Categories
Uncategorized

The Criminal Indictment (“Rechizitoriu”) in Romanian Law: Why the Quality of the Charging Document Really Matters

The guide explains the legal role of the indictment, what it must contain and how vague or contradictory charges can undermine a fair trial. It also shows how defence lawyers use preliminary chamber procedures to challenge defects, narrow accusations and build a stronger position before the first hearing on the merits.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Any concrete case must be assessed individually together with a qualified lawyer.

1. Why the criminal indictment is such a crucial document in Romanian criminal proceedings

In Romanian criminal procedure, the indictment (in Romanian: rechizitoriu) is the written act by which the prosecutor orders the indictment of the defendant and formally seizes the criminal court with the case. It marks the transition from the investigation phase to the trial phase and is expressly regulated by Articles 327–331 of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure (“Codul de procedură penală”).

The indictment:

  • marks the end of the criminal investigation and the opening of the trial phase;
  • defines and limits the object of the trial to the act(s) and person(s) for which the indictment is ordered;
  • summarises the accusation and the main pieces of evidence on which the prosecution relies.

It is not a conviction decision; it is the formal position of the prosecution at the end of the investigation. Guilt or innocence are decided exclusively by the court, after public and adversarial proceedings. Both the wording of Articles 327–328 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case-law of the Constitutional Court and the High Court of Cassation and Justice repeatedly stress this function of act of referral, not “pre-judgment”.

At European level, the quality of charging documents is firmly linked to the right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) has emphasised in judgments such as Pélissier and Sassi v. France and Constantin and Stoian v. Romania that the accused must be informed “in detail” of the nature and cause of the accusation in order to be able to prepare an effective defence. In Romanian law, this requirement is reflected directly in the way the indictment must be drafted and communicated.

2. Legal framework: where and how the indictment is regulated

2.1. The key provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure

The indictment is mainly regulated by the following provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

Under Article 327 letter a), the prosecutor “issues an indictment ordering the defendant’s committal for trial” when:

  • the criminal investigation is complete;
  • the legal provisions governing the investigation have been complied with; and
  • there are sufficient, legally obtained pieces of evidence supporting the accusation.

Article 328 paragraph (1) provides that the indictment:

“is limited to the act and the person against whom the criminal investigation was conducted and contains, as appropriate, the mentions provided for by Article 286 paragraphs (2)–(5)”

i.e. the general requirements applicable to criminal procedural acts (date, place, issuing authority, identification of the parties, description of the acts, legal classification, evidence, etc.).

2.2. The indictment as act of referral – the perspective of the Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court of Romania has dedicated detailed analyses to the nature of the indictment. In Decision no. 641/2021, the Court highlights that, together with the provisions on the preliminary chamber, the indictment is the act:

  • by which the court is seized and the limits of the trial are set;
  • which ensures the foreseeability of the accusation for the defendant; and
  • which is subject to a legality check in the preliminary chamber procedure.

The Court expressly states that the preliminary chamber judge examines, among other things, the “legality of the referral of the court”, which necessarily presupposes an indictment drafted in accordance with the procedural rules and with the fundamental rights of the defence.

2.3. The position of the High Court of Cassation and Justice

The High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ), in its case-law on preliminary rulings, has also clarified the legal status and effects of the indictment. In particular, in Decision no. 23/2022 the Court held that:

  • the indictment is the procedural act by which the committal for trial is ordered and the court is seized “with all legal consequences arising from this operation”;
  • once the file has reached the preliminary chamber, any defects or irregularities of the indictment are to be examined and, as the case may be, remedied under the control of the preliminary chamber judge, not exclusively by the hierarchically superior prosecutor.

Other preliminary rulings—such as Decision no. 21/2020 and Decision no. 7/2020—address, in a broader context, the preliminary chamber, the limits of the court’s referral and the effects of defects in the charging document.

3. What should a properly drafted indictment contain?

Starting from Article 328 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and from the practical guidelines and templates used by the Public Ministry, a clear and complete indictment should normally include:

  • Identification data of the defendant and other parties (injured party, civil party, parties liable under civil law);
  • a detailed description of the acts: when, where and how they allegedly occurred, in what circumstances, and the link between the various material acts (which is crucial in cases of continuous offences or organised criminal groups);
  • the proposed legal classification: the offences under the Criminal Code or special laws;
  • a structured list of the evidence: witness statements, suspects’/defendants’ statements, expert reports, technical surveillance reports, documents, material evidence, etc.;
  • mentions regarding preventive measures and precautionary measures: pre-trial detention, house arrest, judicial control, seizure, garnishments;
  • elements regarding the civil side: amount of the damage, the method of calculation, the civil claims and the position of the prosecution;
  • the operative part ordering the committal for trial and the indication of the competent court.

Contemporary academic writing—such as studies published by law faculties (e.g. on drept.uvt.ro) and specialised journals (e.g. Universul Juridic, Juridice.ro)—emphasises that the indictment must not be a mere “index” of the case file, but a coherent narrative of the accusation that allows both the court and the defendant to understand precisely which facts will be the subject of the trial.

4. The indictment, the right to be informed and European standards (ECHR & EU)

4.1. The right to be informed of the accusation – Article 6 ECHR

Article 6 § 3 (a) of the European Convention on Human Rights states that every accused has the right:

“to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him”.

The ECtHR developed this requirement in a consistent line of judgments, including:

The Court insists that the accused must be informed with sufficient clarity and detail of both:

  • the facts (what exactly is alleged, when, where, by what conduct); and
  • the legal classification (which offences are invoked and what the legal consequences may be),

so that they can organise a meaningful defence. A vague, contradictory or excessively generic indictment may therefore raise serious issues under Article 6 ECHR.

The Council of Europe summarises these requirements in its official practical guide, the “Guide on Article 6 – Right to a fair trial (criminal limb)”, which is often quoted by national courts and practitioners across Europe.

4.2. Directive 2012/13/EU on the right to information in criminal proceedings

At EU level, the right to be properly informed of the accusation is further strengthened by Directive 2012/13/EU on the right to information in criminal proceedings. The Directive sets out minimum rules regarding:

  • the content of the information provided to suspects and accused persons (including a description of the facts and the legal classification);
  • access to the case file at an appropriate stage;
  • communication of a written “Letter of Rights” upon arrest or detention.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in Case C-282/20 (C-282/20, Staatsanwaltschaft Wien), clarified that Article 6 of the Directive requires a level of detail in the information communicated to the accused that actually enables them to understand the accusation and to prepare their defence, including with regard to the main items of evidence. These standards must be reflected in the way Romanian indictments are drafted, especially in cases with a cross-border element.

5. The preliminary chamber and the legality check of the indictment

5.1. What is the object of the preliminary chamber?

According to Articles 342–345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the object of the preliminary chamber is:

  • to verify the legality of the referral of the court; and
  • to verify the legality of the evidence and of the acts performed during the criminal investigation.

In other words, the preliminary chamber judge examines not only the way in which the evidence was obtained, but also the regularity and legality of the indictment itself: whether it complies with Articles 327–328, whether the accusation is clearly formulated, and whether there is consistency between the factual description, the legal classification and the evidence invoked.

5.2. Irregularities of the act of referral

Article 345 paragraph (3) provides that where the preliminary chamber judge finds irregularities of the act of referral, he or she must inform the prosecution office of those irregularities and grant a deadline for remedying them. If the defects are not properly remedied, the judge may:

  • return the case to the prosecution; or
  • limit the trial to those parts of the indictment that are sufficiently clear and foreseeable.

In Decision no. 23/2022, the High Court clarified that, once the file has reached the court, it is the preliminary chamber judge who controls the remedial steps taken by the prosecutor and ensures that the rights of the defence are not restricted and that the scope of the accusation is not silently expanded.

The case-law published in the communiqués of the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) contains numerous examples of cases where defences challenged the indictment (for instance for lack of clarity, inconsistencies or insufficient description of the acts) and where courts either confirmed or dismissed those objections, with major consequences (return of the file, limitation of the trial, exclusion of evidence, etc.).

5.3. Link with nullities and exclusion of evidence

In the preliminary chamber, challenges to the indictment are often combined with:

  • arguments regarding absolute or relative nullities under Articles 281–282 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for example: lack of mandatory defence, competence issues, violations of the right to be informed);
  • motions to exclude illegally obtained evidence, such as unlawfully authorised technical surveillance or searches.

Academic articles and case-notes published in journals such as Universul Juridic and on platforms such as Juridice.ro emphasise that the preliminary chamber does not decide on guilt, but “cleans” the case from procedural defects and inadmissible evidence, so that the trial on the merits starts from a legally sound basis.

6. How does the indictment interact with the right of defence in practice?

6.1. From the defendant’s perspective

A properly drafted indictment is, paradoxically, in the interest of both sides:

  • for the defendant, it ensures a clear and foreseeable accusation;
  • for the prosecution, it reduces the risk of nullities, returns to the prosecution office and findings of violations of Article 6 ECHR.

From a defence perspective, several aspects are crucial:

  1. Clarity of the factual description
    The indictment should clearly answer the question: What exactly is being alleged? Which events, on which dates, at which locations, through which acts or omissions? A vague wording (“acted unlawfully”, “caused a significant damage”) may be attacked in the preliminary chamber as lacking detail and foreseeability, with reference to ECtHR guidance on Article 6 and to landmark judgments such as Pélissier and Sassi or Constantin and Stoian.
  2. Consistency between facts and legal classification
    The defendant must know not only which acts are alleged, but also how they are classified (e.g. “abuse of office”, “computer fraud”, “membership in an organised criminal group”). The ECtHR has condemned situations where a defendant was convicted under a more serious legal classification than the one initially communicated, without having been duly informed and given the opportunity to adapt the defence strategy.
  3. Connection with the evidence
    While the indictment is not obliged to reproduce all the evidence at length, it must indicate which main pieces of evidence support the accusation. Without this link, the defence is put at a disadvantage. This is also reflected in Directive 2012/13/EU and in the CJEU’s interpretation in Case C-282/20, which underline that the information must be sufficiently detailed and connected to the evidence.
  4. Possibility to raise motions and objections
    Detailed knowledge of the indictment is a precondition for effective strategies in the preliminary chamber: challenges to the legality of the referral, motions for nullity, motions to exclude evidence, and so on. The time-limits and procedural requirements in Articles 342–345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure make it particularly important to analyse the indictment promptly and thoroughly.

6.2. From the injured party / civil party’s perspective

For the injured party, the indictment:

  • clarifies whether and to what extent the damage has been recognised;
  • indicates whether the prosecutor has taken into account the civil claims and the precautionary measures;
  • provides guidance for possible parallel or subsequent civil actions.

The chapter on the civil side of the case must be read together with the general provisions on the civil action in criminal proceedings in Articles 19–28 and 397–404 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These articles regulate, among other things, the conditions for joining civil claims to the criminal case, the form and content of civil claims, and the solutions available to the court on the civil side.

7. What happens if the indictment is drafted incorrectly or incompletely?

7.1. Common types of irregularities

In practice, defence lawyers frequently encounter indictments with:

  • missing mandatory elements (e.g. incomplete identification data, lack of clear description of certain acts);
  • inconsistencies between the narrative description and the legal classification;
  • omission of certain material acts or essential elements (e.g. failure to specify the amount of the damage in economic offences);
  • excessive and vague reference to “all the evidence in the file” without clearly pointing out the main items of evidence supporting each specific allegation.

Specialised doctrine, including commentary published on drept.uvt.ro and in journals such as Universul Juridic, shows that these irregularities are not merely “formal”; they can directly affect the fairness of the trial.

7.2. How are irregularities remedied in the preliminary chamber?

Under Article 345 paragraph (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the preliminary chamber judge identifies irregularities in the indictment, he or she:

  1. informs the prosecution office of the irregularities found;
  2. grants a deadline for remedying them;
  3. examines whether the remedial steps are in line with the judge’s instructions;
  4. if the defects persist, may either limit the trial to those parts of the indictment that are regular and clear, or send the case back to the prosecution.

ICCJ Decision no. 23/2022 is essential here: it confirms that the remedial procedure takes place under the control of the preliminary chamber judge, who must ensure that the rights of the defence are not restricted and that the scope of the accusation is not silently expanded.

In more complex cases, courts have also examined the relationship between irregularities of the indictment and the legality of evidence, for instance where technical surveillance authorisations referred to an insufficiently defined alleged offence, or where the legal qualification changed substantially.

8. The Romanian indictment in an international and cross-border context

In cases with a cross-border component (extradition, European Arrest Warrant, cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), mutual legal assistance with other EU Member States or third countries), the quality of the Romanian indictment can influence:

  • the willingness of foreign courts to recognise and execute requests for assistance;
  • the assessment of fair-trial standards by foreign judicial authorities;
  • the outcome of procedures such as recognition of judgments, transfer of proceedings or execution of confiscation orders.

International reports on the functioning of the Romanian justice system—such as those previously issued within the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), GRECO evaluation rounds or academic studies on “15 years of anti-corruption in Romania”—repeatedly mention ECtHR judgments like Constantin and Stoian v. Romania, which had a direct impact on the design of the preliminary chamber and on the way the act of referral is perceived and controlled.

At EU level, Directive 2012/13/EU and the CJEU’s case-law (especially Case C-282/20) set out minimum standards on the information to be provided to suspects and accused persons—standards that must also be observed in Romanian indictments, particularly when European instruments are used.

9. Practical checklist: what you should look for in an indictment

9.1. If you are a defendant or suspect likely to be indicted

Together with your lawyer, you should carefully examine:

  1. Identity and scope of the alleged acts
    Are all episodes for which you were investigated clearly described?
    Have new acts appeared for the first time in the indictment?
  2. Legal classification and its evolution
    Does the legal classification match the factual description?
    Has the classification changed (e.g. to a more serious form) and, if so, were you informed in due time, in line with ECtHR case-law and Directive 2012/13/EU?
  3. Link between each allegation and the supporting evidence
    Which items of evidence support each concrete allegation?
    Are there pieces of evidence obtained through special investigative techniques (technical surveillance, access to IT systems, undercover operations) whose legality should be scrutinised under the Code of Criminal Procedure and ECtHR standards on entrapment and privacy?
  4. Preventive and precautionary measures
    On what grounds does the indictment propose maintaining pre-trial detention, house arrest or judicial control?
    How are seizure and other precautionary measures justified in relation to the alleged damage or benefit obtained?
  5. Strategy for the preliminary chamber
    Which nullities or irregularities can be raised (absolute vs. relative nullities)?
    Are there clear arguments for excluding certain items of evidence (for example, unlawfully authorised interceptions, searches or undercover operations amounting to entrapment)?

Given the strict time-limits applicable in the preliminary chamber, a prompt and detailed examination of the indictment is often decisive for the overall defence strategy.

9.2. If you are an injured party or civil party

You should pay particular attention to:

  1. The amount and structure of the damage recognised
    Does the indictment correctly reflect the extent of your loss (including interest, penalties, ancillary costs)?
    Is the calculation of the damage supported by documents (contracts, invoices, expert reports)?
  2. Precautionary measures to secure your civil claims
    Have seizure or other precautionary measures been ordered over the defendant’s assets?
    Are these measures proportionate and sufficient to cover the damage?
  3. Coordination with separate or parallel civil proceedings
    Depending on how the civil side is dealt with in the criminal case, should you consider a separate civil action?
    Are there deadlines or procedural steps that you must take to preserve your rights (for example, civil claims, interventions, appeals)?

10. Conclusions: the indictment as the “skeleton” of the criminal trial

In Romanian law, the indictment (rechizitoriu) is far more than a standard form used by the prosecution. It is the “skeleton” of the entire criminal trial: it defines the accusation, sets the limits of the court’s jurisdiction and directly affects both the right of defence and the perception of the fairness of the proceedings—internally and internationally.

A properly drafted indictment must simultaneously comply with:

For any person targeted by an indictment—whether as a defendant, an injured party or a civil party—careful analysis of this document, together with a specialised criminal lawyer, is not a theoretical exercise but a vital step towards:

  • identifying in due time the irregularities that may be raised in the preliminary chamber;
  • building a coherent strategy for the trial on the merits and for possible appeals;
  • understanding the real criminal and financial risks involved.

This article is a general guide and does not replace individual legal advice. For a concrete assessment of your situation (possible penalties, nullities, evidentiary issues, strategies in the preliminary chamber and at trial), you should consult directly with a lawyer specialising in criminal law and criminal procedure.