Law no. 19/2025 introduced in Article 285 of the Criminal Code a form of escape similar to absconding. The new rule applies to a person sentenced to life imprisonment or imprisonment who fails to appear at the police authority for the execution of the warrant within the legal 7-day deadline. The text applies together with the general rules regarding guilt, execution, and postponement of the execution of the sentence.
What did Law no. 19/2025 introduce?
Article 285, paragraph (31) from Law no. 19/2025 is considered absconding if the person fails to appear at the police in order to execute the warrant within 7 days from the date of the final decision ordering the execution of the sentence of imprisonment or life imprisonment. It is a similar form, constructed as an omission and distinct from absconding by leaving a legal status of detention or custody.
Article 285, paragraph (4) stipulates that, in the hypothetical cases listed there, the punishment for absconding is added to the remaining unexecuted punishment. Therefore, the qualification of the act and its effect on execution are not reduced to simply determining that the deadline has passed: the conditions of the rule and the evidence in the case must be analyzed.
Since when is the deadline?
For decisions that remain final after the law comes into force, the deadline begins on the date of the finalization of the decision. For decisions that were final before the law came into force, Article II of Law No. 19/2025 states that the 7-day deadline begins upon the entry into force of the law. The structures of the Ministry of Internal Affairs shall notify the criminal investigation authorities after the expiration of the applicable deadline, pursuant to Article III.
What did the Constitutional Court establish?
Through Decision no. 557/2024, While examining the criticism regarding the clarity and predictability of the rule during the previous review of the law, the Court criticized it. The Court held that the text describes a lapse after the expiration of the 7-day period, that the form of guilt is intentional, and that the moment from which the term begins is indicated in the law. However, the decision does not automatically establish a person’s liability in a specific case; this is assessed by the judicial authorities based on evidence.
The Court also stated that the provisions regarding the postponement of the execution of the sentence remain applicable when the legal conditions are met. If there is a legal reason for postponement, the person must use the procedure provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure and request the competent court to resolve the request; the mere intention to request postponement does not replace the court’s decision.
What needs to be verified in a specific case?
The analysis starts from the date of the final enforcement of the judgment, the applicable transitional regime, the execution order, the actual term and the conduct of the person. The circumstances that may be relevant to the intent must also be investigated, as well as any requests for postponement of enforcement. The Court pointed out that the issue of the application of the rule and the effects provided for by Article 285, paragraph (4), depend on the interpretation by the judicial authorities in each case.
This article provides general information. The date of the decision, the communications, the mandate and any request regarding enforcement must be analyzed in relation to the specific case.
