Report on Romania

  • Flaviu CiopecEmail author
  • Magdalena Roibu
Part of the Legal Studies in International, European and Comparative Criminal Law book series (LSCL, volume 2)


In Romanian criminal proceedings, the accused cannot claim an absolute individual right to be present at trial, which would imply considerable efforts on the part of judicial authorities to make it effective. Failure to bring the accused to trial does not lead to a stay of proceedings—as an expression of an absolute nature of such right—but allows the trial to continue if judicial authorities prove that they have performed a duty of diligence in this respect, e.g. the defendant has been lawfully summoned and the procedure has been complied with. The presence of the defendant to court, in person or through a representative or a counsel of his/her own choosing or appointed ex officio, if the latter contacted the person they represent, shall redress any irregularity related to the summoning procedure. The court proceedings may take place in the absence of the defendant, if the latter is missing, avoids proceedings or has changed his/her address without informing thereupon the judicial authorities and if his/her new address remains unknown. Court proceedings may also occur in the absence of the defendant, when, even though lawfully served the summons, the defendant provides no justification for his/her absence from the trial of the case.

The Romanian procedural law provides an extraordinary remedy by which a person who was tried in absentia and convicted by a final ruling may request the retrial of his/her case in a term of 1 month calculated from the day he/she was informed, by any official notification, that a trial had been held against him/her. Unlike the other extraordinary remedies, the application for retrial of the case does not aim at challenging the unlawful or unfounded nature of the decision ruled in absentia, but instead the defendant seeks to give effectiveness to his/her right to participate personally to trial and exert his/her right to defense.

The ECtHR case-law on in absentia trials involving Romania is very sparse. The situation looks very much alike when it comes to the case-law generated by preliminary rulings filed by Romanian judges to the European Court of Justice on the conformity of in absentia proceedings with EU law. This means that compliance with the European standards in the area of proceedings held in absentia could not take place by means of judicial practice, a situation which is not specific only to Romania. Therefore, it is necessary that harmonization may be achieved within the law-making process. Currently adopted legal instruments at the EU level aim at such ambitious endeavor.


Romanian code of criminal procedure Participatory rights In absentia proceedings Law-making remedy Retrial of the case 



All ports warning


New Code of Criminal Procedure


Department for the Investigation of Organized Crime and Terrorism


European Arrest Warrant


European Convention on Human Rights


European Court of Human Rights


Former Code of Criminal Procedure


Government’s Emergency Ordinance


International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights


New Penal Code


Romanian Constitutional Court


  1. Bârsan C (2005) The European convention on human rights. Comments by articles. Rights and freedoms, vol I. C.H. Beck, BucharestGoogle Scholar
  2. Chiriță R (2006) Paradigms of the access to justice. How free is the access to justice? Pandectele Române 1:176–214Google Scholar
  3. Chiriță R (2008) Right to a fair trial. Universul Juridic Publisher, BucharestGoogle Scholar
  4. Ciopec F (2005) In absentia proceedings. Traditional and topical trends. Ann Fac Law Timișoara 1:148–151Google Scholar
  5. Ciopec F (2006) Retrial in case of extradition. Ann Fac Law Timișoara 1:162–168Google Scholar
  6. Ciopec F (2014) The new Romanian code of criminal procedure. J East Eur Crim Law 1:33–52Google Scholar
  7. Ciopec F, Roibu M (2016) The new Romanian code of criminal procedure – cosmetics or surgery? La legislazione penale 1:1–12Google Scholar
  8. Constantinescu VHD (2015) Application for retrial of the case. In absentia proceedings. In: Udroiu M (ed) Criminal procedure code. Comments by articles. C.H. Beck, Bucharest, pp 1162–1181Google Scholar
  9. Dan R (2012) Retrial after conviction in absentia, an illusionary procedure…A study on the compatibility of the institution referred by art. 5221 of the Romanian criminal procedure code with the ECHR standards. Crim Law Writ 4:49–65Google Scholar
  10. Deleanu I (2006) Constitutional institutions and procedures - in Romanian law and comparative law. C. H. Beck, BucharestGoogle Scholar
  11. Gouttenoire A (2011) Right to attend one’s own trial. In: Sudre F et al (eds) Great rulings of the European Court of human rights. Rossetti Publisher, Bucharest (Romanian translation)Google Scholar
  12. Grădinaru D (2015) The appeal. In: Udroiu M (ed) Criminal procedure code. Comments by articles. C.H. Beck, Bucharest, pp 1049–1069Google Scholar
  13. Iancu G (2003) Fundamental rights, freedoms and duties in Romania. All Beck Publisher, BucharestGoogle Scholar
  14. Ionescu D (2011) On the new approach on trial and the new code of criminal procedure. A few simple matters. Crim Law Writ 1:66–97Google Scholar
  15. Iugan AV (2016) Retrial of the criminal case. Universul Juridic, BucharestGoogle Scholar
  16. Mateuț G (2007) Companion to criminal procedure. General part, vol I. C.H. Beck, BucharestGoogle Scholar
  17. Muntean CS (2007) The European arrest warrant. A legal instrument able to replace extradition. Crim Law Writ 1:91–121Google Scholar
  18. Muraru I, Ciobanu VM (2008) Free access to justice. In: Muraru I, Tănăsescu ES (eds) Romanian constitution - comments by articles. C. H. Beck, Bucharest, pp 175–194Google Scholar
  19. Neagu I (2007) Companion to criminal procedure law. General part. Global Lex Publisher, BucharestGoogle Scholar
  20. Pașca V (2011) Criminal law studies. Universul Juridic Publisher, BucharestGoogle Scholar
  21. Radu FR (2009) International and European cooperation in criminal matters. Wolters Kluwer, BucharestGoogle Scholar
  22. Renucci J-F (2009) Companion to European law of human rights. Hamangiu Publisher, Bucharest (Romanian translation)Google Scholar
  23. Roibu M (2014) The rights of the victim in the Romanian new code of criminal procedure. Ann Fac Law Timișoara 2:83–93Google Scholar
  24. Streteanu F (2008) A few comments on the European arrest warrant. Crim Law Writ 1:1–16Google Scholar
  25. Sudre F (2006) European and international law of human rights law. Polirom Publisher, Iași (Romanian translation)Google Scholar
  26. Udroiu M (2015) Legal assistance and representation at trial. In: Udroiu M (ed) Criminal procedure code. Comments by articles. C.H. Beck, Bucharest, pp 261–286Google Scholar
  27. Udroiu M (2016) Criminal procedure. General part, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck, BucharestGoogle Scholar
  28. Vasiescu M, Călin RM (2013) Access to court. In: Human rights dictionary – completed by case-law. C.H. Beck, Bucharest, pp 9–21Google Scholar
  29. Zainea M (2006) Personal participation of the defendant to trial. Decisions ruled in absentia. Leg Cour J 7–8:94–104Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawWest University of TimișoaraTimișoaraRomania

Personalised recommendations