Woman held captive for three days in Palazu Mare: protection order issued against partner
A woman from Constanța claims she was forcibly detained and assaulted for three days in her partner's home. The court has issued a protection order for six months.
Protection order following three days of alleged captivity in a Constanța flat
Google News RO — Crime (ro) reports the case of a woman who alleges she was held against her will and physically assaulted for three days in her partner's home in the Palazu Mare neighbourhood of Constanța. The court has ordered the issuance of a protection order for a period of six months, finding that a serious conflictual situation and an actual danger to the victim exist.
According to an intervention report drawn up by the Constanța Police Inspectorate (IPJ), in the early morning of 26 August 2026, at around 3.00 am, a police team was dispatched to Tomis Boulevard at the Palazu Mare Peco petrol station following a call to emergency services 112 made by a woman identified by the initials M.M., who reported an alleged deprivation of liberty.
At the scene, the woman stated verbally that, from 23 August 2026 onwards, she had been held against her will in her partner's property. The reason given was her refusal to take out a bank loan so that he could buy prohibited substances. Over the course of the three days, she stated that she had been physically assaulted repeatedly with punches and kicks, that she had been locked in a room, and that she had not been given food. The man allegedly confiscated her mobile phone and identity documents and demanded a sum of €2,000 to allow her to leave.
In the morning of 26 August, the woman stated that she had taken advantage of a moment when her partner, in an advanced state of intoxication and under the influence of prohibited substances, had fallen asleep. She left the room, went through the kitchen, and left the property through a window, making her way to the MOL Peco station, from where she called 112 using a staff member's telephone.
Relational context and history
The two have known each other since December 2025, and have been in a cohabiting relationship. For a period, they lived together in another country, but after a conflict that arose in March 2026, the woman returned to Romania, initially living for approximately a month at her father's home.
Subsequently, she returned to her partner's home with the stated intention of recovering her identity document and other personal papers. The woman lived there until the first week of August 2026, when she left voluntarily and reported to Police Section 2 that the man had pawned her mobile phone — an aspect she later declared to be settled.
She lived for approximately two weeks elsewhere, a period during which she stated she engaged in sex work to obtain income for her adult son. On 17 August 2026, she returned to her partner's home after he had repeatedly sent her messages asking her to come back.
The christening day and the start of captivity
On 23 August 2026, in the morning, the woman stated that she travelled with the man to Tom Commercial Complex — the Carrefour supermarket — to purchase food necessary for a christening. The religious ceremony was scheduled for that afternoon, but the woman remained in the property and did not go to church.
When the guests returned, a party took place in the property's courtyard with relatives and friends of the partner present. The woman managed to go out into the courtyard, but stated that she did not attempt to flee nor did she seek help from anyone present, saying that those around her were close to the man. According to her account, from the remainder of money from a loan contracted earlier — a credit of 6,000 lei borrowed from Provident, originally intended for the christening expenses — the partner purchased prohibited substances.
On 25 August 2026, the woman stated that she travelled with the man to Năvodari, to his father's home, where she told him she was being held captive and assaulted. His father allegedly asked his son to leave and not return. The woman nevertheless chose to return with her partner, stating that she was afraid.
The man denies the accusations; the court decides otherwise
Questioned in the case, the man entirely denied the allegations made against him. He stated that he had not physically assaulted her, had not prevented her from leaving, and that the woman was free to leave the property whenever she wished. He cited a conflict arising from the fact that he had found her talking with her ex-husband, with whom she also has a young child.
At the hearing on 31 August 2026, the defendant reiterated that he had not threatened her and had not hit her, that she had not been held captive, and that she was free to leave at any time. When asked by the court whether there had been any quarrel, he answered in the negative.
Nevertheless, following police intervention and an assessment of the risk situation, a provisional protection order was issued against the man, and the court subsequently confirmed this measure, ordering the issuance of the protection order for a period of six months. The judges found that a serious conflictual situation and an actual danger to the victim exist, despite the fact that the accounts given by the two parties contradict each other in essential respects.
Source: Google News RO — Crime (ro)