Under the old Code of Criminal Procedure, there has been no serious debate about the nature of the 5-day time limit within which the prosecutor must submit a proposal to extend the preventive arrest measure and because most courts have considered it to be a recommendation, there was no question regarding its calculation. The discussions focused on the peremptory or the recommandation nature of the term and the authors did not rule on the legal nature of the term in order to establish whether it was a procedural term or a substantive term. If we take into account all these views on the interest protected by the legislator by establishing the term in question, according to which the main reason for it is to protect the freedom of the person, we should consider it a substantive term, as it protects an extra-procedural interest and not a procedural one. In this case, the 5-day period should be calculated on full days, and if it expired on a non-working day, it would not be prolonged until the first business day. However, by Decision no. 20/2017 pronounced following the promotion of an appeal in the interest of the law, the High Court of Cassation and Justice has declared binding: "...in the interpretation and uniform application of the provisions of art. 235 para. (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stipulates that: The 5-day period provided for in Article 235 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code shall be calculated according to art. 269 para. (1), (2) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]