Wrong Assessment of the Incidence or Non-Incidence of a Cause for Termination of the Criminal Trial – Ground for Quashing the Final Decision
Abstract
A recent decision of the Constitutional Court of Romania (Decision no. 50/2025) gives us the opportunity to make some considerations regarding the erroneous assessment, by the appeal court, of the incidence or non-incidence of a cause for termination of the criminal trial, as a reason for quashing a final criminal judgment. From this perspective, the present study addresses the issue of one of the cassation appeal cases provided for in the current Romanian Criminal Procedure Code, namely the case regarding the wrongful termination of the criminal trial.
In analyzing this issue, we start from some general assessments regarding the regulation of the extraordinary remedy of cassation appeal, continuing with the presentation of some aspects of the judicial practice of the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania regarding the interpretation and application of the provisions relating to the cassation case consisting in the wrongful termination of the criminal trial.
Highlighting the consequences of finding the unconstitutionality of the legislative solution that excludes the defendant's right to appeal in cassation in the event that the termination of the criminal trial was wrongly not ordered, the paper concludes with a concrete lex ferenda proposal to reformulate the legal text containing this solution.
References
Iancu, E.-A. (2019). The Contribution of Forensic Science to Establishing the Truth in Criminal Proceedings. Athens Journal of Law vol. 5, no. 4 (October 2019), 457-470. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30958/ajl.5-4-6.
Kahane, S. (1963). Drept procesual penal / Criminal procedural law. Bucharest: Didactic and Pedagogical Publishing House.
Lorincz, A.-L. & Stancu, A. I. (2022). Qualification of the request to take over criminal procedure in the context of international judicial cooperation. Proceedings of 9th SWS International Scientific Conference on Social Sciences - ISCSS 2022 9, no. 1 (2022), 115-122, Albena, 2022 August. Vienna: SGEM WORLD SCIENCE (SWS) Scholarly Society. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.35603/sws.iscss.2022/s02.015.
Theodoru, Gr. (1998). Drept procesual penal. Partea specială / Criminal procedural law. The special part. Iași: "Cugetarea" Publishing House.
Theodoru, Gr. & Chiș, I.-P. (2020). Tratat de Drept procesual penal / Criminal Procedure Law Treaty, 4th edition. Bucharest: Hamangiu Publishing House.
The E.Ct,H.R. Judgment of January 28, 2025, pronounced in the Case of Secară against Romania, available at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-14435%22]}, accessed on 1 May 2025.
The Decision of the Romanian Constitutional Court no. 699/2016, published in the Official Gazette no. 315 of May 3, 2017.
The Decision of the Romanian Constitutional Court no. 517/2017, published in the Official Gazette no. 879 of November 8, 2017.
The Decision of the Romanian Constitutional Court no. 453/2020, published in the Official Gazette no. 1190 of December 7, 2020.
The Decision of the Romanian Constitutional Court no. 50/2025, published in the Official Gazette no. 328 of April 11, 2025.
The Decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice from Romania no. 10/RC/2023, Criminal Section, available at www.scj.ro, accessed on 3 May 2025.
The Decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice from Romania no. 3/RC/2024, Criminal Section, available at www.scj.ro, accessed on 3 May 2025.
The Decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice from Romania no. 9/RC/2024, Criminal Section, available at www.scj.ro, accessed on 3 May 2025.
The Decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice from Romania no. 41/RC/2024, Criminal Section, available at www.scj.ro, accessed on 3 May 2025.
The Decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice from Romania no. 104/RC/2024, Criminal Section, available at www.scj.ro, accessed on 3 May 2025.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The author fully assumes the content's originality and the holograph signature makes him responsible in case of trial.