“If I withdraw my complaint, will the criminal case close?” This is a natural question when a conflict has ended, the loss has been compensated or the people involved have reached an agreement. Withdrawing a complaint does not automatically end every criminal case. Its effect depends on the offence, the date of the alleged act and, in some situations, the prosecutor’s position.
Withdrawal of a complaint, reconciliation and mediation are distinct legal mechanisms. Although they may address the same conflict, each has its own requirements and deadlines. These differences matter particularly when the prosecutor does not endorse the withdrawal and the parties want to know whether another lawful way of ending the proceedings remains available.
Can every criminal complaint be withdrawn with an effect on the case?
No. A complaint reporting an offence must be distinguished from the prior complaint of the injured person, known in Romanian law as plângere prealabilă, which is required for certain offences. In the latter situation, the injured person’s wishes have a special role in initiating and, subject to the law, continuing the criminal proceedings.
For example, threats, harassment, breach of trust and fraudulent management are generally prosecuted upon the injured person’s prior complaint. There are also specific situations in which the authorities may proceed on their own initiative, without prosecution depending on such a complaint.
The statement “I made the complaint, so I can stop the case” therefore does not apply to every offence. The alleged act and the rules governing it must first be identified. Prior complaints and their withdrawal are governed by Articles 157 and 158 of the Romanian Criminal Code.
How do withdrawal, reconciliation and mediation differ?
Withdrawal of the prior complaint is the injured person’s decision to withdraw the complaint they filed. It does not require the reported person’s agreement, but other conditions may apply, including endorsement by the prosecutor. For offences where the law gives withdrawal this effect, it can take place until a final judgment is delivered.
Reconciliation requires agreement between both persons and removes criminal liability only where the law expressly permits it. It also extinguishes the civil claim for damages within the criminal proceedings. The deadline is generally the reading of the act referring the case to the court, a procedural step at the start of the trial.
Mediation is a process conducted with an authorised mediator. If the legal requirements are met, the resulting agreement may remove criminal liability. Merely attending discussions or signing the contract that starts mediation does not mean that the agreement capable of producing that effect has already been concluded.
| Mechanism | What it involves | Deadline for effects on criminal liability |
|---|---|---|
| Withdrawal of the prior complaint | The injured person’s decision, subject to applicable requirements | Until the final judgment is delivered |
| Reconciliation | Agreement between both persons, for offences where the law permits it | Generally, by the reading of the act referring the case to court |
| Mediation agreement | An agreement reached through mediation under the specific statutory rules | By the reading of the act referring the case to court |
Fraud provides a useful example: Article 244 of the Criminal Code permits reconciliation. A statement in which the injured person merely withdraws the complaint must not be confused with the reconciliation required by law. The distinction follows from Articles 158, 159 and 244 of the Criminal Code, while mediation is governed by Law no. 192/2006.
When does withdrawal require the prosecutor’s endorsement?
Where the law requires the prosecutor to endorse the withdrawal, the injured person’s statement alone is insufficient. Endorsement means that the prosecutor accepts the withdrawal as a ground for removing criminal liability.
The sequence of legislative changes helps explain the current position:
- In 2024, the High Court held that, for offences prosecutable both upon a prior complaint and on the authorities’ own initiative, a valid prior complaint existing when criminal proceedings were formally instituted allowed withdrawal without the prosecutor’s endorsement under the law then in force. This was the ruling in Decision no. 30 of 3 June 2024.
- From 26 June 2025, Law no. 116/2025 amended Article 158(4). The new wording refers to the prosecutor’s endorsement regardless of whether the proceedings were instituted following a complaint or on the authorities’ own initiative. In situations covered by this rule, the fact that the victim filed a complaint no longer removes the endorsement requirement. Law no. 116/2025.
This should not be generalised into a rule that every withdrawal needs the prosecutor’s consent. The scope of the amendment has prompted debate: does it cover all offences requiring a prior complaint, or only those which can also be prosecuted on the authorities’ own initiative?
At the prosecutors’ meeting of 8 and 9 December 2025, participants unanimously agreed with the second interpretation, following the National Institute of Magistracy’s opinion. This is guidance aimed at consistent practice, not a binding High Court judgment settling the controversy. The need for endorsement must be checked against the particular offence and circumstances. Meeting minutes, pages 14–19.
Which offences can also be prosecuted on the authorities’ own initiative?
One example is assault committed in public, for which Article 193(4) permits prosecution on the authorities’ own initiative. The rule also covers the other aggravated forms specified in the provision, including certain situations involving a minor victim or a victim in the perpetrator’s care or custody.
There are general exceptions too. Article 157(4) allows the authorities to proceed on their own initiative where the injured person lacks legal capacity or has limited legal capacity, and where a legal entity is represented by the perpetrator. Consequently, a threat against a minor without full legal capacity and a threat against an adult with full legal capacity may be governed by different complaint rules.
These examples are not exhaustive. They show why an everyday description such as “assault” or “threat” must be considered alongside the circumstances and the victim’s position. Criminal Code, Articles 157 and 193.
Can mediation end the case if the prosecutor refuses to endorse withdrawal?
The prosecutor’s refusal to endorse withdrawal does not, by itself, exclude the effects of a valid mediation agreement. Mediation has its own legal framework. Its availability must be assessed separately, taking account of the offence, the stage of the proceedings and the statutory requirements.
This interpretation is supported by the reasoning in High Court Decision no. 74 of 18 May 2026, published on 5 June 2026. In paragraphs 74–77, the Court explains that mediation is an independent ground for removing criminal liability. The mediation law’s references to withdrawal and reconciliation identify the offences eligible for mediation without automatically importing every condition governing those two mechanisms.
The referral’s dismissal as inadmissible does not mean its reasoning can be disregarded. Decisive reasons, meaning the explanations necessary to justify the ruling, should in principle be followed. In criminal matters, the High Court has explained that binding effect extends to the legal reasoning necessary for the outcome, not just the operative part. Separately, in a civil decision, it expressly recognised the authority of reasons supporting dismissal of a referral as inadmissible. These points appear in Preliminary Ruling no. 2 of 20 January 2021, section XIII and Decision no. 2 of 8 February 2021 on an appeal in the interests of the law, paragraph 39.
In Decision no. 74/2026, the explanations concerning mediation’s independent character support the Court’s conclusion that the law is sufficiently clear to apply without a further preliminary ruling. We therefore consider these reasons decisive and to be followed when applying the mediation law. This conclusion does not make every observation in a judgment binding, nor does it remove the need to check the agreement’s requirements in each case.
In practical terms, refusal to endorse withdrawal does not automatically end the discussion about mediation. Equally, signing a document called a “mediation agreement” does not require the court to close the case without checking the legal conditions.
What is the deadline for a mediation agreement?
To remove criminal liability, the mediation agreement must be concluded by the reading of the act referring the case to the court. This differs from withdrawal, which can take place until the final judgment. Starting discussions with a mediator before the deadline is not a substitute for concluding the agreement.
It is also necessary to check whether mediation with this effect is available for the offence, whether the perpetrator has acknowledged the act as required by law and whether the agreement resolves the criminal conflict. Participation must be voluntary, with respect for the right to legal assistance and the safeguards applicable to minors. These conditions are set out in Articles 67 and 68 of Law no. 192/2006.
A payment or a promise of compensation does not, on its own, replace a mediation agreement. If the deadline for mediation affecting criminal liability has passed, withdrawal must be assessed under its own rules, including prosecutor endorsement where required.
Do the same rules apply to domestic violence?
Domestic violence is subject to special rules which should not be confused with those governing an ordinary assault. From 19 December 2025, Article 158(5) provides that withdrawal has no effect for offences under Articles 193 and 196 committed against a family member. In these situations, obtaining the prosecutor’s endorsement is not the only issue. Law no. 232/2025.
From 26 April 2026, Article 199 provides for prosecution on the authorities’ own initiative for assault against a family member. Negligent bodily injury against a family member may also be prosecuted on that basis, alongside the exclusion of withdrawal’s effects. Law no. 53/2026.
Read together with the mediation law, these provisions do not support presenting mediation as a general way of ending domestic violence cases. For older acts, the more lenient criminal law must be assessed separately. A judgment concerning an act committed in 2024 does not automatically answer the question for one committed in 2026.
Why does the date of the act matter if withdrawal takes place now?
Legislative amendments do not automatically apply to all earlier acts merely because proceedings are still ongoing. Where the requirements for applying the more lenient criminal law are met, an earlier provision may remain relevant to the outcome.
For example, in Criminal Decision no. 1098 of 1 October 2026, the Pitești Court of Appeal gave effect to withdrawal without prosecutor endorsement for an act committed in August 2024. It relied on the more lenient criminal law and the interpretation in High Court Decision no. 30/2024. This does not mean the later requirement can be ignored for every act.
The withdrawal date and the date of the act therefore answer different questions: the former helps establish compliance with the deadline, while the latter is essential to identifying the applicable law.
Practical questions about withdrawal and mediation
Does paying compensation close the case?
Not automatically. Compensation may form part of the parties’ agreement, but does not replace the requirements for withdrawal, reconciliation or mediation. The mechanism allowed for the offence and compliance with its deadline must be checked.
Does refusal by the prosecutor necessarily lead to conviction?
No. Where endorsement is required, refusal means that withdrawal alone cannot remove criminal liability. The outcome still depends on the evidence and the legal requirements, while the availability of mediation is assessed separately.
Who pays judicial costs after withdrawal?
As a rule, where proceedings end following withdrawal, the injured person bears judicial costs advanced by the state. These are separate from their own lawyer’s fees. In a case decided on 22 September 2026, the Craiova Court of Appeal emphasised that, without a mediation agreement, the parties’ arrangement cannot displace the statutory rule governing these costs. Criminal Decision no. 1171/2026, final.
What should be checked before withdrawal or mediation?
Before signing a statement or agreement, four points should be clarified: the offence under investigation, the date of the act, the stage of the proceedings and the intended effect. These establish whether withdrawal can take effect, whether prosecutor endorsement is needed and whether there is still time to conclude a mediation agreement.
It also matters what the parties want to resolve: the criminal proceedings, compensation or both. An agreement should clearly address these issues, including costs, so that everyone understands the effects of what they sign.
Resolving the personal conflict can be an important step, but its effect on the case depends on the legal mechanism and its timing. A legal assessment of the criminal case before signing helps avoid a situation in which the parties believe the matter is over while the criminal proceedings continue.