In brief

  • The execution of a prison sentence can be interrupted for the raising of a child only until the child turns one year old. The Constitutional Court confirmed that the limit holds even where a child older than one needs medical care.
  • The plea of unconstitutionality was raised by a convicted woman from Arad who asked for the interruption of her sentence in order to care for her sick child. The Court dismissed it as unfounded: if the father is known and able, the duty of care falls to him, and if he is not, guardianship is established.
  • Who is affected: persons serving a custodial sentence who have children, as well as the courts hearing applications for the postponement or the interruption of the execution. The decision is final and generally binding from 24 July 2026.
Act: CCR Decision no. 682/2025
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 606 of 24 July 2026
In force from: 24 July 2026

A woman serving a prison sentence cannot obtain the interruption of the execution in order to care for her child once the child has passed the age of one, not even where the child needs medical care. The Constitutional Court dismissed as unfounded the plea raised by Maria Ioana Stoica in a case before the Arad District Court, Criminal Division, and found that the texts are constitutional. It is the second decision published on the same day in the Official Gazette of Romania that concerns the execution stage of a sentence, after the one holding that at the merger of sentences the court searches once more for the more favourable criminal law. Decision no. 682 of 4 December 2025 was published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 606 of 24 July 2026.

The texts at issue are Article 592(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which refers, for the interruption of the execution, to the grounds for postponement, read together with Article 589(1)(b) of the same code, in the wording preceding Law no. 201/2023. That text provided that the execution of the sentence is postponed where the convicted woman is pregnant or has a child under one year of age, until the cause of the postponement has ceased.

The author of the plea invoked equality before the law, free access to justice, the protection of the family and the protection of children, that is, Articles 16(1), 21, 48 and 49 of the Constitution. Her argument: the bond between mother and child does not stop at the first birthday, and a sick child needs its mother after that too. She also relied on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, including the judgment of 3 October 2017 in Alexandru Enache v. Romania.

The Arad District Court, the court that referred the matter, took the view that the plea was unfounded. The Public Ministry asked for it to be dismissed as inadmissible, arguing that what was in fact being sought was an addition to the text. The presidents of the two Chambers of Parliament, the Government and the Ombudsman did not submit any observations.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is that the one-year threshold remains untouched. Referring back to Decision no. 484 of 13 July 2021, the Court noted that the period was designed as the time needed to overcome the consequences of pregnancy and childbirth, for the child as much as for the mother. The same limit appears in the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Alexandru Enache v. Romania, at paragraph 68.

The second effect concerns who cares for the child after the first birthday. The Court split the situation in two. If the father is known, is at liberty and is not under any physical or legal incapacity, the duty to raise and care for the child falls to him, including where the child needs medical treatment. This is a direct application of the best interests of the child, laid down in Article 2 of Law no. 272/2004.

The third effect covers the other scenario. If the father is unknown, has died or cannot ensure that the child is raised, guardianship is established under Article 110 or Article 511 of the Civil Code or under Article 44 of Law no. 272/2004. The Court found that in such a case the legislation offers numerous means of protection, which implicitly cover medical care needs as well.

The fourth effect has to do with the nature of the institution. The postponement and the interruption of the execution are exceptions to the rule that custodial sentences are served immediately and continuously. The grounds on which they may be granted are expressly and exhaustively set out in Article 589(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and laying them down is a matter of the criminal policy of the State, that is, a matter for Parliament, under Article 61(1) of the Constitution.

The fifth effect is procedural. The decision is final and generally binding from publication, and the same plea can no longer be raised. Applications for interruption based on the age of the child therefore remain confined to the first year of life, and the child’s state of health does not open up a new ground.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In law nothing changes, and the Court says so explicitly: the solution and the reasoning of the earlier decisions remain valid, because no new elements have arisen.

The text under review has, however, been amended in the meantime, and the difference matters for today’s reader. The Court ruled on the wording preceding Law no. 201/2023, which spoke of „a convicted woman” who was pregnant or had a child under one year of age. Through Article I point 60 of that law, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 618 of 6 July 2023, the text became neutral: „where the convicted person is pregnant or has a child under one year of age”. The amendment brought the law into line with Decision no. 535 of 24 September 2019, by which the Court had found it unconstitutional to exclude a convicted man with a child under one year of age.

What that amendment did not change is precisely what was at stake in this case: the one-year limit. It stayed in the text, and the 2026 decision confirms that it is constitutional. Accordingly, although the wording under challenge is no longer the one in force, the conclusion on the age threshold applies to the current text as well.

It is also worth noting that the Public Ministry had asked for the plea to be dismissed as inadmissible, taking the view that the author was in fact seeking an addition to the law. The Court did not take that route. It first checked whether it could examine the substance, found that the criticisms differed from those settled in 2019, and only then dismissed the plea on the merits. The difference is not a formal one: a ruling on the merits means that the text was actually confirmed as constitutional.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It settles a practical question for the courts dealing with execution: the state of health of a child older than one is not, in itself, a ground for interrupting the mother’s sentence.
  • It sets out explicitly what means exist instead of an interruption: the duty of an able father to care for the child, and, where there is none, guardianship and the protection measures in Law no. 272/2004.
  • It keeps a predictable criterion, verifiable from a simple date of birth, instead of a case-by-case assessment of medical needs.
  • It relies on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, including a case decided against Romania itself.
  • It indirectly confirms that the 2019 solution, which brought the convicted father into the text, remains the reference line in this area.

What remains a problem

  • The specific situation of a sick child is left without an answer of its own. The Court points to the general protection under child protection legislation, which does not replace the presence of a parent.
  • The one-year threshold is rigid and takes no account of the real differences between children, which is exactly what the author of the plea complained about.
  • The assumption that the father is able to provide care is easier to verify on paper than in practice, and the decision does not discuss cases in which he exists but does not get involved.
  • The time elapsed is considerable. The referral was made in January 2022, the decision was delivered in December 2025 and published in July 2026, and in the meantime the child in the case grew up.
  • The wording under challenge is no longer the one in force, so the decision has to be read carefully: only the conclusion on the one-year limit carries over to the current text.

Practical advice

  1. Check the age of the child at the date of the application first. Under one year, the ground in Article 589(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies directly. Over one year, that basis is no longer available.
  2. If the real reason is the state of health of the convicted person, use the other ground, the one in Article 589(1)(a), which concerns an illness that cannot be treated within the prison medical system. It is a separate basis, with its own medical evidence.
  3. For a child left without care, ask for guardianship to be established or for a special protection measure from the general directorate for social assistance and child protection. These are the routes the Court expressly points to.
  4. Bear in mind that the current text speaks of „the convicted person”, not only of the mother. A convicted father with a child under one year of age has the same right, following the 2023 amendment.
  5. Do not build the application on the unconstitutionality of the one-year limit. After this decision, that argument can no longer be put again before the Constitutional Court.
  6. Document the child’s medical needs even if you rely on another basis. They may count when protection measures are tailored and in dealings with the guardianship authority, even though they do not create a right to have the sentence interrupted.

Frequently asked questions

What exactly did the Constitutional Court decide?
It dismissed as unfounded the plea raised by Maria Ioana Stoica in Case no. 20.145/55/2021/a1 before the Arad District Court, Criminal Division, and found that Article 592(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read together with Article 589(1)(b) of the same code, in the wording preceding Law no. 201/2023, are constitutional in relation to the criticisms formulated. The decision was taken unanimously.
Until when can the interruption of a sentence be sought for the raising of a child?
Until the child reaches the age of one. The text also covers the case of a pregnant convicted person. After the child’s first birthday, that basis can no longer be used.
Does it matter that the child needs medical care?
Not for this basis. The Court held that the need for care, including medical care, of a child older than one is covered through the father’s obligations and, where there is no father, through guardianship and the protection measures in Law no. 272/2004.
Does the rule apply to convicted fathers as well?
Yes, in the current wording. By Decision no. 535 of 24 September 2019, the Court found it unconstitutional to exclude a convicted man with a child under one year of age, and Law no. 201/2023 replaced „a convicted woman” with „the convicted person”.
What is the difference between the postponement and the interruption of the execution?
The postponement comes before the execution begins, the interruption during it. The grounds are common, however: Article 592(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure refers, for the interruption, to the grounds for postponement in Article 589.
Why was the plea not dismissed as inadmissible, as the prosecutor requested?
Because the criticisms differed from those settled by the 2019 decision: there the issue was the exclusion of the father, here the age limit in the case of a sick child. The Court took the view that it could rule on the merits and dismissed the plea as unfounded.
Is the text under review still in force?
Not in the wording under challenge. Article 589(1)(b) was amended by Article I point 60 of Law no. 201/2023 and is now worded neutrally. The one-year limit, that is, exactly what was examined here, remained unchanged.
From when does the decision take effect?
From its publication in the Official Gazette of Romania, that is, from 24 July 2026. Under Article 147(4) of the Constitution, decisions of the Constitutional Court are generally binding from the date of publication and have effect only for the future.

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. 606 of 24 July 2026 16 pages PDF, 117 KB the act starts on page 4

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.