Article 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Procedural Adaptability Versus the Imperative of Observing the Legal Deadline

The article titled “Article 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure—Between Procedural Flexibility and the Imperative to Comply with the Statutory Time Limit,” written by Gruia-Teodor Streinu, a judge on the Criminal Division of the Bucharest Tribunal, was published in A.U.B.D. – Legal Forum No. 1/2026.

This article analyzes the procedural sanctions applicable to preventive measures, with a focus on the 5-day deadline and the relationship between extension and substitution. It highlights the differences between the criminal investigation phase and the moment the case is brought before the court via an indictment, as well as the consequences of failing to comply with the statutory time limit. The time limits in this area serve as substantial safeguards against arbitrariness, having a constitutional and treaty-based foundation, and ensure periodic judicial review of the grounds for the measure. Failure to comply with the 5-day deadline results in the Public Prosecutor’s Office forfeiting the right to request an extension or review of the measure and renders the belated request absolutely null and void, with the measure ceasing by operation of law upon the expiration of its term. The institution of substitution provided for in Article 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is of an auxiliary nature and presupposes the emergence of new factual or legal elements; it cannot replace an extension when the original grounds still exist. The text cannot be interpreted in isolation but must be interpreted systematically, within the broader framework of the regulation of preventive measures, in order to prevent the circumvention of procedural discipline through the formal use of the substitution mechanism.