The lack of publicity of criminal prosecution as a safeguard for the protection of the right to privacy

Authors

Keywords:

legal system, criminal prosecution, criminal procedural law, measures, right to privacy, duties

Abstract

Criminal prosecution represents the first phase of the criminal process, during which appropriate judicial bodies exercise a judicial function through specific acts, known as acts of criminal prosecution. The main judicial activity associated with this function is the criminal prosecution itself, carried out by the prosecution authorities according to their specific competencies and aligned with the purpose of the criminal process — namely, the identification of offenses and the bringing of perpetrators to criminal liability. During the criminal prosecution phase, there is also another judicial activity regulated by special provisions concerning fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right to privacy. This activity is carried out during the criminal prosecution phase, in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), by the prosecution authorities, simultaneously with the prosecution activity. The responsibility for respecting this right to privacy lies with the prosecution authorities. Their role in conducting criminal prosecution activities while respecting and protecting the parties’ right to privacy is essential and mandatory. Failure to respect the right to privacy in the conduct of criminal prosecution activities is sanctioned by administrative, civil, and criminal legislation, as well as by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The study discusses and presents the necessity of the lack of publicity during the criminal prosecution phase and the role of such measures as a safeguard for the protection of the right to privacy.

References

1. Cristea D., Codul penal. Codul de procedură penal. Iași, Editura Lumen, 2024, 800 p.

2. Dolea Ig. Codul de procedură penală al Republicii Moldova, ediția a 2-a, Chișinău, Editura Cartea Juridică, 2020, 1407 p.

3. Codul Penal al Republicii Moldova. În: Monitorul Oficial nr. 72-74, Actualizat la 01.10.2018, Chișinău, Tipografia Centrală, 2018, 168 p.

4. Hotărârea CtEDO pe cauza Brisc c. României din 11.12.2018, nr. 26238/10. În: https://lege5.ro/gratuit/gmztonjrgi2q/

hotararea-in-cauza-brisc-impotriva-romaniei-din-11122018 (accesat 22.09.2025).

5. Hotărârea CtEDO pe cauza Banco de Finanzas e Inversiones S.L. c. Spaniei, din 27 aprilie 1999, nr.36876/97. În: https://legeaz.net/index.php?view=article&catid=13956:hotarari-cedo&id=811270666: banco-de-finanzase-bm9&format=pdf (accesat 22.09.2025).

6. Olariu M., Marin C. Drept procesual penal. Partea generală. Ediția a III-a revăzută și adăugită, București, Editura Universul Juridic, 2020, 484 p.

7. Jidovu N. Drept procesual penal. Ed.2.București: C.H. Beck, 2007, apud Antoci A., Aspecte istorice și probleme actuale privind respectarea drepturilor omului în raport cu asigurarea confidențialității urmăririi penale. În: Revista Națională de Drept Nr. 6, 2015, p.26. În: Cristea D., Protecția datelor cu caracter personal în procesul penal. Monografie, Bu

Published

22.05.2026

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Cristea, D. (2026) “The lack of publicity of criminal prosecution as a safeguard for the protection of the right to privacy”, Scientific Annals of the "Ştefan cel Mare" Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Moldova, (21), pp. 134–144. Available at: https://ojs.lux.md/anale-stiintifice/article/view/73 (Accessed: 3 June 2026).

Similar Articles

1-10 of 20

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Most read articles by the same author(s)