending on the legal ground on which it is based (for example: “the act does not exist” is not the same as “the criminal action is time-barred”).

3.2. “Clasare” versus acquittal by the court

Many people equate a solution of “clasare” with a court acquittal. In reality, the two are different procedural outcomes:

Acquittal is a decision of a criminal court, rendered after a public trial, which states that the defendant is not guilty for the charges (for example, because the act does not exist, the act is not an offence, the defendant did not commit it, or there is no evidence). It is regulated primarily by Article 396 Criminal Procedure Code.
Discontinuance (“clasare”) is a decision of the prosecutor, taken at the investigation stage, without a public hearing, which closes the file for one of the reasons listed in Article 16 Criminal Procedure Code.

That said, when “clasare” is ordered on grounds such as “the act does not exist” or “the suspect did not commit the act”, its practical impact on the suspect’s reputation and presumption of innocence can be similar to an acquittal, even though the procedural route is different. This links to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the presumption of innocence after discontinuance or acquittal, discussed further below.

3.3. Full versus partial discontinuance

In complex files, the prosecutor may order:

total discontinuance – for all acts and for all suspects/defendants;
partial discontinuance – for certain acts (for example, certain offences are time-barred), for certain suspects (for example, one suspect dies) or for a part of the factual situation, while the prosecution continues for other aspects.

Article 315 Criminal Procedure Code allows such nuanced solutions, and the order must clearly indicate for which acts and which persons the prosecution is discontinued and for which it continues (if at all).

4. Legal grounds for “clasarea urmăririi penale”

4.1. The link between Article 16 and Article 315 Criminal Procedure Code

Article 315(1)(b) Criminal Procedure Code explicitly states that discontinuance is ordered when there is one of the cases provided in Article 16(1).

Article 16(1) lists, in essence, the following situations:

the act does not exist;
the act is not provided by criminal law, or was not committed with the required mental element;
there is no evidence that a person committed the act;
there is a justification or an excuse (self-defence, state of necessity, minor age below criminal responsibility, etc.);
the act is covered by amnesty or decriminalised by a new law;
the criminal liability is time-barred (statute of limitations);
the prior complaint of the injured party or other precondition of punishment is missing, not filed in due time, or withdrawn;
there is a previous final judgment (res judicata) or a pending case on the same facts and against the same person;
the suspect or defendant has died or a legal person has ceased to exist.

Each of these grounds has its own technical requirements and practical implications. Professional commentaries on the Criminal Procedure Code (for example, doctrinal works and practical guides) analyse them extensively.

4.2. Substantive grounds: no offence or no liability

Some discontinuance grounds relate to the substantive criminal law assessment of the facts:

The act does not exist – for instance, the alleged incident never took place, or the report is fabricated.
The act is not an offence – the facts may be true, but they do not meet the legal definition of a criminal offence (they are either lawful or at most a civil or administrative wrong).
There is a justification or an excuse – for example, self-defence, state of necessity or lack of criminal responsibility due to age or mental condition.
Decriminalisation or amnesty – a new law decriminalises the act or an amnesty law removes criminal liability for that category of offences.

When discontinuance is ordered on these grounds, the solution strongly supports the person’s innocence or non-liability. This is particularly relevant for their reputation and potential civil claims for compensation (for example, for unjustified detention), under both national law and the European Convention on Human Rights.

4.3. Procedural grounds: statute of limitations, prior complaint, res judicata

Other grounds are mostly procedural in nature:

Statute of limitations (prescripţia răspunderii penale) – the legal time limit for holding a person criminally liable has expired. The prosecutor can no longer continue the prosecution, even if there is evidence. The ECtHR has repeatedly emphasised that such limitations pursue legal certainty but do not amount, by themselves, to a finding of innocence or guilt.
Lack, tardiness or withdrawal of the prior complaint – certain offences (for example, some forms of harassment, minor assaults or damage between private persons) require a prior complaint from the victim, filed within a specific period. If this complaint is missing, filed late or withdrawn, the prosecution cannot continue.
Res judicata or lis pendens – there is already a final judgment on the same facts and against the same person, or there is another ongoing case on the same matter. The principle “ne bis in idem” (no one should be tried twice for the same offence) is also protected at EU level by Article 50 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

In these scenarios, discontinuance reflects a legal obstacle rather than a clear statement about guilt or innocence. This is relevant when discussing the presumption of innocence (for example, in ECtHR cases such as Allen v. the United Kingdom, which examined how state authorities speak about a person after acquittal or discontinuance).

4.4. Lack of evidence and “reasonable suspicion”

A particularly sensitive ground is the one relating to the lack of evidence that a person committed the alleged offence. Article 16(1)(c) Criminal Procedure Code provides that the criminal action cannot be initiated or exercised if “there is no evidence that a person has committed the act”.

In connection with this ground, the High Court’s Decision no. 47/2023 clarified how courts should assess whether the evidence collected during the investigation suffices to maintain a “reasonable suspicion” justifying further prosecution, or whether the file should be discontinued. The decision emphasises the need for a careful analysis of the evidence, not just a formal reference to lack of reasonable suspicion.

From the perspective of the presumption of innocence, it is important that, when prosecutors or judges rely on this ground, they avoid ambiguous reasoning suggesting that the person is “probably guilty but the evidence is insufficient”. ECtHR case law (for example, Minelli v. Switzerland and Capeau v. Belgium) has held that such reasoning may violate Article 6(2) ECHR if it casts doubt on the innocence of a person whose case was discontinued or who was acquitted.

5. How the discontinuance procedure works in practice

5.1. From complaint to investigation and decision

Typically, a criminal file starts with a complaint, denunciation or ex officio notification, followed by the initiation of in rem proceedings and, later, by the formal notification of the suspect. The stages are described in detail in the Criminal Procedure Code and in training materials for magistrates.

Once the necessary investigative acts have been carried out, the prosecutor can:

order the continuation of the prosecution and, eventually, send an indictment to court; or
order the discontinuance (“clasare”) if one of the grounds in Article 16 is satisfied, or if the conditions for initiating or continuing the prosecution are not met.

5.2. Content and motivation of the discontinuance order

The discontinuance decision is contained in a prosecutor’s order (ordonanţă de clasare). According to Article 315(2) Criminal Procedure Code, this order must contain the elements listed in Article 286(2) (identification of the prosecutor’s office, the file, the parties, a description of the facts, the legal classification, the analysis of the evidence, the legal grounds, and the operative part of the solution), as well as specific decisions about preventive measures, seizures, evidence and costs.

The Public Ministry’s internal note on the motivation of discontinuance orders stresses that:

the factual description must be clear and coherent;
the legal reasoning must show why the conditions of Article 16 are met;
any reference to the suspect or defendant must respect the presumption of innocence and avoid language suggesting guilt.

5.3. Who is notified of the discontinuance and how?

Under the Criminal Procedure Code, the discontinuance order must be communicated to:

the person who filed the complaint or denunciation;
the injured party (persoana vătămată) and civil party, if any;
the suspect or defendant whose prosecution is discontinued;
other participants when their rights are affected by the decision (for example, those whose property is under seizure).

Practical guides for prosecutors emphasise that communication is essential, especially because the deadlines for lodging complaints start running from the date of communication.

5.4. What happens to preventive measures, seizures and evidence?

The discontinuance order must explicitly state what happens to:

preventive measures (detention, house arrest, judicial control) – they must be revoked if the prosecution is discontinued, since there is no longer a criminal action to justify them;
seizures and other protective measures – the prosecutor decides whether they are lifted, whether certain goods remain seized (for example, when they are confiscated by law), or whether they are returned to the rightful owner;
evidence – whether it is kept, destroyed, returned or attached to another file.

These decisions can have major practical consequences (for instance, when seized assets or bank accounts are at stake) and can also be scrutinised through complaints and judicial review mechanisms.

6. How can a discontinuance decision be challenged?

6.1. Complaint to the hierarchically superior prosecutor (Article 339)

The first level of control is a complaint to the hierarchically superior prosecutor, regulated by Article 339 Criminal Procedure Code.

Key aspects:

The complaint can be filed by persons affected by the solution (injured party, civil party, suspect, defendant, person whose complaint was rejected, etc.).
The complaint is examined by the chief prosecutor of the same prosecution office or by a higher-level prosecutor (for example, the prosecutor general of the court of appeal’s prosecution office or the head of a section of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court).
The superior prosecutor can maintain, change or annul the discontinuance order.

Article 339 has been analysed extensively in doctrine and case law, especially regarding which acts can be challenged and how the hierarchical complaint relates to the complaint before the court.

6.2. Complaint to the judge of the preliminary chamber (Articles 340–341)

After the hierarchical complaint, or sometimes directly (depending on the procedural situation), interested persons can file a complaint against the discontinuance decision before the judge of the preliminary chamber, under Articles 340–341 Criminal Procedure Code.

Important aspects:

The complaint is lodged at the court where the case would have been tried if an indictment had been issued (for example, the district court or the tribunal).
The judge of the preliminary chamber examines the legality and soundness (temeinicia) of the discontinuance decision.
The judge can:
- maintain the decision of discontinuance; or
- quash it and return the file to the prosecutor with instructions; or
- in some situations, order the initiation of the criminal action and send the case for trial.

The Constitutional Court’s Decision no. 599/2014 significantly changed the procedure by requiring that the parties be summoned, so that the complaint is examined in a truly adversarial and public setting, compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution and Article 6 ECHR.

6.3. Time limits and admissibility issues

Time limits for complaints are regulated by Articles 339–341 and must be carefully observed. Generally, the term starts from the date when the discontinuance order is communicated. Failure to meet the deadline may render the complaint inadmissible, with significant consequences for the possibility of judicial review.

In practice, there are numerous decisions dealing with the admissibility of such complaints, the standing of various parties, and the types of prosecutor’s acts that can be challenged. For example, practical repertories of case law in criminal procedure collect decisions on whether certain intermediate acts can be challenged directly or only together with the solution on the file.

7. Effects of discontinuance on your criminal case

7.1. Effects on criminal liability and criminal record

When the prosecution is discontinued, the criminal action is not exercised further against the suspect or defendant for the acts covered by the discontinuance order. This means:

no indictment is sent to court for those acts; and
no criminal conviction can be handed down on those charges, unless the file is reopened later according to the law.

Whether the discontinuance appears in your criminal record certificate depends on the specific ground and on how national regulations treat such entries. In general, final convictions, not prosecutorial discontinuance solutions, are the ones registered as criminal records. However, for security checks or certain professional verifications, administrative authorities might ask for more detailed data from the criminal records system, which can include information about past prosecutions and outcomes. It is therefore advisable to discuss this aspect with a lawyer if your professional situation is sensitive.

7.2. Effects on seized assets and other measures

As noted above, the discontinuance order must clarify the fate of seized assets and other measures. Improperly maintained measures can be challenged, and case law shows that courts are attentive to the proportionality and necessity of keeping restrictions once the prosecution has been discontinued.

The ECtHR has, in its own case law, examined measures such as the retention of seized assets after discontinuance or acquittal, to ensure that they do not amount to a disguised penalty or a violation of property rights and presumption of innocence.

7.3. Effects on civil claims and compensation

Discontinuance of the criminal prosecution does not automatically resolve any civil disputes arising out of the same facts. The injured party may still bring a civil claim (for example, for damages) before the civil courts, but the evidential and legal context may be influenced by the ground of discontinuance.

From the perspective of the suspect or defendant, certain grounds of discontinuance (such as “the act did not exist” or “the person did not commit the act”) may support, in principle, claims for compensation for unjustified detention or restrictions, under national regulations and the standards derived from Article 5 and Article 6 ECHR. Comparative studies show that compensation schemes vary significantly across Europe, but the ECtHR has developed criteria for assessing when denial of compensation violates the presumption of innocence (for example, in Allen v. the United Kingdom).

7.4. Reputation and the presumption of innocence after discontinuance

Even when the prosecution is discontinued, the way public authorities talk about the case remains crucial. Under Article 6(2) ECHR, everyone charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. This protection extends beyond the trial itself, to statements made in subsequent proceedings or official communications.

ECtHR case law (for example, Minelli v. Switzerland, Capeau v. Belgium and Allen v. the United Kingdom) has stressed that:

where a case is discontinued, authorities must avoid language implying that the person is guilty;
even in compensation proceedings, courts and authorities must not suggest that the person probably committed the offence, unless there was a conviction satisfying the standards of a fair trial.

Directive (EU) 2016/343, on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence, reflects this approach at EU level, requiring member states to ensure that public statements do not refer to suspects as guilty before a final conviction.

8. European and EU law influences on Romanian practice

8.1. Article 6 ECHR and ECtHR case law

Article 6(2) ECHR (“Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”) shapes national practice on discontinuance in at least two ways:

it obliges prosecutors and judges to respect the presumption of innocence when deciding to discontinue a case or to uphold such a solution; and
it prohibits public authorities from making statements implying guilt after a discontinuance decision.

The ECtHR’s HUDOC database and its thematic Key Theme guide on the presumption of innocence provide a structured overview of relevant judgments, including those dealing with discontinued proceedings and compensation for wrongful prosecution.

8.2. Directive (EU) 2016/343 on the presumption of innocence

Directive (EU) 2016/343 lays down common minimum rules concerning certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings. It binds Romania as an EU member state and has been transposed into national law by amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code and related legislation.

The Directive requires, among other things, that:

suspects and accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty by a final judgment;
public statements by public authorities do not present persons as guilty before conviction;
burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and any doubt is resolved in favour of the accused;
the rights to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself are respected.

Academic analyses, such as the study on the transposition of the Directive into Romanian law published in the Caiete de Drept Penal journal, highlight both progress and remaining challenges in aligning national practice (including the treatment of discontinued cases) with EU standards.

9. Practical perspectives: what should you do if your case is discontinued?

9.1. If you are the suspect or defendant

If you receive a discontinuance order as a suspect or defendant, you should:

read it carefully and note:
- the legal ground of discontinuance (for example, “the act does not exist”, “the act is not an offence”, “lack of evidence”, “statute of limitations”);
- what is decided about preventive measures, seized assets and evidence;
- the time limit for lodging a complaint if you are dissatisfied;
assess, with a lawyer, whether the solution fully clears your name or whether it would be preferable, in your situation, to seek judicial review (for instance, when discontinuance is based on statute of limitations rather than on lack of evidence);
analyse any potential consequences for your profession, business activities or travel.

For a broader understanding of how to choose a criminal defence lawyer and what to expect in terms of costs, you can consult related materials such as:

9.2. If you are the injured party or civil party

If you are the injured party and the prosecutor orders discontinuance, you should:

carefully check the reasoning and the legal ground;
determine, with legal assistance, whether a hierarchical complaint (Article 339) and a complaint before the judge (Articles 340–341) are advisable in your case;
consider whether to pursue a civil claim for damages in civil courts, especially where the discontinuance is based on procedural grounds (for example, statute of limitations).

Additional perspective on dealing with public authorities and administrative abuses can be found in articles concerning the reaction to unlawful administrative acts or the role of litigation strategies in protecting rights.

9.3. When should you definitely consult a lawyer?

Given the complexity of criminal procedure and the interaction with constitutional, European and EU standards, consulting a lawyer is highly advisable, especially when:

you are a suspect or defendant in a serious criminal case (for example, corruption, organised crime, financial crimes investigated by specialised prosecution bodies such as the National Anticorruption Directorate – DNA);
the discontinuance ground is controversial or does not fully reflect your view of the facts;
you are concerned about long-term reputational risks or wish to pursue compensation for unjustified measures.

For more specific topics on serious offences and specialised prosecutors’ competences, see for instance:

10. Frequently asked questions (FAQ) about “clasarea urmăririi penale”

FAQ 1 – Does discontinuance mean that I am officially declared innocent?

Short answer: It depends on the legal ground. If the discontinuance is based on grounds such as “the act does not exist” or “the suspect did not commit the act”, it comes very close to an explicit recognition that there is no basis for criminal liability. If it is based on statute of limitations or on lack of a prior complaint, it is more of a procedural solution and does not necessarily resolve all questions about the facts.

In all cases, the presumption of innocence continues to protect you under Article 6(2) ECHR and Directive (EU) 2016/343, and public authorities must not present you as guilty in the absence of a final conviction.

FAQ 2 – Will discontinuance appear in my criminal record certificate?

As a rule, the criminal record certificate shows final convictions, not prosecutorial decisions of discontinuance. However, more detailed information may be accessible to certain public authorities for specific purposes. If you are concerned about how previous investigations might affect your professional life, you should discuss this with a lawyer who can explain how criminal record and related databases operate in your specific situation.

FAQ 3 – Can the case be reopened after discontinuance?

Romanian law allows for the possibility of reopening a criminal investigation under certain strict conditions (for example, discovery of new evidence that substantially changes the case). Reopening usually requires judicial approval and must respect safeguards derived from the principle of legal certainty and the prohibition of double jeopardy (“ne bis in idem”). Whether reopening is possible in a specific case should be assessed in detail by a lawyer, by reference to the Criminal Procedure Code and to case law.

FAQ 4 – As an injured party, what can I do if the prosecution is discontinued?

You can normally:

file a complaint with the hierarchically superior prosecutor (Article 339 Criminal Procedure Code);
if necessary, file a complaint with the judge of the preliminary chamber (Articles 340–341 Criminal Procedure Code); and
where appropriate, pursue a civil claim for damages in civil courts.

The exact strategy depends on the reasons for discontinuance, the evidence available and the time limits that apply.

FAQ 5 – Can I ask for compensation after discontinuance?

Compensation for unjustified detention or other measures is governed by national legislation and by standards derived from Articles 5 and 6 ECHR, interpreted by the ECtHR in cases such as Minelli, Capeau and Allen. In principle, where you have suffered unjustified deprivation of liberty or serious restrictions and the case is discontinued in a way that supports your innocence or non-liability, you may have grounds to seek compensation. The details are complex, and specialised legal advice is essential.

FAQ 6 – Is a discontinuance decision “better” than an acquittal?

They are different. An acquittal is a court judgment after a trial, whereas discontinuance is a prosecutorial decision at the investigation stage. Strategically, in some cases a clear discontinuance based on “the act does not exist” or “the person did not commit the act” may be satisfactory for the suspect, especially if further litigation would be lengthy or stressful. In other cases, especially where the discontinuance is based on statute of limitations, the person may prefer a court acquittal that more clearly removes any suspicion. This is ultimately a strategic decision to be taken with your lawyer.

FAQ 7 – Does discontinuance prevent the injured party from going to civil court?

No. Discontinuance of the criminal prosecution does not automatically bar civil claims. The injured party can still bring a civil action for damages, but the court will assess the evidence and legal issues independently, subject to the interaction with any factual findings in the criminal file.

FAQ 8 – Do I need a lawyer to challenge a discontinuance decision?

While the law does not always require you to be represented, the complexity of criminal procedure, the short time limits and the interaction with constitutional and European standards make professional assistance highly advisable. A lawyer can analyse the motivation of the discontinuance order, identify possible errors and build a coherent strategy for complaints and subsequent steps.

FAQ 9 – Can public authorities publicly announce that my case was discontinued?

Yes, but they must do so in a way that respects the presumption of innocence. Under Article 6(2) ECHR and Directive (EU) 2016/343, public authorities may inform the public about ongoing or closed criminal proceedings but must avoid language that treats you as guilty in the absence of a final conviction.

FAQ 10 – Does discontinuance affect my ability to travel or obtain visas?

This depends on the country and the specific visa regime. Generally, a final conviction is more relevant than a discontinued investigation. However, some immigration or security authorities may have access to broader data on previous criminal files. If you anticipate such issues (for example, for immigration procedures or sensitive professional licences), you should discuss your situation with a lawyer who can help you prepare appropriate documentation and explanations.

11. Final remarks

“Clasarea urmăririi penale” is a central institution of Romanian criminal procedure. It aims to ensure that prosecutors do not send to trial cases where legal grounds or sufficient evidence are lacking, while at the same time offering injured parties and suspects meaningful avenues of review before higher prosecutors and independent judges.

Because discontinuance decisions can have long-term consequences for reputation, rights and compensation, it is important for everyone involved – suspects, injured parties and practitioners – to understand the legal framework, case law and European standards that apply. Whenever you are directly affected by such a decision, consulting a criminal defence lawyer familiar with both national practice and ECHR/EU requirements remains the safest course of action.