In brief
- The victim may discontinue the proceedings on an application for a protection order even where the application was lodged on her behalf by the prosecutor. The High Court of Cassation and Justice gave this ruling on 22 June 2026 and, from 16 September 2026, the date of publication in the Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial), it binds every court in the country. Those concerned are victims of domestic violence, abusers, prosecutors and the district courts that hear these applications.
- For nine months, the same situation drew opposite answers from one district court to the next. After Law no. 232/2025 repealed, with effect from 19 December 2025, the provision that expressly recognised this right, some courts refused the discontinuance and ruled on the merits, while others closed the file. In the first three months of 2026 more than 180 judgments accumulated, split between the two solutions, 160 of them final.
- Discontinuance is not automatic and is not recorded come what may. The judge may refuse to validate it if the victim’s decision appears to have been extracted through pressure or threats, above all where there are minor children in the home. On top of that, if the victim discontinues at the first hearing or after it, the abuser’s agreement is needed, and his silence up to the date set by the court counts as agreement.
Published: Official Gazette of Romania no. 784 of 16 September 2026
In force from: 16 September 2026, the date of publication; for the Iași Tribunal and the Sibiu Tribunal, the courts that referred the questions, from 22 June 2026
A victim of domestic violence can stop the proceedings for a protection order even where the application reached the district court through the prosecutor rather than through the victim herself. The High Court of Cassation and Justice established this by Decision no. 82 of 22 June 2026, published on 16 September 2026, and closed a line of case law that had split in two after an amendment to the law in December 2025. This is the second time this year that the supreme court has been called on to clarify something in the protection order procedure: in July 2026 it dismissed as inadmissible a question about an order sought against a person placed under special guardianship, so that problem remained unresolved. This time there is an answer.
The starting point is a repeal. Until 19 December 2025, Article 43 of Law no. 217/2003 on preventing and combating domestic violence stated, in two paragraphs, that the victim may discontinue the proceedings on the application for a protection order where the application was lodged on her behalf by the prosecutor, by the representative of the local authority with responsibilities in the field or by an accredited social services provider. Law no. 232/2025, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 1.164 of 16 December 2025, deleted the text through Article I(2), without putting anything in its place.
The rest of that same law runs in the opposite direction to discontinuance. Also under Law no. 232/2025, the provisional protection order issued by a police officer no longer lapses automatically after at most 5 days but is extended by operation of law until the application is decided at first instance; the penalties for abusers who repeatedly breach an order go up by half; and a new rule was added to the Criminal Code, under which withdrawal of the complaint no longer takes effect in cases of assault and of bodily harm through negligence committed against a family member. Inside a package that tightens the screw everywhere, the deletion of Article 43 was read by many courts as a prohibition.
Two tribunals asked for clarification. The Iași Tribunal referred its question on 5 February 2026, in a case in which the Iași District Court had refused the victim’s discontinuance and dismissed the application on the merits, even though the woman had stated in open court that she was withdrawing and the defendant had agreed. The Sibiu Tribunal referred the second question in a case in which the district court had done exactly the opposite: it had recorded the discontinuance by the victim, who had reconciled with the defendant, and the prosecution service had challenged that solution. The two referrals were joined, and the panel of 13 judges settled them with a single answer.
The reasoning is short and starts from the Code of Civil Procedure. Article 92(1) allows the prosecutor to bring any civil action in the cases expressly provided for by law, and an application for a protection order made on behalf of the victim is one such case. Article 93 goes on to say that the holder of the right is joined to the proceedings and may rely, among other things, on Article 406, that is, on discontinuance itself. Article 2(2) makes the code applicable in any field, in the absence of a provision to the contrary. The High Court’s conclusion: the former Article 43 was not a derogation but a restatement of the general rule, and deleting a restatement does not create a prohibition. For the right to disappear, the legislature would have had to write it down in black and white, as it did, in the same law, for the withdrawal of a criminal complaint.
What it changes in practice
From 16 September 2026, every district court in the country is bound to apply this ruling. Where the victim states, in person at the hearing or by written application, that she is discontinuing the proceedings on the application for a protection order, the court can no longer answer that the repeal of Article 43 took that right away from her. For the Iași Tribunal and the Sibiu Tribunal, the two courts that asked, the obligation began earlier, on the very day the decision was delivered, 22 June 2026.
The ruling covers two situations, both with the prosecutor at the front. The first: the application lodged by the prosecutor on behalf of the victim, under Article 40(3)(a) of Law no. 217/2003. The second: the application sent to the district court by the prosecutor after he has confirmed a provisional protection order issued by the police, under Article 34(6). The High Court notes that the second is in fact a variant of the first.
Applications lodged by the other persons listed in the law stay outside the binding answer. Article 40(3) also allows the order to be sought, on behalf of the victim, by the representative of the local authority with responsibilities in protecting victims of domestic violence, at point (b), and by the representative of an accredited social services provider, at point (c), the latter only with the victim’s agreement. The former Article 43 covered all three. The operative part adopted now speaks only of the prosecutor, because the prosecutor is all the two tribunals asked about.
Discontinuance remains subject to the usual conditions in Article 406 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is made in person or through a representative holding a special power of attorney. If it comes at the first hearing at which the parties have been lawfully summoned, or after it, the express or tacit agreement of the other party is required, and the court gives the absent defendant a deadline by which to state his position; if he says nothing, he is deemed to have agreed. The judgment recording the discontinuance can be challenged before the court of higher instance.
The court keeps a power of review. The High Court states expressly that nothing prevents the judge from assessing, case by case, whether the application to discontinue is well founded, where the victim’s decision appears vitiated by pressure or threats exerted on her or on her family, and above all where there are minor children for whom protective measures ought to be taken. The same possibility existed while Article 43 was in force, so on this point nothing has changed.
Discontinuance does carry an immediate cost, though, one the decision does not spell out but which follows from combining two provisions. The provisional protection order issued by a police officer and confirmed by the prosecutor no longer ceases after 5 days but lasts, by the effect of Law no. 232/2025, until the application is decided at first instance. When the proceedings close through discontinuance, that interval closes with them: provisional protection lapses along with the case file and is not replaced by a protection order granted by a judge.
One thing does not change: cases already concluded stay as they are. The 55 final judgments delivered on the interpretation the High Court rejected will not be retried, because a preliminary ruling is not a ground for revision in the list in Article 509 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The ruling bears on proceedings from now on.
What has changed compared with the previous situation
Until 19 December 2025 there was no dispute. Article 43 of Law no. 217/2003 said plainly that, in the cases under Article 40(3) and Article 34(6), the victim may discontinue the proceedings on the application for a protection order, in accordance with Article 406 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judge read the text and recorded the discontinuance.
Between 19 December 2025 and 15 September 2026 it was a lottery. By 1 April 2026 the courts of appeal had sent the High Court more than 180 judgments delivered in the first three months of the year on precisely this question, from every judicial district. More than 60 of them, 55 of which were final, said the repeal had removed the right to discontinue for good. More than 120, of which 105 were final, said the opposite. At a rate of roughly two judgments a day, in a field where a case has to be heard within 72 hours, two victims in the same situation, in the same month, received opposite answers.
The two cases that produced the referrals show the split in miniature. At Iași, the application was registered on 29 December 2025 and the judgment came on 31 December 2025: the victim asked to discontinue, the defendant agreed, the court refused and dismissed the application on the merits. At Sibiu, the action was lodged on 20 February 2026, the victim announced on 23 February 2026 that she had reconciled and wanted to discontinue, and the district court closed the file that same day. Three days in one case, two in the other, opposite outcomes.
From 16 September 2026 the practical result goes back to what Article 43 said, but the legal basis is a different one. It is no longer a special rule in the domestic violence law, it is the general rule in the Code of Civil Procedure. The difference counts: if Parliament wants to close this door again, deleting a provision will no longer be enough, it will have to write an express prohibition. The High Court asks for exactly that, saying that it falls to the legislature to intervene in an appropriate manner.
The position of the institutions that were consulted has changed too. The Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice argued in writing that the repeal removed the right to discontinue for good. The National Institute of Magistracy and the Faculty of Law of Babeș-Bolyai University argued the opposite, and at the Faculty of Law of the West University of Timișoara there were opinions both ways. The interpretation that won is the one the Public Ministry argued against.
Advantages and disadvantages
What it improves
- Nine months of divided case law end with a single rule, binding across the country. The victim no longer depends on which district court her file landed in.
- The victim’s autonomy stays recognised. A woman who has moved out, who has reconciled or who simply no longer wants proceedings is not held inside a case brought in her name, against what she wants now.
- Protection is not lost automatically. The judge can refuse to record the discontinuance when he sees pressure, threats or minor children at stake, so discontinuance does not turn into a loophole for the abuser.
- The working method stays clear for the future. The High Court says that a procedural right is limited by an express provision, not by deleting a restatement, which cuts the risk of other repeals being misread.
- Court time is freed up. A file closed through discontinuance no longer takes up the 72-hour slot that ought to go to cases with real danger in them.
What remains a problem
- The answer covers only applications by the prosecutor. For applications lodged by the representative of the local authority or by an accredited social services provider there is no binding ruling, even though the former Article 43 covered those too.
- The 55 final judgments delivered on the rejected interpretation stay final. The victims in those cases were judged on the merits against their will, with no way back.
- 86 days passed between delivery and publication, that is, between the moment the answer existed and the moment it became binding. Throughout that interval the courts went on handing down conflicting solutions.
- Checking consent is left to each judge. The decision says the court may assess whether the victim’s decision is vitiated, but there is no written criterion, no duty to ask and no separate hearing procedure.
- The outcome can be reversed at any time. If Parliament writes the express prohibition the High Court describes, the right disappears and victims are back where they were in December 2025.
- For the victim who discontinues, the provisional protection order lapses along with the case file. Anyone who discontinues under pressure is left with no measure in force from that very day.
Practical advice
- Discontinuance is made in person, orally at the hearing or by written application. Through someone else it works only with a special power of attorney, under Article 406(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure; an ordinary authorisation is not enough.
- If you discontinue at the first hearing at which the parties have been lawfully summoned, or later, you need the other party’s agreement. If the defendant is absent, the court gives him a deadline to reply, and his silence until then counts as agreement.
- Discontinuing the proceedings does not extinguish the right. If the violence comes back, you can apply for a protection order again, and the closed file is no obstacle.
- Ask at the hearing what happens to the provisional protection order issued by the police. It lasts until the application is decided at first instance, so it lapses on the day the court closes the file, and you are left with no protective measure in force.
- If someone is pressing you to discontinue, tell the judge. The High Court confirms that the court can refuse the discontinuance where it finds pressure or threats against you or your family, and the statement stays on the file.
- If the prosecutor withdraws the application, you can ask for the proceedings to continue. Article 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives you that right expressly, so the prosecutor’s withdrawal does not close the file on its own.
- The judgment by which the court records the discontinuance is challenged by second appeal, not by appeal, under Decision no. 15/2025 delivered in an appeal in the interest of the law, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 832 of 9 September 2025. The time limit is the special one applicable to protection orders, 3 days.
- The time limits in this procedure are very short, so do not put off any decision. The application is heard within 72 hours of being lodged, delivery of the judgment can be postponed by at most 24 hours, and the reasons have to be given within 48 hours of delivery.
Frequently asked questions
Can I discontinue the proceedings if the protection order was sought by the prosecutor and not by me?
Is the judge obliged to record my discontinuance?
What happens to the provisional protection order issued by the police if I discontinue?
Does the rule also apply where the application was lodged by the town hall or by a centre for victims?
Why did a question that looked clear need a decision of the High Court?
My case was decided on the merits because the court refused my discontinuance. Can it be reopened?
If I discontinue now, can I still ask for a protection order later?
Editorial analysis
The decision repairs a drafting error, not an error of substance. Parliament wanted to close a door and picked the weakest instrument available: it deleted a provision instead of writing a prohibition. The result came out the exact opposite of the intention. The High Court points out that the explanatory memorandum to Law no. 232/2025 contains no explanation for the repeal of Article 43, although every other amendment is justified there. A provision that vanished without a line of reasoning became, for nine months, the source of divided case law.
The first observation you do not get from reading the decision end to end has to do with the clock, and it is the most awkward one. Article 521(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure refers to Article 517(3), which allows at most 30 days for the reasons to be drafted and at most 15 days from then for publication, a maximum of 45 days from delivery. The decision was delivered on 22 June 2026 and published on 16 September 2026, that is, after 86 days, 41 days past the statutory time limit. In the same field, the district court has 72 hours to hear the application, 24 hours to postpone delivery and 48 hours to give its reasons. The court that imposes hours on the trial courts overran its own time limit expressed in days, and the delay is not an administrative detail: until publication, the ruling bound nobody apart from the two tribunals that had asked, so the conflicting judgments kept piling up.
The second observation comes from putting two paragraphs of the decision side by side. At paragraph 209, the High Court finds that the former Article 43 referred generically to Article 40(3), not only to point (a), so it covered applications by the representative of the local authority and by the accredited social services provider as well. At paragraph 210 it says, nonetheless, that repealing the redundant provision was required for reasons of legislative technique, in order to respect the ban on parallel regulation in Article 16 of Law no. 24/2000. The two statements can be reconciled only halfway. Articles 92 and 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure concern the prosecutor alone, so for points (b) and (c) Article 43 duplicated nothing, it was the only provision there was. Deleting it removed no repetition there; it left two categories of application with no express basis and, now, with no binding ruling. Divergent practice has room to carry on.
The third observation concerns the very institution that lost. The Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Iași District Court appealed, asking the court to record the victim’s discontinuance. The Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Sibiu District Court brought a second appeal against precisely a judgment that had recorded a discontinuance. The Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice argued the second position in writing. In the same months, on the same question, the Public Ministry defended both answers before the courts. This is not a reproach aimed at prosecutors, it is the exact measure of how unclear the text left after the repeal was.
The stakes are not theoretical. The explanatory memorandum to Law no. 232/2025 shows that almost 8,000 protection orders were issued in the first four months of 2025, around 2,000 a month, and that at three district courts taken as a sample the number of applications rose from 1,100 in the whole of 2024 to 520 in the first five months of 2026, roughly 13% more per month. On that kind of volume, nine months of opposing interpretations is not an incident, it is several thousand cases decided under different rules.
What should be changed
- Parliament should say expressly what it wants, one way or the other. Either it writes into Law no. 217/2003 that discontinuance is not possible in the cases under Article 34(6) and Article 40(3), or it reinstates the right the way Article 43 provided it. Practical effect: the risk of a second round of divergent practice on the same question is closed off, and the courts no longer depend on a ruling that a single amendment to the law can overturn.
- If prohibition is the option chosen, it should come with a release valve. A provision allowing the court to find that the danger has ceased and to close the file on that ground would avoid the absurd situation in which a victim is forced to sit through proceedings about a danger that no longer exists. Practical effect: protection stays where it is needed, without turning into a formal hearing.
- Applications under Article 40(3)(b) and (c) should be regulated separately and expressly. Today they are covered neither by Article 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure nor by the operative part of this decision. Practical effect: applications lodged by social welfare directorates and by accredited providers no longer depend on how each panel reads the law.
- Checking consent to discontinuance needs written criteria. Hearing the victim in the defendant’s absence, a mandatory question about any pressure and particular attention where there are minor children would turn the possibility the High Court recognised into uniform practice. Practical effect: a discontinuance extracted by threat becomes far harder to slip through a hearing.
- Decisions that unify case law should be published within their statutory time limit. The 45 days in Article 517(3) are not indicative. Practical effect: in this case, keeping to them would have shortened by almost three months the window in which the courts went on handing down conflicting solutions on a question already settled.
Original text of the legal act
The text below is reproduced in Romanian, the official form of publication.
The full text, as published in the Official Gazette of Romania
Official Gazette of Romania no. 784 of 16 September 2026 16 pages PDF, 118 KB the act starts on page 2
Open the official PDFDownload the PDF
The viewer is not shown on small screens. Use the buttons above to open or download the file.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult a licensed attorney or tax advisor.