Key facts of the case:
The applicants were involved in criminal proceedings, separately; all of the proceedings ended when the prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute. The applicats filed to the court, complaining against the decision not to prosecute and demanding that the investigation be continued. Their applications were rejected by the court. The applicants were unable to appeal the decision of the court, as, according to the Criminal Procedure Code, such a decision was final. Consequently, they claimed that the provisions of art. 2781, par. (10) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which state that judicial decisions concerning complaints against a decision not to prosecute are final, are unconstitutional and violate art. 1 on the Romanian State, art. 15 of the Universality of rights, freedoms and duties, art. 21 on the Free Access to Justice and the Right to a fair trial, art. 24 on the Right to defense, art. 53 on the Restriction on the exercise of certain rights or freedoms, art. 129 on the Use of Appeal, art. 148 on Integration into the European Union, as well as art. 11 on International Law and National Law, art. 20 on International treaties on human rights, all articles of the Romanian Constitution, in convergence with ECHR art. 1 on the Obligation to respect Human Rights, art. 6 on the Right to a fair trial, art. 13 on the Right to an effective remedy, art. 17 on the Prohibition of abuse of rights, as well as art. 2 on the Right of appeal in criminal matters of Protocol no.7 of the ECHR, also in convergence with art. 8 concerning the right to an effective remedy, art. 10 on the right to a fair and public hearing, and art. 30 on the prohibition of abuse of rights of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights articles 2, on the right to an effective appeal, and 5, on the prohibition of rights abuse, and also in convergence with art. 47 on the Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial and art. 54 on the Prohibitions of abuse of rights of the Charter.
The Constitutional Court examined whether the provisions of art. 2781, par. (10) of the Criminal Procedure Code comply with the provisions of art. 47 on the Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial and art. 54 on the Prohibitions of abuse of rights of the Charter. The Court stated that the provisions of art. 2781, par. (10) of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not violate Article 47 on the Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial of the Charter, because they do not exclude the possibility to benefit of the rights and procedural guarantees established by law during a public trial that is conducted by an independent, impartial and legally established court, in a reasonable timeframe. On the other hand, these provisions cannot be construed as giving the right to an appeal in every case. Also, the court found that Article 54 of the Charter is not applicable in this case, since its normative assumption does not apply in reference with art. 2781, par. (10) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.