Material forgery in official documents: Romania

Definition of the offence and constitutive elements under the Criminal Code

Article 320 of the Criminal Code (Law no. 286/2009) defines the offence of material forgery in official documents as follows: “The falsification of an official document, by counterfeiting the writing or the subscription or by altering it in any way, capable of producing legal consequences, shall be punished by imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years”[1]. If the act is committed by a public official in the exercise of his or her duties, the penalty is imprisonment from 1 to 5 years and a ban on certain rights[2]. The law provides that the attempt is punishable[3], and tickets, vouchers or any other printed forms capable of producing legal consequences are treated as official documents[4].

In the analysis of the constitutive elements of this offence, the following can be distinguished:

Legal interest protected

The social value protected is the public confidence in the authenticity and veracity of official documents. The purpose of criminalisation is to safeguard the safety of legal relations, since without confidence in official acts social relationships would only be possible with great caution and inevitable risks[5][6]. In other words, the falsification of official documents threatens the rule of law and the authority of institutions, undermining the credibility of documents evidencing rights or legal situations.

Material object

The material object is the official document that is the subject of the forgery. The Criminal Code defines the official document (Article 178(2) Criminal Code) as any document issued by a public authority, a public institution or by a person performing a service of public interest (e.g. public notaries, bailiffs, etc.)[7]. Therefore, for the offence to exist, the forged document must fall within this category (or be assimilated to it, according to Article 320(3) Criminal Code).

The material object exists with certainty in the case of the alteration of a pre-existing document. In the modality of counterfeiting (creating a false document from scratch), the doctrine accepts that the resulting document is the product of the offence, not a pre-existing material object[8][9].

Active subject

In its basic form (Article 320(1)) the active subject is general, the act being capable of being committed by any person, whether a public official or a private individual[10]. In the aggravated variant (Article 320(2)), the active subject is special – a public official acting in the exercise of his or her duties[11]. This requirement qualifies the act and attracts the more severe penalty.

Criminal participation is possible in any form (co-authorship, instigation, complicity). In the case of participation, the status of public official is imputable to instigators and accomplices only if they were aware of this special circumstance[12]. The passive subject is, primarily, the public authority whose document has been falsified and, more generally, the public confidence in official acts – society as a whole, as holder of the protected value.

Objective element

The objective element consists in the act of falsifying an official document, carried out either by counterfeiting the writing or the signature, or by altering the document in any way (modifications, additions, erasures, etc.)[13]. It is essential that the forgery be capable of producing legal consequences[1] – that is, the resulting document must be apt, by its appearance of authenticity, to produce legal effects (to create, modify or extinguish rights or obligations).

It is not required that the effects actually occur, but only that the forged document be capable of deceiving in the context in which it would be used[13]. For example, the falsification of an administrative act that is clearly void (lacking essential elements) may fail to meet this requirement, as it is not capable of producing any valid legal effect[14][13]. The offence is consummated at the moment of falsifying the document, without its actual use being necessary (use of the falsified document constitutes a separate offence – use of false documents).

Subjective element

The offence requires direct or indirect intent. The forger acts knowingly, wishing or accepting the alteration of the truth in the official document. No special purpose is required (unlike in other deceptive offences, such as fraud), such as obtaining a benefit – it is sufficient to have the intent to create or use an untrue document as if it were authentic. A mere “joke” or experiment with a false official document may nevertheless entail liability, if the other elements are met, since the existence of the offence is not made conditional by the law on the production of damage or on a specific motive.

Purpose of criminalisation and socio-legal implications

The rationale for criminalisation lies in protecting the proper functioning of the authorities and the public’s confidence in official documents. Official acts (such as court judgments, certificates, registers, attestations, etc.) form the basis for recognising and guaranteeing rights and legal situations. Any impairment of their authenticity can generate serious consequences: undeserving persons obtain benefits or rights (for example by using false diplomas or titles), administrative or judicial decisions are vitiated, property or other civil relations become uncertain. In this sense, it has been stressed that forgeries in documents “affect the confidence placed in official documents or in documents under private signature”, and that without the guarantee of the veracity of documents, social relations would be seriously disrupted, taking place only with “arduous precautions and inevitable risks”[5].

The social implications of material forgery in official documents are therefore profound. In the short term, each falsified document can cause direct harm (to an institution or a person): for example, the wrongful issuance of a “clean” criminal record, obtaining a loan with forged documents, the illegal registration of a vehicle, etc. In the long term, the proliferation of such forgeries erodes the authority of laws and institutions – citizens and private entities can no longer be certain that the official acts on which they rely (contracts, judgments, authorisations) are authentic. Public confidence (fides publica) is the foundation of the rule of law; therefore, the forgery of official documents is classified by the Criminal Code among the offences against public confidence (Title VII of the Special Part).

The legal implications also include the nullity or ineffectiveness of falsified acts. An official document that is false does not produce valid legal effects, and if it has nevertheless been used, any acts or agreements based on it may be annulled (for example, a false title deed entails the nullity of subsequent transactions). Moreover, the courts may order the annulment of the forged document even in the criminal trial (as a complementary measure)[15], in order to remove the false document from civil circulation.

Last but not least, the forgery of official documents is often an instrument for other offences: it frequently appears in concurrence with corruption offences, fraud (e.g. the use of forged documents to obtain EU funds unlawfully[16][17]), tax evasion or fraud (înșelăciune). Thus, the purpose of the legislator is also to prevent and punish, at an early stage, more complex fraudulent actions – by stopping the forgery of the document before it is used for a larger-scale fraud.

Relevant case-law in Romania

In national judicial practice, the offence of material forgery in official documents appears both as a stand-alone act and in concurrence with the use of forged documents or other offences. The High Court of Cassation and Justice has, for example, emphasised the uniqueness of the social value harmed by the falsification of an official document and by its use: public confidence is affected only once, even if the perpetrator both falsifies and uses the document, the two actions targeting the same document[6][18].

In Criminal Decision no. 343/2014 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (Criminal Section), the court held that the material falsification of an official document and the use of the forged document committed by the same person do not, in principle, justify treating them as two separate offences that would entail a real concurrence, since the acts are focused on the same object and injure the same protected value. Nevertheless, in our legal system, the use of the falsified document is incriminated separately (Article 323 Criminal Code), so that in practice the perpetrator will be liable both for forgery and for use of forged documents if he or she carries out both actions (possibly in a formal concurrence, punished according to the rules of Article 38 Criminal Code).

Examples from recent case-law

Romanian courts have decided numerous cases of material forgeries in official documents. For example, the Bucharest Court of Appeal, by Decision no. 111/A/2020, convicted a defendant who had forged several official university diplomas and professional certificates subsequently used for employment, holding that there was a concurrence of the offences of material forgery and use of forged documents (the judgment underlined the seriousness of the act through the deception of the authorities and the undermining of fair access to regulated professions).

In another case, the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Panel for the clarification of questions of law – ruled, by Decision no. 18/2017, on the distinction between material forgery committed by a public official and intellectual forgery: it clarified that when a public official falsifies a document outside his or her official duties (thus without any link to the issuance of that document), the act does not fall within the aggravated form of Article 320(2), but remains within the basic form under paragraph (1) (it then being necessary to analyse whether, depending on the situation, it might not be classified as intellectual forgery if it involves the attestation of untrue facts)[19][20]. This nuance was necessary in order to delineate competence: a public official who counterfeits, for example, an attestation which does not fall within his or her official duties will not be liable for intellectual forgery (which requires the action to be taken in the exercise of official duties), but for simple material forgery.

Mention should also be made of the practice of anti-corruption bodies: many National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) cases include counts of material forgery in official documents, especially when public documents are falsified to conceal frauds. One example is the case brought to court by the indictment of DNA Alba Iulia no. 86/P/2017, where a company and its representatives were charged with using forged documents (attestations issued by public institutions) to wrongfully obtain EU funds, as well as with instigation to intellectual forgery in official documents[17][21]. The courts ordered the annulment of the forged documents and the punishment of the defendants, highlighting the increased social danger of forgeries in the context of fraud against public funds.

International case-law (ECtHR and CJEU)

At international level, cases concerning the falsification of official documents have been analysed mainly from the perspective of the procedural rights of those accused, rather than of the constitutive elements (which fall within national substantive criminal law).

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

The European Court of Human Rights has had occasion to rule on issues of fair trial in cases of forgery and use of forged documents.

In Serrano Contreras v. Spain (2012), a defendant initially acquitted of fraud and forgery was subsequently convicted on appeal without a fresh taking of evidence – the ECtHR found a violation of the right to defence, stressing that a person accused of forgery of official documents must be clearly informed of the reclassification of the facts and have the opportunity to defend himself on the new charge[22][23].
In D.M.T. and D.K.I. v. Bulgaria (2012), the Court examined a situation where the national courts had reclassified the acts imputed to the applicant from several acts of continued forgery into a single act of forgery – concluding that, as long as the essential element (the forged act) had been present in the initial accusation, the reclassification did not infringe the right to a fair trial[22].
In Hessenthaler v. Austria (2025), the ECtHR declared inadmissible the application of a claimant who alleged that his criminal prosecution for drug trafficking and possession of false official documents had been politically motivated. The Court found that the domestic proceedings had been fair and free from political influence, and that the defendant’s rights had not been violated[24][25].

These cases show that the possession and use of false official documents (e.g. passports, identity documents) are often associated with cross-border crime, and the ECtHR is sometimes called upon to verify whether the investigation of such acts has been conducted with respect for human rights.

Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)

The Court of Justice of the European Union does not try concrete criminal cases of forgery, but influences the field through its interpretation of relevant EU legislation.

Directive (EU) 2017/1371 on the protection of the financial interests of the Union (the PIF Directive) obliges Member States to penalise the use of false documents to unlawfully obtain EU funds. In this context, the CJEU has stressed the need for effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for offences involving the falsification of official documents, so that fraudsters of EU funds do not go unpunished.

European judicial cooperation (through Eurojust, joint investigation teams, the European arrest warrant) pays particular attention to forgery offences, since mutual recognition of criminal judgments presupposes confidence in the authenticity of official documents. An example is the judgment in Case C-105/14 Taricco (CJEU, 2015), where the Court discussed the limitation period for frauds with forged documents against the EU budget; the CJEU insisted on the importance of repressing such frauds, even though the decision mainly concerned general criminal law aspects (limitation).

In conclusion, European case-law confirms that forgery in official documents is regarded as a serious offence, and that judicial proceedings – national or cross-border – must ensure both that perpetrators are brought to justice and that their procedural rights are guaranteed.

Distinction from other forms of forgery in documents

Romanian criminal law includes several offences of forgery in documents, each with its own particularities, which it is important to distinguish.

Material forgery in official documents (Article 320 Criminal Code)

The subject of this article, material forgery in official documents, consists in the physical falsification of an official document (by counterfeiting or alteration), irrespective of the status of the perpetrator. The penalty is 6 months to 3 years’ imprisonment, respectively 1 to 5 years if it is committed by a public official in the exercise of his or her duties[1].

Intellectual forgery (Article 321 Criminal Code)

Intellectual forgery consists in the falsification of an official document at the time of its drawing up, by a public official acting in the exercise of his or her duties (thus only a qualified perpetrator). In practice, this means the attestation of untrue circumstances or the omission to insert real data in the content of an official act which the public official lawfully draws up[26].

Example: a civil status officer who records a birth in the register at a different date than the real one commits intellectual, not material forgery (he does not “physically falsify” an existing document, but directly draws up a document with false content). The penalty provided is imprisonment from 1 to 5 years[27].

The fundamental difference from material forgery lies in the modality – here the forgery is one of content, not of form, and the perpetrator must be a public official acting in the exercise of duties (the forgery occurs in the original act, upon issuance). Intellectual forgery and material forgery can coexist: for example, a public official may both record false data in an official act (intellectual forgery) and counterfeit a colleague’s signature on that act (material forgery) – two offences in concurrence.

Forgery in documents under private signature (Article 322 Criminal Code)

Forgery in documents under private signature concerns the falsification of documents which are not official, but bear only the signature of private persons (civil contracts, IOUs, receipts, etc.). This forgery can be committed by any of the modalities in Article 320 (material) or Article 321 (intellectual)[28], but it is an offence only if the forged private document is used by the perpetrator or handed over to another person for use, with a view to producing legal consequences[29].

This condition reflects the fact that the law primarily protects civil circulation – if someone falsifies a private document but does not attempt to use it, the act remains outside criminal unlawfulness (it may have only civil consequences). The penalty is similar to the basic form of forgery in official documents: imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years or a fine[29].

Example: if a person alters a sale-purchase contract between private individuals and tries to use it to claim a right, he or she will be criminally liable under Article 322. However, if he or she merely falsifies the document without using it, the offence cannot be retained (unlike forgery in official documents, which is already consummated upon falsification).

Use of forged documents (Article 323 Criminal Code)

Use of forged documents consists in using an official or private document knowing that it is forged, with a view to producing legal consequences[30]. In practice, this is the offence of the person who did not forge the document himself or herself but uses it as if it were authentic (or forwards it to someone else to be used).

The penalty differs:

if the document used is official, imprisonment from 3 months to 3 years (or a fine);
if it is under private signature, 3 months to 2 years (or a fine)[30].

Use of forged documents is usually retained alongside the offence of material or intellectual forgery when the forger uses the document himself or herself (as mentioned, Romanian judicial practice punishes both acts). However, if the person who has used the forged document is not the same as the forger, there will then be two distinct perpetrators: one for forgery, the other for use of forged documents.

Computer forgery (Article 325 Criminal Code)

Computer forgery is a separate incrimination covering the alteration of computer data (input, modification, deletion of data, without right), resulting in data that do not correspond to the truth, where the act is committed with the purpose of using the data to produce legal consequences[31].

Computer forgery, although conceptually related (alteration of the truth in information), does not involve a “document” in the traditional sense, but electronic data. The law expressly requires the special intent to use the false data to produce a legal effect (a requirement similar to that of use of forged documents). The offence emerged in order to cover situations of forgery in electronic documents (for example, unauthorised alteration of data in an official database or the issuance of false digital certificates).

In practice, a distinction must be made: traditional material forgery targets the document as a physical object, whereas computer forgery concerns the content of computer data. Decision no. 4/2021 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice confirms this distinction, holding that the mere creation of a user account with another identity on a social network (where there is no official document and no guarantee of authenticity is required) does not meet the elements of computer forgery under Article 325 Criminal Code[32][33].

Electronic transactions, however, raise new issues – for example, an advanced electronic signature is equivalent to a handwritten signature in many situations, and its falsification may, depending on the case, meet the elements of material forgery (if the electronic document is regarded as a “document” in the legal sense) or those of computer forgery. Legislation and doctrine are continuously evolving in order to draw clear lines in these technical matters.

Other forgery offences

The Criminal Code also provides for:

the falsification of official instruments (stamps, seals – Article 288 of the 1969 Criminal Code, with an equivalent in the new code under special offences);
the falsification of technical registers (Article 324 Criminal Code, e.g. altering data in a tachograph or approved weighing device)[34].

These also protect authenticity, but in a narrower sense (e.g. the integrity of official technical records). Furthermore, counterfeit currency or stamps is incriminated separately, among the offences against the safety of currency (Articles 310–312 Criminal Code), with a much more severe penalty regime.

Essential distinctions

Material forgery vs intellectual forgery – in material forgery, the physical form of the document is altered; in intellectual forgery, the content of the act is untrue from the moment of its issuance, but the document as a form is authentic.
Forgery in official documents vs private documents – forgery in official documents is punishable even if no effects have occurred (being per se an attack on public authority), whereas for private documents use is required (the law considering that a “dormant” forgery in a drawer does not affect public order).

Such fine distinctions have major practical implications: the correct legal classification depends on the status of the perpetrator, the nature of the document and the concrete action.

Legislative equivalents and comparisons in European criminal law

Many European states recognise offences similar to forgery in official documents, although there are differences in terminology, legal structure and severity of penalties.

France

Le faux en écriture is regulated in the French Criminal Code (Articles 441-1 et seq.). French legislation expressly defines forgery as “any fraudulent alteration of the truth, capable of causing prejudice, carried out by any means, in a document or other medium used to express thought, intended or capable of establishing proof of a right or of a fact having legal consequences”[35].

A distinction is made between:

faux matériel (material falsification of the document);
faux intellectuel (forgery of content).

Forgery in public or authentic documents (faux en écriture publique ou authentique) is considered particularly serious – a crime, under the jurisdiction of the Cour d’assises. It is punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine of EUR 150,000 (Article 441-4 Criminal Code)[36]. An example is the falsification of a notarised deed or a police report, which constitutes faux en écriture publique and is punished severely.

French law also provides an aggravating circumstance where the forgery is committed by a holder of public authority or by a person entrusted with a public service, in the exercise of official functions[37] – practically similar to the distinction between forgery committed by a public official and that committed by a private person. As a rule, in France forgery and use of forged documents (usage de faux) are prosecuted together, both being incriminated (use of forged documents is provided in the same Article 441-1 Criminal Code).

In conclusion, French law emphasises the fraudulent and harmful nature of forgery, focusing on protecting public and private confidence in documents, with proportionately higher penalties for forgeries concerning official acts.

Germany

The German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) deals with forgery offences under the heading Urkundenfälschung (§267 StGB) – forgery of documents. The approach is different in that German law does not distinguish between official and private documents in the basic definition: any Urkunde (document which proves a fact with legal relevance) is protected.

The distinctive subjective element is the purpose of deceiving in legal transactions (zur Täuschung im Rechtsverkehr) – in other words, there must be an intention to mislead someone by using the forged document[38].

The acts incriminated include:

the manufacture of a forged document;
the alteration of an authentic document;
the use of a forged or altered document[39];

all falling under the same offence (in contrast to the Romanian system, where forgery and use are separate offences).

The basic penalty is up to 5 years’ imprisonment or a fine[38]. Attempt is expressly punishable[40]. German law provides for especially serious cases (besonders schwere Fälle), with increased penalties (6 months to 10 years) – for example, where the forgery is committed professionally or by an organised group, where it has caused large-scale pecuniary damage, or where the perpetrator has abused his or her status as public official in committing the forgery[41][42].

Thus, in Germany too there are aggravating circumstances for the involvement of public authority, but they are treated as aggravated forms of the same offence. An interesting aspect is that forgery of German documents also covers their use, so that a forger caught with false documents in his possession will often be charged under the same §267 StGB, without the need for a separate charge of “use of forged documents”.

Moreover, forgery relating to special official documents (such as passports, identity documents) has distinct or additional provisions in special laws, but remains embedded in the general philosophy of protecting the security of legal transactions (Rechtsverkehr).

Italy

The Italian Criminal Code includes detailed offences on forgery, grouped “contro la fede pubblica” (against public faith). The Italian system clearly distinguishes between:

forgery committed by a public official vs forgery committed by a private individual;
material forgery vs ideological forgery.

Article 476 Criminal Code punishes “falsità materiale commessa dal pubblico ufficiale in atti pubblici” – the material (physical) falsification of a public act by a public official in the exercise of his or her duties, with imprisonment from 1 to 6 years[43]. If, however, the forged act is a public act which constitutes proof until querela di falso (i.e. an official document with full probative force, e.g. a notarised document, a civil status register), the penalty increases to 3 to 10 years[44], indicating the increased seriousness.

Complementarily, Article 482 Criminal Code refers to “falsità materiale commessa dal privato” – practically the same conduct of material falsification of a public act, but committed by a private individual. The penalty in this case is that provided by Article 476, reduced by one third[45]. Thus, a private person who falsifies an official act receives a lighter penalty than a public official who falsifies the same act.

Similarly, for ideological forgery:

Article 479 Criminal Code punishes false statements made by a public official in a public act (1–6 years’ imprisonment)[46];
Article 483 Criminal Code punishes false statements made by a private individual in a public act (up to 2 years’ imprisonment)[47].

For example, a citizen who makes an untrue declaration in an official document commits ideological forgery by a private person, punished more mildly.

A notable element of Italian law (following the 2016 reform) is the decriminalisation of forgery in private documents: the former Article 485 Criminal Code, which punished forgery in private writings, was repealed and the act was decriminalised[48]. At present, the falsification of a private document in Italy is no longer a criminal offence, and may only entail civil liability (damages) – except where that document is used in a public act or produces public consequences (when it falls under other offences).

This change shows the emphasis placed by the Italian system on forgeries affecting the public sphere: criminal law resources are focused on protecting the authenticity of official acts and fede pubblica, while forgeries strictly between private individuals are left to the civil courts. Italy also punishes “uso di atto falso” (Article 489 Criminal Code) – use of a forged act – and “soppressione o distruzione di atto vero” (destruction or removal of genuine acts, Article 490 Criminal Code), offences connected to forgery that complete the protection framework for documents.

Other European states

Other European legislation contains similar variants:

Spain – the Spanish Criminal Code defines the official document and separately punishes forgery of public documents vs forgery of private documents, with heavier penalties for the former (e.g. falsedad en documento público may carry up to 6 years’ imprisonment, while en documento privado up to 3 years, under Articles 390–392 Spanish Criminal Code). Spain also has the notions of documento mercantil (commercial document) and documento oficial administrativo, each with its own regime.
Austria, the Netherlands and other states – the approach is similar to the German one, focusing on the broad concept of “document” and the intention to commit fraud by forgery.
United Kingdom – the acts would be classified either as forgery (forgery of written instruments, under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981) or as uttering a forged document (presenting/spreading a forged document knowing it to be forged). The common law system focuses on the fraudulent element – for example, the Fraud Act 2006 includes the use of false instruments as a modality of fraud.

Comparative conclusions

Comparatively, it can be noted that:

All systems protect official documents as pillars of legal order, with specific offences and severe penalties.
Many countries (France, Italy, Romania) distinguish between forgery committed by a public official and forgery committed by a private individual, the former being considered more serious (because of the abuse of power involved).
Approaches differ as regards private documents – some punish them criminally (Romania, France, Spain, Germany), others have removed them from the criminal sphere (Italy, in part).
Terminology differs – from faux matériel/idéologique in the Francophone world, to falsità materiale/ideologica in the Italian one, or Urkundenfälschung in the German one – but the essence is the same: protecting the truth and authenticity of documents with legal value.

Contemporary trends show adaptation to new realities – for example, most countries have introduced offences for forgery in the IT environment or forgery of electronic means of payment, reflecting the digitalisation of society.

Conclusions and perspectives

The importance of combating forgery in official documents remains beyond doubt in a state governed by the rule of law. Official acts – from birth certificates and diplomas to court judgments and title deeds – are the backbone of legality and public confidence. An administrative and judicial system cannot function if the authenticity of these documents is constantly called into question. Therefore, legislation provides for relatively severe penalties even when the forgery has not actually caused immediate damage: the danger it represents for public order justifies a firm approach.

The practical challenges in combating this type of offence are multiple:

detecting forgeries often requires technical expertise (graphoscopic, document examination), since modern forgeries can be highly sophisticated, involving advanced technology (secured printing, forged holograms, etc.). Bodies such as the National Institute of Forensic Expertise play a crucial role in determining whether a document is forged and how it was falsified;
the cross-border dimension complicates matters: the falsification of identity documents, driving licences or vehicle registration documents is often linked to international networks (for illegal migration, trafficking in goods or tax evasion). This requires close international judicial cooperation – both at EU level (via Eurojust, Europol, exchanges of information between civil status registers) and globally (UN Conventions against transnational organised crime, which also cover forgery of identity documents).

Legislative developments are moving towards covering new forms of forgery. As electronic documents replace paper (for example, documents in electronic form, public databases, COVID digital certificates, etc.), legislators will have to ensure that falsification of these is punished just as effectively. Romania already has computer forgery and incriminations in special laws (for example, forgery of electronic means of payment). The next step might be the explicit regulation of the “electronic document” as an object of material forgery, in order to cover situations where a document does not exist on paper at all, but only electronically.

Finally, prevention is just as important as repression. Administrative measures such as increased security of documents (special paper, anti-forgery elements) and digitalisation with verified electronic signatures can reduce opportunities for falsification. Likewise, civic and professional education of public officials on the rigour required in completing official acts and the responsibility they bear may prevent intellectual forgeries or complicity in forgery.

Combating material forgery in official documents is therefore a continuous struggle, requiring both an adequate legal framework, harmonised with international standards, and appropriate resources and expertise. Only by preserving the integrity of official documents can citizens’ confidence in the authorities and the stability of legal relations be ensured. The Romanian judicial system, aligned with European practices, continues to treat these acts seriously, being aware that the truth recorded in documents is sometimes just as important as factual truth – both lying at the basis of justice and legality in a democratic society.

Selective bibliography and sources cited

Romanian Criminal Code (Law no. 286/2009, as subsequently amended) – Articles 320 (Material forgery in official documents) and 321–325[1][26][28][30].
Florina Suciu – “Falsul material în înscrisuri oficiale. Analiză și perspective” (“Material forgery in official documents. Analysis and perspectives”), article in Revista Penalmente Relevant no. 1/2022 (pp. 32–68)[10][6] – detailed doctrinal analysis of the elements of the offence, with references to doctrine (Dongoroz, Streteanu, Bogdan et al.) and case-law (HCCJ Decisions 343/2014, 18/2017 etc.).
High Court of Cassation and Justice – Decision no. 343/2014 (Criminal Section)[6][18]; Decision no. 18/2017 (Panel for preliminary rulings on questions of law) – on the relationship between material forgery by a public official and intellectual forgery; Decision no. 4/2021 (HP – in criminal matters)[32] – on the non-classification of creating a fake social media account as computer forgery.
European Court of Human Rights – Serrano Contreras v. Spain (no. 2), judgment of 20 January 2012 (application no. 2236/07)[22]; D.M.T. and D.K.I. v. Bulgaria, judgment of 24 July 2012 (applications nos. 29476/06 and 31039/08)[49]; Hessenthaler v. Austria, inadmissibility decision of 18 September 2025[24] – on the right to a fair trial in the context of forgery charges.
French Criminal Code – Articles 441-1, 441-2, 441-4 (text updated 2021)[35][37]; German Criminal Code – §267 StGB Urkundenfälschung[39][41]; Italian Criminal Code – Articles 476, 479, 482, 483 (Criminal Code of 1930, republished)[43][44][47]; Spanish Criminal Code – Articles 390–393 (Código Penal, Ley Orgánica 10/1995).
Mattia Fontana – “Falso in atto pubblico: tipologie, pena e prescrizione” (2021)[43][45][48] – explanatory article (Italy) on forgery in public acts, including the legislative changes of 2016 concerning the decriminalisation of forgery in private documents.
Justifit.fr (France) – “Faux en écriture publique: ce que dit la loi” (2021)[35][36] – legal guide for the public summarising the definition and penalties of forgery of public acts in French law.
Scribd.com – “Principalele aspecte care delimitează infracțiunile de fals…” (“The main aspects delimiting forgery offences…”) (academic paper, 2022)[5][7] – clearly presenting the legal interest in forgery and the legal definition of the official document under Article 178 Criminal Code.
Press releases and practice of the National Anticorruption Directorate – e.g. DNA Alba Iulia Press Release no. 102/VIII/3 of 11.11.2019[17][21] (case of use of falsified official documents for EU funds); decisions of Courts of Appeal (e.g. Bucharest Court of Appeal, Decision 111/A/2020) – unpublished officially, cited in legal media.

This analysis has been based exclusively on official sources (legal texts, court decisions) and doctrinal sources (specialist articles, code commentaries), in order to provide accurate and verified information on the offence of material forgery in official documents.[50][43]

[1] [2] [3] [4] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [34] Falsuri în înscrisuri – Capitolul iii – Codul Penal din 2009 (Legea nr. 286/2009) – Codul Penal din 2009 – SintactLegeFree
https://sintact.ro/legislatie/monitorul-oficial/codul-penal-din-2009-legea-nr-286-2009-16901302/cz-ii-tyt-vi-roz-iii

[5] [7] [13] [14] Principalele Aspecte Care Delimitează Infracţiunile de Fals În Înscrisuri Oficiale, Fals În Înscrisuri Sub Semnătură Privată Și Fals Intelectual | PDF
https://ro.scribd.com/document/572878424/Principalele-aspecte-care-delimiteaz%C4%83-infrac%C5%A3iunile-de-fals-in-inscrisuri-oficiale-fals-in-inscrisuri-sub-semn%C4%83tur%C4%83-privat%C4%83-%C8%99i-fals-intelectual

[6] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [18] [19] [20] revista.penalmente.ro
https://www.revista.penalmente.ro/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/3.pdf

[15] [16] [17] [21] Direcția Națională Anticorupție – comunicat
https://www.dna.ro/comunicat.xhtml?id=10212

[22] [23] [49] CURIA – Documents
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=274115&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1

[24] [25] Inadmissibility decision concerning Austria – ECHR – ECHR / CEDH
https://www.echr.coe.int/w/inadmissibility-decision-concerning-austria

[32] [33] DECIZIE 4 25/01/2021 – Portal Legislativ
https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/238047

[35] [36] [37] Faux en écriture publique – Ce que dit la loi
https://www.justifit.fr/b/guides/droit-penal/faux-en-ecriture-publique/?srsltid=afmbooq4bnzvgdq6xam-zeiqb_boupdbr_qeioakrje3ny18smb_bjiw

[38] [39] [40] [41] [42] § 267 StGB Urkundenfälschung Strafgesetzbuch
https://www.buzer.de/267_StGB.htm

[43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] Falso in atto pubblico: tipologie, pena e prescrizione
https://avvocatomattiafontana.com/falso-atto-pubblico/

[50] Art. 320: Falsul material în înscrisuri oficiale – Art. 320. – Codul Penal din 2009 (Legea nr. 286/2009) – Codul Penal din 2009 – SintactLegeFree
https://sintact.ro/legislatie/monitorul-oficial/codul-penal-din-2009-legea-nr-286-2009-16901302/art-320