As a sanction for non-compliance of obligations incumbent upon the convict during probation, revocation of the conditional suspension of penalty execution is governed by provisions of art. 83 and 84 of the Criminal Code in force. In recent years, legal practice of law courts in Romania are increasingly raising the question as to the deadline revocation of conditional suspension in case of non-compliance of civil responsibilities may be claimed; additionally, law courts embrace a different approach on the subject of procedural background in terms of admissibility of a claim as such. Taking our stand upon these premises, the review hereby aims to clarify some issues that, amid a weak legal framework, generated inconsistent case law in court activities, along with the above mentioned matters, while high interest was taken into consequences of probation period completion during the case trial. On the strength of a systematic review of relevant provisions in the field, and of a scrupulous comparative analysis of provisions set forth in the new Criminal Code and the new Criminal Procedure Code, the article highlights different cases brought to courts’ attention, the author considering that the claim’s enunciation and obtaining the revocation decision should occur before the probation period is completed and, implicitly, prior to the moment the convict’s rehabilitation de jure supervenes.
As a sanction for non-compliance of obligations incumbent upon the convict during probation, revocation of the conditional suspension of penalty execution is governed by provisions of art. 83 and 84 of the Criminal Code in force. In recent years, legal practice of law courts in Romania are increasingly raising the question as to the deadline revocation of conditional suspension in case of non-compliance of civil responsibilities may be claimed; additionally, law courts embrace a different approach on the subject of procedural background in terms of admissibility of a claim as such. Taking our stand upon these premises, the review hereby aims to clarify some issues that, amid a weak legal framework, generated inconsistent case law in court activities, along with the above mentioned matters, while high interest was taken into consequences of probation period completion during the case trial. On the strength of a systematic review of relevant provisions in the field, and of a scrupulous comparative analysis of provisions set forth in the new Criminal Code and the new Criminal Procedure Code, the article highlights different cases brought to courts’ attention, the author considering that the claim’s enunciation and obtaining the revocation decision should occur before the probation period is completed and, implicitly, prior to the moment the convict’s rehabilitation de jure supervenes.