164 VEREŞ CRINA
The criminal code of 1937 was marked by both the repressive model and the
preventative model of social reaction. The regulation thus enshrines the principles
of the classical criminal school (the moral responsibility of the individual, the
freedomof will, the lawfulness of incrimination and punishment, the guilt, etc.),
but it was also influenced by the positivist school (admitting the safety measures
for the state of peril of the perpetrator, in order to re-socialize the convict,
educational measures for juvenile offenders). 63
The Criminal Code of 1937 provided in the first book the principle of the
personality of the criminal law and regulated double criminality for all crimes
committed by a Romanian citizen abroad. Thus, the facts are not incriminated by
the Romanian law, the conviction would be contrary to the Romanian public order,
and if the foreign law does not criminalize the same deed, it means that the
Romanian citizen committed an act that was allowed at the place of the
The repressive model is felt by the founding of the criminal code on the
principle of the classical school regarding the moral responsibility of the offender,
but the regulation also took into account the necessity of defending the society
through awareness of the danger that the offender would represent for it. 65 The
second element is a preventative one, indicating that the preventive trend from the
1865 code is also highlighted in the 1937 code by a harmonious connection with the
repressive elements. 66 The Criminal Code regulates the offense institution, which it
considers a strict legal phenomenon, the crime and punishment appearing as legal
entities, as violations of certain regulations existing in society and whose danger
was determined by the gravity of the facts of disregarding these rules. 67
European criminal codes have been a source of inspiration for the Criminal
Code of 1937 regarding the notions of legitimate defense, state of necessity, order
of law, victim's consent are justifying causes, distinguishing (implicitly68) between
justifiable causes, which produce in rem effects, and the causes of lack of
culpability, which produce in personam effects. 69
63 Idem, pg. 25-26.
64 Vintil Dongoroz, previously refered to work,pg. 154.
65 Ion Ifrim, previously refered to work , pg. 26.
66 Tudor Avrigeanu, Actualitatea operei lui Vintil Dongoroz din perspectiva dreptului comparat (The
Vintil Dongoroz Opera from the Perspective of Comparative Law),in Vintil Dongoroz (1893-1976) -
personalitate marcant a ştiinei juridice româneşti (outstanding personality of Romanian legal science),
Romanian Academy Publishing House, Bucuresti, 2013, p. 63.
67 George Antoniu, Contribuiile profesorului Vintil Dongoroz la dezvoltarea dreptului penal roman
(Contributions of Professor Vintil Dongoroz to the development of Romanian criminal law), in Vintil
Dongoroz (1893-1976), Personalitate complex a dreptului românesc (Complexity of Romanian law),
Romanian Academy Publishing House, Bucureşti, 2013, pp. 40-41.
68 In the texts on the causes of lack of culpability the expression "the accused is not responsible
for the offense". The texts referring to the justifying causes used the expression "the act is not
considered a crime".
69Ion Ifrim, previously refered to work, pg. 26.