Revocation of a suspended sentence for unpaid damages must be sought before the probation period expires

An application to revoke the suspension, filed on the first day after the probation period has expired, no longer has any effect. The Constitutional Court dismissed the criticisms raised by a company from Brăila County, which had joined two criminal cases before the Făurei District Court as civil party, and confirmed that Article 447(2) of the 1968 Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 84 of the 1969 Criminal Code are constitutional. It belongs to the same family of rulings as the one in which the Court held that the two years for disciplinary action against magistrates run from the act, not from its discovery. Decision No 160 of 26 February 2026 was published in the Official Gazette of Romania No 609 of 27 July 2026.

The facts are those of any civil party in criminal proceedings. The defendant was convicted with the conditional suspension of the sentence and ordered to pay damages. He did not pay them, and the civil party applied for the revocation of the suspension, but only after the probation period had expired.

The author of the plea of unconstitutionality argued that the challenged provisions restrict the right to obtain revocation and that they encourage the convicted person to act in bad faith, knowing that once the probation period expires revocation can no longer be sought. It also argued that the law does not expressly lay down a time limit, so the application could be made at any time.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is the calendar rule, stated without ambiguity. The court must be seised by the last day of the probation period, and from the first day after its expiry the sentence is deemed served. After that moment, the suspension can no longer be revoked.

The second effect concerns the duty of diligence of the civil party. In the Court’s wording, the interested party had a duty to show the diligence needed to assert its procedural rights, and a passive attitude, by waiting until after the period had run out, may amount to a lack of interest, but it does not turn into the unconstitutionality of the provision.

The third effect is less well known and changes the practical calculation. An application for revocation filed during the probation period is not premature. The High Court of Cassation and Justice held that the opposite view would mean that the convicted person enjoys a grace period equal to the whole probation period, which would render the rules on the civil obligations ineffective.

The fourth effect is a safeguard for the convicted person. Revocation is not automatic: if the convicted person proves that he was unable to meet the civil obligations, revocation is not ordered. The sanction targets a failure to pay in bad faith, not a lack of material resources.

The fifth effect is the one that matters most to anyone who has missed the deadline. Recovery of the loss does not depend on the form in which the sentence is served, and civil liability may exist independently of criminal liability. The civil party therefore retains the possibility of recovering the loss through a separate civil action.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In law, nothing changes. The Court confirms a settled line of case law and refers to its own decisions, among them Decision No 194 of 28 February 2008, Decision No 718 of 29 October 2015 and Decision No 377 of 28 May 2019.

Part of the plea failed for reasons of legislative timing, not of substance. The criticisms directed at Article 583 of the current Code of Criminal Procedure were dismissed as inadmissible, because the cases before the Făurei District Court were governed by the old codes, the acts having been committed while those codes were in force. The new provision was therefore not applicable.

What is interesting is that the old provisions were nevertheless examined on the merits, even though they were repealed on 1 February 2014. The Court ruled on the basis of Decision No 766 of 15 June 2011, because they continue to produce legal effects in cases begun under the old law.

The time limit had already been settled by the High Court of Cassation and Justice, through Decision No 14 of 17 October 2011, delivered in an appeal in the interest of the law: the court must be seised with a view to revocation before the probation period expires, regardless of whether the case is tried before or after that date. The Constitutional Court does no more than confirm that this reading complies with the fundamental law.

It is also worth remembering why the probation period is such a firm threshold. When it expires, the situation becomes final: the obligation to serve the main penalty, the accessory penalty and any complementary penalties ceases, and a convicted person who has not committed a further offence and has not suffered a revocation is rehabilitated by operation of law, with all the consequences of the conviction removed.

Advantages and disadvantages

Practical advice

Frequently asked questions