Basic HTML Version
1563
Kanunları ve Tercümeleri
b) there is an immunity or privilege under Romanian law which makes it impossible to
execute the freezing order;
c) it is instantly clear from the information provided in the certificate that rendering
judicial assistance by transmitting evidence or by effecting confiscation for the offence in respect
of which the criminal proceedings are pending would infringe the ne bis in idem principle.
(2) In the case referred to in para. (1) a), the Romanian judicial authority may:
a) specify a deadline of up to 3 days for the presentation, completion or correction of
the certificate;
b) accept an equivalent document, or
c) exempt the issuing judicial authority from the requirement if it considers that the
information provided is sufficient.
(3) Any decision to refuse recognition or execution shall be taken and notified forthwith to the
competent judicial authorities of the issuing State by any means capable of producing a written
record.
(4) In case it is in practice impossible to execute the freezing order for the reason that the
property or evidence have disappeared, have been destroyed, cannot be found in the location
indicated in the certificate or the location of the property or evidence has not been indicated in a
sufficiently precise manner, even after consultation with the judicial authority of the issuing State,
the competent judicial authorities of the issuing State shall likewise be notified forthwith.
ARTICLE 18732
Grounds for postponement of execution
(1) The competent Romanian judicial authority may postpone the execution of a freezing or-
der:
a) where its execution might damage ongoing criminal proceedings, until such time as
it deems reasonable;
b) where the property or evidence concerned have already been subjected to a free-
zing order in criminal proceedings, and until that freezing order is lifted;
c) where, in the case of an order freezing property in criminal proceedings with a view
to its subsequent confiscation, that property is already subject to an order made in the course of
other proceedings in Romania and until that order is lifted. However, this point shall only apply
where such an order would have priority over subsequent national freezing orders in criminal
proceedings under national law.
(2) A report on the postponement of the execution of the freezing order, including the gro-
unds for the postponement and, if possible, the expected duration of the postponement, shall be