Acta Universitatis Danubius. Juridica, Vol 6, No 3 (2010)

Abstract

In order for a prior complaint to be effectual and to produce specific judicial effects, this has to be lodged respecting a certain due date. In modern legislations, the lodging of a prior complaint is generally provided within a relatively short peremptory date (much shorter than the prescription term of the penal action), which disregard leads to the laps of plea. The reason of this limitation period is represented by on one hand, the social and particular interest of not letting the victim, through her will to keep her supposed or real transgressor  longer  under the menace of a prior complaint, which could lead to blackmail or other forms of psychic constraint and, on the other hand, the presumption that after a pretty long term for decision and action, she will no longer want or have a serious reason in order to make the plea. The prior complaint appears like a suspensive condition of the penal judicial report's efficiency; it is natural for the suspensive effect of this condition to be tight to a certain limitation period, it's overhaul making the penal law no longer be incident. It is not possible for the victim to have the freedom of making a prior complaint for the duration, the social juridical interest being the triggering of the juridical activity in a certain time interval. If the injured party did not make the prior plea respecting the term provided by the law, it is presupposed that she gave up the right by law to fulfil the condition on which depends the yield of the state right to call to account the law breaker.