Art. 242 din Codul de procedură penală – între adaptabilitate procedurală și imperativul respectării termenului legal
Art. 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code – between procedural adaptability and the imperative of complying with the legal term

Summary/Abstract: The analysis examines the regime of procedural sanctions applicable in the field of preventive measures, with particular emphasis on the five-day time limit and on the relationship between the institutions of extension and replacement. It highlights the differences between the investigation phase and the moment when the court is seized by indictment, as well as the consequences of failing to comply with the statutory time limit. Time limits in this area constitute substantial safeguards against arbitrariness, having both constitutional and conventional foundations, and they ensure periodic judicial review of the grounds underlying the preventive measure. Failure to observe the five-day time limit entails the forfeiture of the Public Prosecutor’s right to request the extension or review of the measure and the absolute nullity of the belated procedural motion, the measure ceasing by operation of law upon the expiry of its duration. The institution of replacement regulated by Article 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code has an auxiliary character and presupposes the emergence of new factual or legal elements; it cannot substitute the extension mechanism where the original grounds continue to exist. The provision cannot be interpreted in isolation, but rather systemically, within the overall framework governing preventive measures, in order to prevent the circumvention of procedural discipline through the formal use of the replacement mechanism.

• Details
• Contents