DIICOT &
Discrimination
How DIICOT reacted after the first victory — and what they omit
On 26 March 2025, a few days after the first favourable court ruling, DIICOT published a press release. The press release implicitly acknowledges the failure of the prosecution — but completely omits the human context of the case.
DIICOT's press release states that prosecutors ordered the closure of the case, concluding that"the act was not committed with the guilt required by law." In other words — I had committed no criminal offence.
Yet the press release does not mention that we are patients with incurable chronic diseases. It does not mention the legal medical prescriptions. It does not mention the humiliation we were subjected to. It does not mention our minor daughter, a witness to everything.
But most gravely: despite clearly losing the first ruling at the Bucharest Tribunal, DIICOT prosecutors issued a SPECIAL CONFISCATION order for our cannabis-based medication — without solid legal grounds, in open defiance of the court's decision. A state that confiscates a patient's treatment after the judiciary ruled that no crime was committed is not applying the law — it is applying punishment.
Discrimination Proved
At the July 2024 customs check, the DIICOT prosecutor ordered the confiscation of both treatments: the medical cannabis and the lisdexamfetamine (the ADHD treatment), both legally prescribed in the United Kingdom. Both substances are in the same legal schedule — Table II of controlled substances.
The case received extensive media coverage: BihorJust: Historic ruling — Tribunal confirms patients' right and Ziare.com: Premiere for Romanian justice documented the 3-0 precedent from January 2026.
After two hours of negotiations, the prosecutor agreed to return the lisdexamfetamine — but maintained the confiscation of the medical cannabis. In doing so, the prosecutor clearly demonstrated that discrimination, not the law, was the basis of their action.
The Three
Victories
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.
Bucharest Tribunal (×2) → Bucharest Court of Appeal → Final Ruling: 3–0 · National Precedent
Video — DIICOT Forced to Return the Medication · 2025
Media report: DIICOT forced to return the medication based on the court's decision. Direct result of the first judicial victory.
Video — PROTV: The Tribunal Decided · October 2025
PROTV report: The Tribunal ruled that DIICOT prosecutors must return the confiscated medications.
Case 45878/3/2024 — Bucharest Tribunal, March 2025. Lawyers Raul Bud and Sebastian Gabriel Nagy proved legality under GD 1915/2006, art. 49. Dismissal: "the act was not committed with the culpability required by law." First official recognition that transporting medical cannabis with prescription is not a criminal offence.
Case I DismissedCase 24750/3/2025 — Bucharest Tribunal, October 2025. After losing the first trial, DIICOT issued an abusive Special Confiscation order for the medications. The Tribunal overturned the order as unfounded: "The plants brought into the country constitute medicines... not drugs in Romania."
Special Confiscation OverturnedCase 4362/2025 — Bucharest Court of Appeal, January 28, 2026. DIICOT appealed the overturning of the Special Confiscation order. A panel of 3 judges rejected the appeal as INADMISSIBLE — final and irrevocable ruling, score 3-0. "Orders the return of treatment confiscated by DIICOT in July 2024." National precedent.
Court of Appeal — Definitive 3-0
Screenshot from portal.just.ro: the definitive and irrevocable ruling. DIICOT’s appeal — dismissed as inadmissible. Final score: 3–0.
Lawyer Raul Nicolae Bud
on Romanian Television
A televised interview on TVR Cluj (Romanian National Television) in which lawyer Raul Nicolae Bud — one of the two defence attorneys in the Cristea vs. DIICOT case, alongside Gabriel Sebastian Nagy — discusses the first court victory (March 2025) and its significance for the legal framework of medical cannabis in Romania.
Bucharest Tribunal Ruling — 17.10.2025 · Case 24750/3/2025
"The plants introduced into the country of origin constitute medicines and, therefore, do not constitute drugs in Romania [...] The concrete conduct of the petitioners, who fully comply with the legal regime, does not in any way affect the legal object of the offence of international drug trafficking."
— Ruling of 17.10.2025, Bucharest Tribunal. Court costs: at the state's expense.
Additional context: For complete details on international jurisprudence and the right to treatment, see the Media sources & legal references page.
The argument that demolished DIICOT's position
Lawyers Raul Bud and Sebastian Gabriel Nagy built an impeccable legal defence. One of their most devastating arguments was a reductio ad absurdum:
| Situation | Legal penalty | Legal basis |
|---|---|---|
| With forged prescription | 1–3 years | Art. 6(3), Law 143/2000 |
| With real prescription (DIICOT interpretation) | 5–15 years | Art. 3+4, Law 143/2000 |
| Actual trafficker — no prescription, caught at customs | 5–15 years | Art. 3, Law 143/2000 |
Under DIICOT's interpretation, a patient with a valid prescription would face the same penalty as an actual drug trafficker — more than a forger. A total legal absurdity.
What This Decision
Means
The 6 legal principles established by the courts — a precedent for all patients
The three consecutive victories are not just a personal win. They establish 6 fundamental legal principles that will protect any Romanian patient travelling with controlled medications. For the first time in the history of Romanian justice, the courts explicitly clarified the rights of patients with medical cannabis legally prescribed in another state.
The courts established that substances in Table II are not automatically prohibited. The medical context matters — a valid prescription transforms a controlled substance from a "drug" into a "medicine".
A valid medical prescription, issued by an authorised physician, creates the "right" mentioned in Law 143/2000. The act is not provided for by criminal law when a prescription exists.
Prescriptions issued in other EU/Schengen member states are valid on Romanian territory under GD 1915/2006, art. 49, and European regulations on free movement.
The state cannot confiscate legally prescribed medications from a patient. The Tribunal ordered DIICOT to return everything in full: 9.67g + 14.68g medical cannabis.
Over 20 countries already authorise medical cannabis. Romanian courts recognised that Romania cannot ignore the international medical reality and the right of patients to treatment.
After winning the first trial (March 2025), DIICOT issued an abusive Special Confiscation order for the medications — an order challenged and overturned in the second trial. DIICOT then appealed, and the Bucharest Court of Appeal rejected the appeal as inadmissible (Art. 6 ECHR, Art. 50 EU Charter), securing the definitive ruling ordering the return of the confiscated treatment.
The three court victories were not accidental — they were grounded in a clear legal framework that Romania itself adopted when it joined the Schengen area. The following section explains the European legislation that protects patients travelling with controlled medicines, and why the Romanian authorities' actions contradicted the country's own transposed directives. Understanding this legal foundation is essential for any patient who might face a similar situation.
International
Law
Why GD 1915/2006 and Schengen regulations protect patients
The legal basis of the victory rests on Article 49 of Government Decision 1915/2006, which transposes into Romanian law the European Directive on the transport of controlled substances for medical purposes. The provision is clear: a patient transporting controlled medicines with a valid prescription from another Schengen state is protected by law.
GD 1915/2006, Art. 49 — The Key Principle
Persons travelling through the Schengen area may transport controlled substances with a valid medical prescription issued by a member state, provided that the quantities do not exceed the amount required for the duration of the journey and that they hold the necessary supporting documents.
| Aspect | United Kingdom | Romania |
|---|---|---|
| Legal medical cannabis | ✓ Since November 2018 | ✗ Still illegal |
| Specialist prescription | ✓ Accessible with insurance | ✗ Impossible to obtain |
| Schengen transport permitted | ✓ With documentation | Legal, but applied arbitrarily |
| Definitive precedent for patients | ✓ Solid jurisprudence | ✓ Created in 2026 (this case) |
| Dedicated patient law | ✓ Fully regulated | ✗ Victoria Law — blocked |
Practical Guide
What every patient with controlled medication needs to know when travelling to Romania
The 2026 definitive ruling changes the legal landscape — but does not eliminate the risk of a similar incident. Until Victoria Law is adopted, patients transporting controlled medicines into Romania must protect themselves with complete documentation.
This guide was born from direct experience — from the hours spent in the airport customs office, from the months of criminal investigation, and from the three court hearings where every document mattered. The steps below are not theoretical advice: they are the exact measures that proved decisive in winning this case. I share them so that no other patient has to learn these lessons the hard way.
-
01
Obtain your prescription in physical format
The prescription must be on paper, with the doctor's signature and the clinic's stamp. Digital versions are not sufficient at customs checks.
-
02
Request written confirmation from authorities
Send a written request to IGPF (Border Police) and DGPV (Customs) before your trip, asking them to confirm in writing that transporting your prescribed medication is legal. Keep their written reply.
-
03
Prepare a complete dossier
Prescription + certified translation if applicable + IGPF/DGPV confirmations + medical history (if possible). The quantity transported should match the need for the duration of your stay.
-
04
Always choose the red channel
Declare your medication at the red channel, regardless of what you think might happen. Failure to declare carries a greater risk than declaring with complete documentation.
-
05
If your medication is confiscated
Do not sign any statement without a lawyer. Invoke GD 1915/2006, Art. 49. Contact a specialist lawyer immediately. The 2026 definitive precedent is in your favour.
What
Comes Next
The civil case and the 5 demands to authorities
The acquittal is not the end — it is the beginning. We have initiated civil proceedings for moral and material damages against the Romanian state. Because a "win" in the criminal case does not erase the 18 months of institutional abuse we endured.
The Civil Case
We seek compensation for: the confiscation of legally prescribed medication, the violation of our fundamental rights, the emotional and psychological damage inflicted upon our family including our minor daughter, and the obstruction of legal medical treatment for chronic conditions.
The 5 Demands to Authorities
Mandatory training for customs and police officers on the distinction between controlled medications and illegal substances when prescriptions are presented.
Dedicated legislation guaranteeing the right of patients with foreign prescriptions to travel with their controlled medication without criminal prosecution.
An official investigation into how the prosecutors who lost 3–0 in court could order the confiscation of medical treatment despite the judicial ruling.
Moral and material damages for 18 months of institutional abuse, and an official apology from DIICOT.
Aligning Law 143/2000 with Law 339/2005 and EU legislation to eliminate the paradox that criminalises patients with valid prescriptions.
The Urgency of
Victoria Law
Why the precedent is not enough — and why Romania needs legislation
The 2026 definitive ruling is an important precedent — but it does not resolve the structural problem. Patients in Romania have no legal access to medical cannabis, regardless of their health condition. Victoria Law, proposed by MP Emanuel Ungureanu, would address this gap.
