The ÎCCJ appeals to the CCR the amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure. What do the judges dispute?
The High Court of Cassation and Justice decided, on Friday, to refer the Constitutional Court to the amendments made to the Code of Criminal Procedure, citing possible violations of the right to defense and the principles of a fair trial.
The notification was made to CCR FOTO ccc.ro
The decision was taken on Friday, May 22, 2026, within the United Sections of the supreme court, the ÎCCJ sent in a statement.
“With the participation of a number of 96 judges in compliance with the quorum requirements provided by law, the High Court of Cassation and Justice decided to refer the Constitutional Court of Romania for the control of constitutionality, before promulgation, regarding: Law for the amendment and completion of Law No. 135/2010 on the Code of Criminal Procedure (PL-x No. 228/2026) in relation to the constitutional provisions of Article 1 (5), art. 21 (3) and (2) of the Constitution.the release states.
The notification of the ÎCCJ to the CCR claims that the proposed changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure (PL-x 228/2026) are “unconstitutional because it affects the coherence of the criminal procedure and the procedural rights of the parties”.
“Vices of unconstitutionality refer to the disregard of the constitutional principles of legality and clarity of the law, equality of rights, respect for the right to defense, a fair trial and the administration of justice in a state of law”states the institution.
According to the press release, the ÎCCJ claims that the amendments proposed by PL-x 228/2026 violate several constitutional provisions regarding the legality and clarity of the law, equal rights, the right to defense, the right to a fair trial and the administration of justice in a state of law.
The High Court of Cassation and Justice also formulated a series of observations regarding these legislative changes. Thus, the main aspects of the referral concern several legislative interventions considered problematic in application, among which:
1. Consolidation and dissolution of cases in the preliminary chamber
According to the ÎCCJ, the law introduces the possibility of reuniting and severing cases in the preliminary chamber, however “no relation to existing rules”. The institution notes that the pre-trial chamber judge could “to indirectly enter into the substance of the case, although his role is limited to verifying the legality of the criminal prosecution”.
Practical difficulties are also reported: “to which prosecutor's office the case is returned, how to separate the joined files, how to avoid contradictory solutions”.
2. Elimination of citation at subsequent terms
Another amendment states that, after the first term, the parties must “track file progress”. The ÚCCJ appreciates that the norm is “vague and unclear”.
The institution shows that the right to defense and fair trial can be affected, as the parties “they are no longer cited as they no longer have the opportunity to find out the new deadlines established in the future”.
Disadvantages are indicated for “vulnerable people: prisoners, the elderly, victims, people who do not have access to the Internet or do not have the digital knowledge to use the platforms”.
3. “Authority of res judicata” in the preliminary chamber
The ÎCCJ also shows that the law definitively transforms the conclusions of the preliminary chamber judge regarding the legality of the evidence, as regards “Authority of res judicata”.
According to the document, this “contradicts CCR jurisprudence, which allows verification of the legality of evidence also in the trial phase”.
It is pointed out that the trial court would be prevented “to further analyze evidence obtained illegally or unfairly”what “limits the right to defense and the role of the court in administering justice”.
“In order to avoid subsequent decisions that find the unconstitutionality of some normative provisions after their application in judicial proceedings, with negative effects on the courts and the resolution of cases, it is necessary to verify the constitutionality of the regulatory framework adopted by the contested law”concluded the representatives of the ÎCCJ.
