Justice vs Abuse — Part II: The Precedent & The Law
The legal battle: DIICOT vs. Cristea. The three victories, the historic precedent and international law protecting patients with controlled medication.
Part Two of this series documents what happened after the airport confiscation — and how the Romanian justice system ultimately sided with the patient. What follows is a detailed reconstruction of the legal battle: from the official documents obtained before travel, through the confiscation and criminal investigation, to the three consecutive court victories that established a legal precedent for medical cannabis patients in Romania.
Each section below is built on primary sources — court rulings, official correspondence, legal provisions, and personal testimony. The timeline, the evidence, and the legal arguments are presented as they unfolded, so that any patient, lawyer, or journalist can follow the case from beginning to end.
The Legal Prescription
Written confirmations from Romanian authorities — obtained before travel
Knowing that controlled substances require special documentation for travel to Romania, I sought written confirmations from Romanian authorities before travelling — precisely to avoid any incident. I received two official documents: one from IGPF (Border Police) and one from DGPV (Customs) — both confirming that transporting controlled medicines, accompanied by a valid prescription, is permitted by law.
In other words: the very authorities who would later confiscate my medication and open a criminal case confirmed in writing, one day before my flight, that what I was doing was legal. This fundamental contradiction formed the basis of my defence in court — and convinced all three instances.
Romania's General Inspectorate of Border Police confirmed that the importation of controlled-substance medicines is permitted with complete legal documentation.
The General Directorate of Customs Procedures detailed the requirements of GD 1915/2006, Art. 49 — the very article DIICOT subsequently chose to ignore.
The Airport &
Confiscation
New articles on neurodivergence & affirming therapy — no spam, unsubscribe any time.
Articole noi despre neurodivergenta & terapie afirmativa — fara spam, dezabonare oricand.
✓ Subscribed! Check your inbox.✓ Abonat! Verifica inbox-ul.
Something went wrong. Try again.A aparut o eroare. Incearca din nou.
23 July 2024 — the red channel, Henri Coandă International Airport — family holiday
On 23 July 2024, I landed at Henri Coandă Airport — this time on holiday, together with my wife and daughter. I voluntarily declared the treatment at customs and presented all documents — the same valid medical prescriptions, the same certificates, the same written confirmations I had used in 2023 without any incident.
Customs authorities confiscated the medical treatment — both mine and my wife's. The confiscated quantities: 9.67 grams and 14.68 grams of medical cannabis — quantities calculated strictly for the duration of our stay, according to the medical prescription. They also confiscated lisdexamfetamine — my ADHD medication — even though it falls under the same legal regime (Schedule II controlled substances).
What followed was a four-hour interrogation. My wife and our minor daughter witnessed everything. The DIICOT prosecutor eventually agreed to return the lisdexamfetamine — but maintained the confiscation of the medical cannabis. Both substances under the same legal schedule. The discrimination was obvious.
The consequences were immediate and devastating. The abrupt interruption of the medical cannabis treatment triggered a severe medical crisis — Crohn's disease symptoms returned in full force, and in the following days I was rushed to emergency hospitalisation. Treatment deprivation was not merely a legal act — it was an act of medical violence.
The customs inspectors confiscated the quantity of medical cannabis. IGPF was notified. A few hours later, DIICOT opened a criminal case — ignoring Art. 49 of GD 1915/2006, ignoring the written confirmations received from the very same authorities who were now prosecuting me, and ignoring the valid medical prescription.
What followed was 18 months of criminal prosecution — 18 months during which I lived with the status of a suspect, my medication confiscated, my health deteriorating without adequate treatment. All because I had chosen to respect the law and declare what I was carrying.
"I declared voluntarily at customs — exactly what I was told to do. Four hours of interrogation in the presence of our minor daughter. 18 months later: 3 courts, 3 victories, case closed."
The DIICOT Case
18 months of criminal prosecution for a legal medicine
DIICOT consistently maintained that Romanian criminal law does not recognise exceptions based on health status or medical prescriptions issued in other states. Their argument was simple and brutal: cannabis is a controlled substance in Romania, regardless of context.
— DIICOT Indictment, 2024 (paraphrased)
"The law knows no exceptions"
- ✗Cannabis = illegal drug, regardless of prescription
- ✗UK prescriptions are irrelevant in Romanian criminal law
- ✗GD 1915/2006 creates no criminal exceptions
- ✗European legislation does not modify domestic legislation
"Legal patient, legal medicine"
- ✓Valid prescription — European state (UK)
- ✓Art. 49 GD 1915/2006 explicitly protects patients
- ✓3 courts: Bucharest Tribunal, Court of Appeal, Final Ruling — all pro-patient
- ✓National precedent: medical cannabis ≠ criminal offence
TVR 1 Interview
The full TVR 1 (Romanian national television) report on the unprecedented decision forcing DIICOT to return confiscated medical cannabis. English subtitles available.
The timeline below condenses 18 months of legal proceedings into a single visual thread. Each entry marks a turning point — from the initial confiscation at Henri Coanda Airport, through the DIICOT investigation, to the three court hearings that each confirmed the same conclusion: the patient acted within the law. Reading them in sequence reveals both the emotional toll and the procedural absurdity of criminalising a legal medical treatment.
Case Timeline
From the airport confiscation (23 July 2024) to the definitive ruling of the Bucharest Court of Appeal (28 January 2026) — 18 months, three courts, three victories, a score of 3–0. My right to be treated legally with medical cannabis on Romanian territory was confirmed definitively.
Written confirmations received from IGPF (no. 28850-28909, 23 Sep 2022) and DGPV (no. 20264, 22 Sep 2022) confirming the legality of transporting prescribed controlled substances at Romanian customs.
Legal preparationAlongside MP Emanuel Ungureanu, I brought my case to the attention of parliamentarians and the press. Victoria Law — the proposal for regulating access to medical cannabis — is put forward for debate. The law remains blocked.
Public action
I presented the Romanian Parliament's Health Commission with what medical cannabis actually looks like — not pills or conventional medication, but cannabis flower meant to be vaporized with a specialized medical device. I demonstrated in front of the commission how the vaporizer works.
Public action
At the red channel, customs officers confiscate 9.67g + 14.68g of medical cannabis with valid UK prescription. My wife and I presented complete documentation. DIICOT opens a criminal file the next day (24.07.2024). A four-hour interrogation follows in the presence of our minor daughter.
IncidentDIICOT dismisses the case (20.09.2024) under Art. 16(1)(b) Thesis II — lack of culpability — but still proposes special confiscation of the treatment. On 7 November 2024, DIICOT rejects the complaint against the dismissal order. The medication remains confiscated.
Institutional abuseThe Bucharest Tribunal changes the dismissal basis from Thesis II to Thesis I — the act is not provided for by criminal law. The court recognises the validity of the medical prescription and Art. 49 of GD 1915/2006. Patient acquitted. First of three victories.
Victory #1
The Tribunal rejects DIICOT confiscation and orders full restitution: 9.67g + 14.68g medical cannabis. Court costs at state expense. Patient conduct confirmed as lawful under Art. 16(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
Victory #2 — Restitution
The Bucharest Court of Appeal delivers the final and irrevocable ruling: DIICOT appeal dismissed as inadmissible, score 3–0. All three courts reached the same conclusion."The state does not return drugs. The state returns medicines."
Victory #3 — Court of Appeal Definitive
Continue to Part III
What comes after victory:
The court victory is not the end. I have filed a lawsuit against the Romanian state, the Customs Agency, and DIICOT for the abuses committed — from the illegal confiscation and partial destruction of medication through laboratory testing, to 18 months of criminal proceedings for an act that does not exist. The precedent is established, but in Romania a precedent does not apply automatically. That is why political and legislative pressure must continue.
The story continues with DIICOT vs. Patient, the three court victories, international law, and the urgency of Victoria Law.
Read Part III →