secrecy of correspondence, interpretation that can have negative consequences on social,
professional and in particular personal life. Needless to explain is the confidential and strictly
personal character of the procedure acts inherent to a legal procedure, but is however necessary, due
to previously exposed reasons. Thus, let us imagine, for example, the hypothesis of an action to
establish paternity when the court, setting the hearing dates, according to art. 114¹ CPC, has to
notify the defendant the summons and o copy of the action, of course, non-enveloped. The
procedural agent, in his legal actions, goes to the home address of the defendant, which is not to be
found, leaving the documents and, in particular, the action describing the facts, hypothetical or not,
to any other person living there, as art. 92 CPC shows, such as, let’s assume, even his wife or
another relative, his family life or public image, previously impeccable, being about to collapse. Or
even more interesting, respecting strictly, the Code of Procedure, the action gets in the hands of the
doorkeeper or of the administrator of the building and thus the facts get in the mouth of the public,
before being cleared. In other words, as the legislator himself wants, from any person who lives
with us until the administrator and the doorkeeper, meaning anyone, as the legal reference shows,
may know the details of our private life, staged scandals or processes in which with bad faith we are
involved, the negative consequences of this unfair situation being easy to be seen.
It has to be clarified the fact that the problem of violation of the two constitutional values and
thus the appearance of negative consequences can not be imagined by the simple situation of other
persons receiving the procedural acts or by leaving them careless in other’s mailbox, only if the
expedition is made in non-enveloped or unprotected mail. Consequently, we believe that this state
of danger could be avoided by minimal care from the courts, which through an interpretation of the
procedure texts in compliance with the constitutional values, would order the transmission of
documents in a sealed envelopes.
We see the same legal void also in the provisions governing criminal procedure, art. 175
Criminal Procedure Code, but we can not talk about the same negative effects. Although
the text of the Criminal procedure code provide the same general rules regarding the expedition of
documents as the Civil procedure code, the practical applicability does not produce the same
impact, as we are not the presence of an action, and acts materialized in ways of instituting the
proceedings (complaint, denunciation, the minutes of the referral office) are not to be
communicated. In addition, given the confidential nature of the prosecution phase, there is no
question of communicating non-enveloped documents, and in the transmission of dispositions or
court decisions, earlier discussions with regard to communications of the civil court decision remain
valid in the criminal trial also.
Another legal act that could address the legal void is The Courts Rules of Procedure Act,
however this document leaves the same opportunities to interpret, disposing in the same ambiguity
that "correspondence will be sent by mail, courier or procedural agent, fax or e-mail or through any
other manner which can be identified and monitored and which ensures its official character".
Consequently, one can easily see the official concern regarding the formality of the transmission of
procedure acts, and their arrival at destination to achieve the purpose for which they were sent,
without giving due importance, legal and constitutional, also in terms of fair and moral point of
view, to preserve the confidentiality and secrecy of submitted documents.
Therefore, although previously mentioned legal texts enshrine the obligation to transmit
information and clear also the means of achieving this duty, none of them require the court to order
the transmission of documents in a sealed envelopes, thus omitting a very important aspect, which,
if interpreted, can create, as we mentioned earlier, the danger of violation of two fundamental
rights, an inviolability (right to privacy, family and private life) and socio-political right (secret of
correspondence), if interpretation implies a non-enveloped transmission.
Article 175 (2) CPC: "summons shall be given by specific agents responsible for this task or by postal service”.
Article 178-179 CPC r egulates the procedure of handing procedural acts and the persons authorized to receive
Article 94, Rules of Procedure of Courts.