The former prime minister could receive 100,000 lei, an amount 10 times lower than the claims he submitted in the action filed in court.

In a seperate civil trial, Victor Ponta was obliged by the Bucharest Court, in the first instance, to pay moral damages of 25,000 lei to Mircea Negulescu, after the former prime minister made a series of public interventions on the Romania TV station, in which he blamed the death of his brother-in-law, Iulian Herțanu, on the investigations of the former prosecutor, although the latter had not carried out any criminal prosecution in that case.

The Bucharest Court of Appeal will rule on November 18

In the case regarding the acquittal from the Turceni-Rovinari Case, the Bucharest Court partially admitted the action of Victor Ponta with the object of “criminal liability action”, on june 11, 2025.The trial has reached the bucharest Court of Appeal, which will rule on November 18, 2025.

Even then the decision will not be final, the last word belongs to the High Court, the court that acquitted the former prime minister.

Victor Ponta received the following compensations:

* „100.000 lei for damage caused by violation of the reasonable term of the criminal case,
* 24.706,50 lei with title of material damage.

* interest payment legal related to them from the date of the introduction of the summons request (26.04.2024) and until the date of the effective payment of the debts”, according to the minutes of the trial court.

In the summons request, the former prime minister demanded damages from the prosecutor who investigated him in the Turceni-Rovinari Case, Jean Uncheșelu (currently the prosecutor-delegate of the European public ProsecutorS Office), as well as from the Ministry of Finance, justified as follows:

* „1.000.000 lei as compensation f

Victor Ponta’s Acquittal: A Look at the Court’s Reasoning

The case of Victor Ponta, former Romanian Prime Minister, involved accusations related to his activity at the law firm SCA “Șova și Asociații.” While initially investigated, ponta was ultimately acquitted. This outcome wasn’t a simple dismissal, but a result of inconsistencies in evidence and a nuanced legal interpretation.

Ponta was accused of benefiting from illicit funds while working at the law firm. However, the court found the evidence presented to be lacking. The key prosecution witness altered thier statements, and crucial activity reports where submitted as copies, preventing graphological analysis to verify their authenticity. Furthermore, a lawyer from the firm, Georgiana Catrinoiu, testified that she never actually saw ponta at the law firm’s headquarters, stating his presence was largely symbolic – a picture of him was even jokingly taped to an empty office.

Court Reasoning: Acquittal does not amount to illegal investigation

liberty consulted Decision no. 855/2025 of the Bucharest Court to understand the rationale behind the partial acceptance of Victor Ponta’s request.

The court first removed prosecutor Jean Uncheșelu from the case, citing that a specific legal procedure regarding a prosecutor’s civil liability was outside the scope of the current proceedings.

The court’s reasoning emphasized that an acquittal doesn’t automatically equate to an illegal investigation.Key points included:

* The possibility of an acquittal doesn’t inherently mean an illegal act occurred, triggering state liability. This is only applicable in limited, legally defined situations involving prosecutor misconduct – a scenario not present in this case.
* Investigating potential crimes and bringing cases to court is a public interest activity, and prosecutors are obligated to act within the bounds of the law and available resources.
* An acquittal, upholding the principles of legality and presumption of innocence, doesn’t imply prosecution should only occur when a conviction is guaranteed. Such an argument would contradict the legal system and societal interests.
* While ponta was ultimately acquitted by the high Court of Cassation and Justice, the initial investigation and referral to court weren’t baseless.Indictment no. 122/P/2012 outlined the factual and legal arguments supporting the prosecution.
* Magistrates apply the law to specific facts, a process involving establishing the factual situation, interpreting legal provisions, and applying them accordingly.

Victor Ponta Case Analysis

• The case concerns the implications of criminal accusations against a sitting Prime Minister, Victor ponta, and the subsequent impact on his political career and personal well-being. The analysis focuses on the intersection of public policies and ensuring administrative and economic stability in the country.
• Thus, due to the position he held, the applicant’s image and integrity were essential to public confidence in state institutions. Any suspicion of his involvement in criminal activities could seriously affect his credibility and authority.
• From the pieces of the file, it seems the president of Romania at that time, Klaus Iohannis, publicly asked the applicant to resign, showing: “Today DNA publicly announced that Prime Minister Victor Ponta is accused of criminal acts. From my personal perspective, it is indeed an unachievable situation for Romania for the prime minister to be accused of criminal acts. On the other hand, for Romania the worst thing that could happen now is a political crisis. Considering all this, I request the resignation of Prime Minister Victor Ponta».
• Consequently of the initiation of the criminal case, the applicant resigned from his political positions.
• Simultaneously occurring, it should be noted that the subject of the criminal file was the subject of extensive news in the mass media, both in Romania and abroad, which is or else normal considering the position in the Government that the applicant occupied.
• Protests were organized in University Square with a view to dismissing the applicant from the position of prime minister.
• (…) The court notes that an excessive length of a trial can cause harm to litigants by prolonging a state of uncertainty regarding the prospects of clarifying their concrete situation.
• Also, the need to attend multiple court hearings can lead to the creation of psychological damage but also to the deprivation of what a normal life entails from a social and professional point of view.
• All the more so the applicant’s situation was even more difficult considering the position he held, making him the subject of extensive press coverage being an extremely publicized file at that time, the psychological pressure being a major one.
• Even without a final conviction, the applicant’s political reputation was deeply damaged and returning to public activity has become much more difficult.