Categories
Uncategorized

Recognition of Romanian Criminal Judgments Abroad: EU/CoE Frameworks, Procedural Pitfalls, and Defence Strategies

This guide walks through the EU mutual recognition tools and Council of Europe instruments that allow Romanian criminal judgments to be executed in other states. It highlights procedural pitfalls, public-policy objections, ne bis in idem arguments and practical defence angles when a client faces transfer, sentence execution or confiscation abroad.

Why “recognition” matters in criminal cases

When a Romanian criminal judgment (custodial sentence, probation/supervision measure, criminal fine, confiscation order) needs to be given effect in another country—because the person lives there, assets are located there, or the person is arrested there—cross-border recognition and enforcement mechanisms come into play. Inside the European Union, the guiding principles are mutual trust and mutual recognition; outside the EU, Council of Europe conventions, bilateral treaties, or (sometimes) private-international-law comity apply. The same Romanian decision may thus be executed swiftly in an EU Member State yet stall or require conversion elsewhere.

„Recognition” (accepting the foreign decision as such) is distinct from “enforcement” (actually carrying it out). In the EU, many instruments merge these steps into a single, certificate-driven procedure.

I. European Union: key instruments—plus where cases go wrong

1) Custodial sentences (transfer of prisoners)

Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA enables transfer of the execution of custodial penalties to another Member State (typically the sentenced person’s state of residence), on the basis of a standard certificate and limited refusal grounds. The executing state must recognise the judgment and only adapt the sentence where strictly necessary under its law (without aggravation).
Typical stumbling blocks: incomplete or inconsistent certificates; double-criminality debates when the offence is not on the 32-offence “no double criminality” list; improper or excessive adaptation of sentence type/length.

Useful practice materials rarely used: EuroPris toolkits and project handbooks (REUNION/STEPS) flag recurrent mistakes (translation gaps, timing, inter-authority communication) and offer operational checklists for FD 2008/909.

2) Probation and non-custodial sanctions

Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA (recognition and supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions) and Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA (European supervision of non-custodial measures pending trial) allow supervision by another Member State—key when a defendant resides abroad but seeks to remain at liberty under control.
Where it breaks: using the wrong instrument (e.g., sending a 909 package when the object is actually probation under 947); missing translations; mismatch between Romanian obligations and what the executing state can supervise.

3) Criminal fines

Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA allows enforcement of financial penalties (including certain costs) across the EU, again via certificate.
Common issues: ambiguity about the criminal nature of the sum; double-criminality objections where the offence falls outside the exempted categories.

4) Freezing and confiscation

Since 2018, Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 requires Member States to recognise and execute freezing and confiscation orders using standard forms and short deadlines, replacing older framework decisions.
Pitfalls: mismatch between the Romanian measure and the category in the executing state (special vs. extended confiscation; value-based); mis-completed forms; insufficient documentation of third-party rights.

5) European Arrest Warrant (EAW): the pressure point

The EAW (FD 2002/584/JHA) concerns surrender for prosecution or sentence execution, not recognition of a judgment per se—but in practice it unlocks or blocks execution abroad. The Court of Justice requires a two-step test where there is a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in the issuing state’s prisons: following Aranyosi & Căldăraru and Dorobanțu, executing courts must examine individualised assurances (space per prisoner, conditions, named facility, access to healthcare). When such risks are not dispelled, surrender—and downstream execution—can be refused.

A further friction point is in absentia convictions: unless the person was effectively informed and represented or has a genuine right to a retrial/presence, recognition/surrender may be refused under FD 2009/299/JHA, reinforced by Directive (EU) 2016/343 (presumption of innocence; right to be present).

II. Council of Europe and non-EU relationships

1) European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments (ETS 70)

This 1970 convention allows, among parties, recognition of certain criminal-law effects (including enforcement of specific sanctions). Romania is a party, often with declarations/reservations. Practice is uneven: many states rely more on newer or sector-specific tools; ETS 70 still helps in carefully targeted scenarios but is not a universal workhorse.

2) Transfer of Sentenced Persons (ETS 112)

The 1983 Convention on transfer of sentenced persons is frequently used to enable execution “at home,” even where other recognition routes are awkward. Romania is a party; domestic practice blends judicial and Ministry of Justice procedures. This track may be the most realistic pathway in some third-country contexts.

3) Post-Brexit United Kingdom

The EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) contains cooperation channels, including for freezing/confiscation (inspired by Regulation 2018/1805). For other criminal-law effects, practice often reverts to Council of Europe conventions or bespoke arrangements. Bottom line: confiscation/freezing recognition tends to be easier than other criminal-judgment effects.

4) Common-law principle against enforcing foreign penal judgments

In common-law jurisdictions (e.g., US; England & Wales), courts generally do not enforce foreign penal or revenue judgments, absent treaty/statute. The classic Huntington v. Attrill rule distinguishes non-enforceable public-law penalties from potentially enforceable civil compensation claims (e.g., victim damages). A Romanian criminal fine typically does not become an enforceable title without a specific legal mechanism.

III. Recurrent obstacles to recognition/enforcement of Romanian judgments

  1. Detention conditions objections under Article 3 ECHR / Article 4 EU Charter (overcrowding, hygiene, floor space <3–4 m²). The ECHR pilot judgment Rezmiveș and follow-up scrutiny keep pressure on Romania. In EAW contexts, Aranyosi/Dorobanțu drive granular, facility-specific assurance demands.
  2. In absentia convictions. Without a clear, effective right to retrial/presence, recognition or surrender can be refused. Documentation must show actual service/knowledge or an unconditional right to a new hearing.
  3. Double criminality. While 32 categories lift this test for some instruments (e.g., EAW), elsewhere it persists. Drafting should translate the Romanian offence into the material elements recognised by the executing state.
  4. Ne bis in idem. Overlaps between administrative-penal tracks or parallel prosecutions across Member States may block recognition. Coordinated case-mapping and early consolidation are crucial.
  5. Formal defects. Incomplete certificates; inconsistencies between dispositive text and form (e.g., type of confiscation); missing translations in the required language; lapsed transmission deadlines (e.g., the 90-day window in FD 2008/909 practice guides).
  6. Third-party rights in confiscation. Regulation 2018/1805 requires protection of good-faith third parties. If Romania cannot evidence notice and the legal basis for depriving third parties, execution may be delayed or narrowed.
  7. Wrong channel. Attempting to bypass the proper instrument (e.g., pushing 2008/909 when probation under 2008/947 is the real object) triggers refusals and allegations of “instrument shopping.”

IV. Defence toolkit: building a recognition-proof package

A. Executing custodial sentences in another EU state (FD 2008/909)

  • Use the standard certificate, meticulously completed. Anticipate queries on time left to serve, execution regime, recidivism status, suspensions/credits.
  • Where adaptation is necessary, explain why it does not aggravate the sentence and how it remains equivalent in purpose and severity.

B. Probation/alternatives (FD 2008/947) and supervision during proceedings (FD 2009/829)

  • Specify obligations with precision (reporting schedule, bans, location rules) and append a supervision plan tailored to the executing authority’s capacities.

C. Financial penalties (FD 2005/214)

  • Clarify the criminal nature and link to the judgment; set out which cost items are enforceable.

D. Confiscation/freezing (Reg. 2018/1805)

  • Use the model forms, show notice to the person and third parties, and classify the measure accurately (special, extended, value-based). Where needed, propose adaptation that preserves essence and proportionality.

E. EAW and detention-conditions risk

  • Offer individualised assurances upfront: named facility, cell size/floor space, healthcare, realistic transfer options, and contingency measures (e.g., temporary house arrest) pending allocation. Executing courts expect verifiable data.

F. In absentia

  • Prove effective knowledge/representation or provide an unequivocal right to retrial/presence. Reference FD 2009/299 and Directive 2016/343 in the transmitted certificate.

V. Romanian domestic basis and practice

Romania’s Law no. 302/2004 on international judicial cooperation in criminal matters (as amended) provides the internal framework for recognition/enforcement of foreign judgments, transfer of sentenced persons, EAW, mutual legal assistance, etc. Many practical setbacks arise from misalignment between a chapter of Law 302/2004 and the specific EU/CoE instrument actually applicable—hence the importance of instrument selection and certificate drafting discipline.

VI. Illustrative practice snapshots

  • Refusal to surrender to Romania due to detention conditions: executing courts have suspended or refused surrender where information failed to dispel concrete risk of ill-treatment. Facility-specific assurances (not generic statements) are decisive.
  • In absentia convictions: where the right to an effective new hearing is not clear and unconditional, surrender/recognition has been refused; robust guarantees (and, where appropriate, statutory references) resolve many cases.

VII. Outside the EU: realistic expectations

In the US or UK (on common-law logic), a Romanian criminal fine or confiscation order does not morph into an enforceable title solely on comity. Without a treaty or a domestic conversion procedure, courts will generally refuse to execute foreign penal judgments. Practical routes include civil-law re-framing (where victim compensation is needed) or CoE convention tracks (e.g., ETS 112 transfers), depending on the target jurisdiction.

VIII. Operational checklist for recognition/enforcement beyond Romania

  1. Pick the right instrument: 2008/909 (custody), 2008/947 (probation), 2009/829 (pre-trial supervision), 2005/214 (fines), 2018/1805 (confiscation/freezing), EAW (surrender), ETS 112 (transfer of sentenced persons), ETS 70 (validity of criminal judgments).
  2. Complete the certificate precisely; attach a translation in the executing state’s language.
  3. Anticipate double-criminality: translate the offence into its material elements recognised locally.
  4. Fundamental-rights guarantees: detention (space, named facility), in absentia (effective retrial/presence).
  5. Protect third parties in confiscation; document notice and legal grounds.
  6. Post-Brexit UK: use TCA channels for asset orders; rely on CoE instruments for other effects.
  7. Leverage technical resources (EuroPris/ERA/REUNION manuals) to pre-empt refusals on formalities.

Conclusion

Recognition of a Romanian criminal judgment abroad is not automatic. Within the EU, mutual recognition reduces borders but raises the bar on fundamental-rights safeguards and certificate accuracy: missing facts, hazy double-criminality mappings, or unresolved detention-conditions risks will delay or derail execution. Outside the EU, especially in common-law systems, the default remains non-enforcement of foreign penal judgments absent a treaty or conversion route—prompting reliance on Council of Europe mechanisms or civil-law pathways where appropriate. The winning strategy is instrument-first thinking, flawless certificates, early and individualised assurances, and proactive alignment with ECHR/Charter standards—turning a national judgment into an enforceable reality across borders.

Exit mobile version