Order;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2022:697
Date: 2022-09-06
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Justice and home affairs;Approximation of laws;Judicial cooperation in criminal matters;Area of freedom, security and justice;Fundamental rights;Charter of Fundamental Rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Romania

Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
11 February 2022 
Referring court: 
Judecătoria Târgu-Mureș (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
28 January 2022 
Applicant: 
Delgaz Grid SA 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Action brought by the applicant, Delgaz Grid SA, before the Judecătoria Târgu-
Mureș (Court of First Instance, Târgu-Mureș, Romania) concerning the length of 
time taken by the Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Alba Iulia (Public 
Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of First Instance, Alba Iulia, Romania) to process 
a case file in criminal proceedings. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, an interpretation is requested, by way of an 
expedited procedure, of Article 6(1) of Directive 2012/13/EU, Article 82 TFEU 
and Article 47 of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union] 
(‘the Charter’). 
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
Does Article 6(1) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, read 
in conjunction with Article 82 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union on the right to an effective remedy 
and to a fair trial, preclude national legislation which fails to provide that persons 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-95/22 
 
2  
who are the subject of criminal charges, but who have not been formally notified 
of the existence of the charges against them, have the right to contest the 
excessive length of the criminal proceedings in which they have been under 
investigation? 
Provisions of EU law cited 
Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 
2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, Article 6(1) 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 47 
Article 82 TFEU 
Provisions of national law cited 
Legea nr. 135/2010 privind Codul de procedură penală (Law No 135/2010 on the 
Code of Criminal Procedure) 
Articles 4881-4886 govern actions concerning the length of criminal proceedings. 
According to those provisions, such an action, seeking to expedite the 
proceedings, may be made where the work of the prosecution is not completed 
within a reasonable period of time. Pursuant to Article 4881(2), the action may be 
brought by the suspect, the accused person, the injured party, the civil claimant 
and the civil defendant, and by the public prosecution service in the course of the 
proceedings. In the case of pending criminal proceedings, such an action may be 
brought one year after the public prosecution commences, and jurisdiction to rule 
in that action lies with the judge having responsibility for matters relating to rights 
and freedoms at the court having jurisdiction to try the case. When he or she 
considers the action to be well founded, that judge is to determine the period 
within which the public prosecution service must deal with the case, although he 
or she may not issue instructions or suggest solutions to issues of fact or law. 
Article 8, which lays down an obligation for the judicial authorities to conduct the 
criminal investigation and the trial in compliance with the procedural guarantees 
and the rights of the parties and the participants in the trial, so that the facts that 
constitute the offence are established promptly and in full, no innocent person is 
held criminally liable, and anyone who has committed an offence is punished 
according to the law within a reasonable time. 
Article 10(3), which provides in particular that the suspect has the right to be 
informed immediately, and before being interviewed, about the facts that led to 
the criminal proceedings and their legal classification; Article 10(5), according to 
which the judicial authorities are required to guarantee the full and effective 
exercise of the rights of the defence of the parties and of the key participants in the 
trial for the entire duration of the criminal proceedings. 
DELGAZ GRID 
 
3 
Article 305(1), according to which, if the summons to appear meets the legal 
criteria, the investigating authority must commence criminal proceedings for the 
acts committed or that were about to be committed, even if the perpetrator is 
known or has been identified; Article 305(3), which provides that, if there is 
evidence that leads to the reasonable suspicion that a specific person has 
committed the offence being prosecuted, the investigating authority must continue 
the criminal proceedings against that person, who then becomes a suspect. 
Article 307, according to which the suspect is informed, prior to the initial 
interview, of his/her status as a suspect, of the alleged conduct and of the legal 
classification of that conduct. 
Article 311(1), (3) and (4), which provides, in essence, for the suspect’s right to be 
informed that the public prosecution has been extended to other persons and that 
the legal classification of the offence has been modified in the course of the 
criminal proceedings. 
Judgment No 26/2021 of the Curtea Constituțională a României (Constitutional 
Court, Romania; ‘the CCR’) on the plea of unconstitutionality of Article 4881(2) 
of the Codul de procedură penală (Code of Criminal Procedure) (paragraphs 12 to 
22). By that judgment, the CCR rejected the plea of unconstitutionality, ruling, in 
essence, that the contested provision is not contrary to Article 16(1) (equal rights), 
Article 21(1) (right to a fair trial) and Article 53 (restriction on the exercise of 
rights) of the Romanian Constitution. Examining similar arguments to those put 
forward in the present case, the CCR stated, in essence, that, pursuant to 
Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental 
Freedoms, the legislature envisaged the complaint procedure regarding the length 
of criminal proceedings as an effective remedy that can be exercised against 
unjustified delays in the management of the various stages of the criminal 
proceedings, where such delays are capable of infringing the fundamental rights of 
the parties. The action under the Code of Criminal Procedure presupposes that 
criminal proceedings have been initiated. Since, according to the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, the first stage of the criminal proceedings is the investigation, 
and since the Code does not require investigative measures to be carried out as a 
separate stage of the criminal proceedings prior to the public prosecution, the 
same persons referred to in Article 4881(2) of the Code may bring the action 
referred to in Articles 488l to 4886. The CCR considers that solution justified 
where a person is only the subject of a criminal investigation, but is not a suspect 
or an accused person, and is not suspected of having committed an offence. In that 
respect, the CCR has held that the term ‘person committing the offence’ should be 
taken to mean a person who is not a suspect, but who has been the subject of a 
criminal investigation. Like the concept of limitation of actions, the review 
procedure concerning the length of the proceedings is justified by the need to limit 
the state of legal uncertainty in which the parties to the criminal proceedings find 
themselves. The person committing the offence, or the other persons summoned 
for interview in the course of the criminal proceedings in relation to the various 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-95/22 
 
4  
offences for which they are being prosecuted, do not have the status of parties to 
the criminal proceedings and so are not in such a state of uncertainty. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 On 1 July 2019, investigative bodies from the Inspectoratul de Poliție Județean 
Alba – Serviciul de Investigare a Criminalității Economice (District Police 
Inspectorate, Alba, Romania – Economic Crime Unit) launched an investigation 
of their own motion to establish whether, during maintenance activities and work 
on gas networks, employees at the Alba Iulia [operational] centre of Delgaz Grid 
SA had stolen equipment and goods in their safekeeping, which they then used for 
private purposes, facilitated fuel theft by falsifying company documents, 
deliberately acted unlawfully to generate losses or interfere with the operation of 
the distribution service, failed to follow correct safety procedures for natural gas 
measuring instruments, faked the extent of their workload by only formally 
recording the activities carried out, and used the centre’s resources for their own 
personal use. 
2 On 2 July 2019, the investigative bodies commenced a public prosecution (in rem) 
in respect of the offences of abuse of office under Article 297(1) of the Codul 
penale (Criminal Code; ‘the Criminal Code’), the fraudulent conversion of public 
monies under Article 295(1) of the Criminal Code, and falsification of private 
accounts under Article 322(1) of the Criminal Code; the criminal file was 
examined by the Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Alba Iulia (Public Prosecutor’s 
Office at the Court of First Instance, Alba Iulia, Romania). 
3 On 8 January 2020, the extension of the public prosecution in rem was ordered for 
the offences of fraud under Article 244(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code, the 
making of intentionally false statements under Article 321(l) of the Criminal 
Code, and the use of false documents under Article 323 of the Criminal Code. 
Following the separation of the case on 29 October 2020, a separate file was 
opened for the investigation of those offences. 
4 In the second criminal case, approximately 87 searches were carried out at the 
head office and places of work of Delgaz Grid SA. As a result, physical and 
electronic documents were seized from around 49 addresses, various physical 
documents were retained as evidence, and some 174 witnesses and current and 
former employees of the company were interviewed. 
5 On 21 July 2021, Delgaz Grid SA brought an action before the referring court, the 
Judecătoria Târgu-Mureș (Court of First Instance, Târgu-Mureș, Romania), 
concerning the length of the criminal proceedings in the criminal case brought by 
the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of First Instance, Alba Iulia, in relation 
to the second case file. 
6 The applicant argued that the criminal proceedings had been at the preliminary 
investigation stage for one year and four months. Furthermore, although the public 
DELGAZ GRID 
 
5 
prosecution was directed against the offence (in rem), it was apparent from the 
manner in which the investigation was being conducted that the applicant was in 
fact suspected of having committed certain offences, despite not having been 
formally charged. 
7 The applicant believes that a public prosecution in personam was brought and that 
it actually became a suspect on 8 January 2020, when – in the order extending the 
public prosecution for the offences of fraud, the making of intentionally false 
statements and the use of false documents – it was stated that, ‘by altering the 
fault reports to show natural gas leaks, the technological consumption of the 
company Delgaz Grid SA was artificially inflated. That consumption was 
submitted each month to the Autoritatea Națională de Reglementare în Domeniul 
Energiei (National Energy Regulator) and was taken into account when setting 
natural gas distribution tariffs. By sending such fictitious data, Delgaz Grid SA 
misled the National Energy Regulator when it was setting gas distribution tariffs. 
This had an impact on the distribution tariffs of 10.4% of the total value of the 
technological consumption.’ 
8 The Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of First Instance, Alba Iulia, seeks, 
primarily, the dismissal of the action as inadmissible, since the applicant is not a 
suspect or an accused person. In the alternative, it seeks the rejection of the 
complaint as unfounded since, in view of the nature, subject matter and 
complexity of the case, as well as of the applicant’s conduct, the reasonable length 
of the criminal proceedings has not been exceeded. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
9 The applicant company first submits that, under the Charter, everyone whose 
rights guaranteed by the law of the European Union have been infringed has the 
right to an effective remedy before a tribunal, including where the reasonable 
length of criminal proceedings has been exceeded. 
10 Referring to paragraph 110 of the judgment of the European Court of Human 
Rights in Simeonovi v. Bulgaria, the applicant submits that the ‘reasonable time’ 
referred to in Article 6(1) of the [European Convention on Human Rights] starts 
from the moment at which a person is charged. In addition, ‘a criminal charge’ 
exists from the moment at which a person has been officially informed by the 
competent authority of the charge of having committed an offence, or from the 
moment at which his/her situation has been substantially affected by actions taken 
by the authorities as a result of a suspicion against him/her. 
11 The applicant company further submits that, although Directive 2012/13 
introduced a minimum standard for promptly informing suspects or accused 
persons of the charges and their rights in the context of the criminal proceedings, 
it does not expressly define what is meant by suspects or accused persons. Since 
the company is already the de facto subject of criminal charges according to the 
case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, it considers it necessary to 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-95/22 
 
6  
establish whether it may exercise its procedural rights, including the right to 
submit a complaint that the reasonable length of the proceedings has been 
exceeded. 
12 It takes the view that Article 4881(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure infringes 
the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, enshrined in the Charter, by 
limiting the category of persons entitled to bring an action concerning the length 
of criminal proceedings, despite the fact that persons who are not in one of the 
categories prescribed by law may also have a legitimate interest in bringing such 
an action. 
13 The applicant notes in this regard that, according to the case-law of the European 
Court of Human Rights, the concept of ‘charge’, within the meaning of 
Article 6(1) of the Convention, may also take the form of measures, other than 
official notification, which might have a significant impact on the person 
suspected of having committed an offence, such as, for example, a search of the 
family home within the context of a preliminary investigation. 
14 The European Court of Human Rights, in its judgment of 14 October 2010 in 
Brusco v. France, stated that a person becomes a suspect not from the moment at 
which he/she is made aware of that status, but from the moment at which the 
authorities had reasonable grounds to suspect that he/she had committed a crime. 
It further held that the notification need not take a specific form, since any implicit 
act by a state authority that has a significant impact on the person’s position, 
containing an implicit criminal charge, is equivalent to notification. 
15 The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights demonstrates, according to 
the applicant company, the importance of the early stages of a criminal 
investigation, irrespective of their classification under national law, whether part 
of criminal proceedings or not, for observance of the fundamental guarantees 
enshrined in the Convention. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
16 The referring court, adopting the arguments put forward by the applicant 
company, takes the view that an interpretation of EU law is needed in this case, in 
particular an interpretation of Article 6(1) of Directive 2012/13, Article 47 of the 
Charter and Article 82 TFEU. 
17 According to the referring court, the present dispute comes within the scope of EU 
law, since the applicant company submits that the national legislation, which does 
not include, within the category of persons entitled to bring an action concerning 
the length of the criminal proceedings, a person who has not been formally 
notified of the existence of criminal charges against him/her, but who, in the light 
of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, is a de facto suspect, is 
not compatible with the rules of EU law. 
DELGAZ GRID 
 
7 
18 The referring court further observes that the Court of Justice’s answer to the 
question referred will affect the outcome of the case, since the CCR has declared 
the provisions of Article 4881(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be 
compliant with the Constitution, and the practice of the national courts is to 
dismiss as inadmissible actions concerning the length of criminal proceedings in 
situations such as the one that has led to the reference to the Court in the present 
case. 
19 The referring court requests the application of the expedited procedure pursuant to 
Article 105 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, basing that request 
on the need to avoid unjustified delays in the various stages of the criminal 
proceedings, which could affect the fundamental rights of the parties.