European Integration - Realities and Perspectives
Some Considerations Regarding the Trial of Admitting Guilt
Abstract: The r esearch regarding the trial in case of admitting guilt was to attract attention to the limitation
of the courts to r ule other decisions than condemnation in such cases. It is mainly about people who admit
their guilt, but cannot benefit from a rt. 18
Criminal Code. The procedure is relat ively new (it was introduced
in the Code of Criminal Procedure Law no 202/2010) there have not conducted research in this area. In
addressing the problem there were used the methods of examination and obser vation, the results leading to
the conclusion that the legal text should be improved. The implications of the work conc ern the practitioners’
activity. It reveals a loophole which is reflected on the quality of justice.
Keywords: new institutions of the criminal trial; Code of Criminal Procedure; guilt
By the article XVII, section 43 of law no. 202/2010 regarding some measurements taken to accelerate
the settlement of processes was introduced in the Criminal Procedure Code, article 3201, entitled
“Judgment in the case of admitting guilt”. The main objective of the new institution is, of course, the
prompt settlement of criminal cases to be decided. Indeed, under this regulation, if the application of
the defendant, personally or by declaring that it recognized the authentic act retained the perpetration
of summons, the trial should be made based on the evidence brought in the prosecution phase, and so
the judicial investigation is waived. The judgment can take place at the first hearing only based on the
evidence brought in the prosecution phase and if the conditions laid down by the law are fulfilled,
namely: the defendant fully admits to all the facts established in the document instituting the
proceedings, he will not ask for further evidences except for documents in criminal proceedings and
that the criminal action is not justified and aimed at an offense punishable by life imprisonment.
In such cases, the court gives the word to the prosecutor and to the other parties, convicting the
defendant but reducing his sentence by one third in case of imprisonment or by reducing his sentence
by a quarter in case of a fine.
Therefore, the advantages are on both sides: t he act of justice is rendered with maximum celerity, thus
giving efficiency to the fundamental principle of promptness, and the defendant benefits of a reduction
of the sentence that will be applied to him.
Since the law expressly provides that in the trial of admitting guilt, the court is sentencing the
conviction, therefore the defendant that fully admitted committing an act that lacks importance and
that doesn’t represent any degree of social danger of a crime, can’t be judged by the procedure
provided by article number 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code if he requests payment under the
provisions of article number 11, point 2 a) the reference to article 10 paragraph (1), b) Criminal
Procedure Code and to article 18 of the Penal Code. An argument in support of the reason of these
provisions would be that in case we refer to a payment, the court must carefully examine all real and
personal circumstances of the criminal case, which would not be achieved by passing over the judicial
inquiry. The explanation seems superfluous, whereas the sentencing of a person i mplies, for instance,
a thorough examination of the case, in all its aspects. However, the provision of article number 3201
of the Criminal Procedure Code, gives the judge the opportunity to pronounce a sentence, for the ones
Senior Lecturer, PhD, “Danubius” University of Galati, Faculty of Law, Romania, Address: 3 Galati Blvd, Galati, Romania,
tel: +40372 361 102, fax: +40372 361 290, Corresponding author: firstname.lastname@example.org.