In brief

  • The Constitutional Court dismissed as unfounded the objection of a driver who argued that the Highway Code provision on failure to appear at a traffic police summons is too vague and invites abuse.
  • The text stays in force: Article 102(1) point 25 of Emergency Ordinance No. 195/2002 penalises unjustified failure to appear within the set deadline at the traffic police unit you were summoned to, with the fine in class IV of sanctions.
  • The Court held that the officer may assess whether the reasons for the absence are justified and that the law need not lay down a fixed minimum deadline, because the identity of those involved in traffic incidents must be established quickly. Decided unanimously.
Act: Constitutional Court Decision No. 170/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) No. 659 of 10 August 2026
In force from: 10 August 2026

You receive a summons to appear at the traffic police within a certain deadline. If you do not go and the officer decides you had no good reason, you are fined. A driver from Mehedinti argued that this text hands the officer too much power, because he sets both the deadline and whether your excuse holds. The Constitutional Court replied that he had confused a margin of appreciation with an unclear law. Decision No. 170 of 26 February 2026 was published in the Official Gazette of Romania on 10 August 2026, in the same batch as the decision in which the Court upheld the 30-day deadline for complaints about public information. Both point the same way: procedure is not a restriction of the right.

The contested text is short and familiar to anyone who has dealt with a traffic file. Under Article 102(1) point 25 of Emergency Ordinance No. 195/2002, it is an offence, punishable by the fine in class IV of sanctions, to fail “without justification, within the set deadline, to appear at the traffic police unit to which they were summoned for the settlement of any matter connected with their status as a road user or as owner or user of a vehicle”.

The author of the objection, Dumitru Nicoara, had reached the Mehedinti County Court on appeal after his complaint against the report was dismissed. He argued that the text invites abuse by the traffic police, because the officer may decide arbitrarily whether the reasons for not appearing are justified. Moreover, the same officer sets the deadline within which the person must appear, without being required to take into account the distance between home and the police unit, the age or health of the person summoned, their family situation or their financial means.

The central argument was a comparison: the text should have provided, like Article 159 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for service at least 5 days before the date on which the person must appear. The author did not expressly identify the constitutional provisions breached, but the Court inferred from his reasoning that he had in mind Article 1(5) of the Constitution, on the requirements of clarity, precision and foreseeability of legislation.

The Mehedinti County Court considered the objection unfounded, holding the text clear and foreseeable. The Government asked for it to be dismissed as inadmissible, arguing that the points raised in fact concern the application of the text rather than its constitutionality. The representative of the Public Ministry also argued for inadmissibility.

What it changes in practice

The offence stays in force, in exactly the form criticised. Anyone summoned to the traffic police who does not appear within the set deadline, without a reason the officer considers justified, risks the fine in class IV of sanctions. Nothing in the regime changes.

The officer’s power of assessment is expressly confirmed. The Court held that leaving the assessment of the reasons for non-appearance to the officer does not make the rule unclear; it confers a power on the officer, a public servant with special status, acting in support of the general interest.

There is and will be no fixed minimum deadline to appear. The Court held that the absence of a minimum period is justified by the need to establish quickly the identity of those who have committed antisocial acts. It also noted that the author of the objection had in fact been given 5 days.

Judicial review does not disappear. This is the useful part for any driver: the way the officer applies the law is subject to review by the courts, through a complaint against the report, under Article 118(1) of Emergency Ordinance No. 195/2002. The judge may verify whether the reasons for non-appearance were well founded and whether the time allowed was sufficient for the applicant to appear.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

Nothing changes in law. Being a dismissal, Article 102(1) point 25 of Emergency Ordinance No. 195/2002 remains in force untouched, and the practice of the traffic police and the courts continues unchanged.

What changes is the fate of a particular line of defence. Until now, a person fined could try to attack the text itself as too vague. From publication onwards, that route has a definitive constitutional answer: the rule is clear and foreseeable.

In exchange, the Court marked out clearly where the useful battle is fought: not over the constitutionality of the text, but over its application in the individual case, before the judge hearing the complaint. It is a shift of emphasis that helps the defence, if used properly.

The Court also recalled a general principle of legislative technique, resting on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights: legal norms cannot be drafted with absolute precision, and resorting to general categories rather than exhaustive lists is a standard regulatory technique. The role of the courts is precisely to remove doubts of interpretation.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It clarifies that a public servant’s margin of appreciation does not, in itself, make a law unclear. That is a useful benchmark beyond road traffic law.
  • It expressly confirms that the complaint against the report remains the route for reviewing both the soundness of the reasons given and whether the time allowed was sufficient.
  • It preserves a necessary tool for quickly identifying road users involved in antisocial acts, in a field where delay can make proof impossible.
  • It reduces the number of hopeless objections raised in traffic cases, which used to stay proceedings for months.

What remains a problem

  • It does not solve the practical problem the author raised: a summons served a few hours in advance remains theoretically possible, and the remedy comes only later, in court.
  • The difference from Article 159 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires service at least 5 days ahead, remains unresolved as a matter of legislation. The Court answered on constitutionality, not on desirability.
  • Elderly or ill people, or those living far from the police unit, remain dependent on the officer’s assessment at the first stage and on their own willingness to go to court at the second.
  • Publication almost six months after delivery means the benchmark was missing precisely when it could have guided pending cases.
  • The Court says nothing about the form the summons must take or about proof of its service, although that is where most practical disputes arise.

Practical advice

  1. Do not ignore the summons. Even if the deadline seems short, appearing is always cheaper than the fine plus the litigation.
  2. If you cannot make it, notify them in writing before the deadline and explain why, with documents if you have them (medical referral, sick leave, work assignment, travel ticket). A reason communicated in advance is far harder to classify as unjustified.
  3. Ask for a new date, also in writing. The text penalises unjustified failure to appear, not an objective impossibility that has been notified and proved.
  4. Keep the envelope or the proof of service of the summons. If you end up in court, the date you actually received it is what shows whether the deadline was sufficient.
  5. If you have been fined, challenge the report, not the law. The Court said explicitly that the judge may review both the soundness of your reasons and whether the time allowed was reasonable. That is where cases are won, not on unconstitutionality.
  6. The deadline for a complaint against the report is 15 days from service or communication, under Article 118(1) of Emergency Ordinance No. 195/2002. Missing it closes the only remaining route.

Frequently asked questions

What exactly is penalised?
Failing, without justification and within the set deadline, to appear at the traffic police unit to which you were summoned for the settlement of any matter connected with your status as a road user or as owner or user of a vehicle. The penalty is the fine in class IV of sanctions.
Did the Court declare this text unconstitutional?
No. The Court dismissed the objection as unfounded and held that Article 102(1) point 25 of Emergency Ordinance No. 195/2002 is constitutional in relation to the criticisms raised. The decision was unanimous.
Can the officer set any deadline he likes?
The law lays down no fixed minimum, and the Court held that this absence is justified by the need to identify quickly the persons involved. If the deadline was too short in your particular case, that argument is raised in court, in the complaint against the report.
Who decides whether my reason for being absent was well founded?
At the first stage the officer, who holds that power under the law. Afterwards, the court hearing the complaint against the report may review whether the reasons were well founded.
Why does the 5-day rule in the Code of Civil Procedure not apply?
Because these are different procedures. The Court did not extend the civil procedure rule to a traffic police summons, holding that in road traffic matters speed of identification is essential.
What can I do if I have been fined on this basis?
You may file a complaint against the report within 15 days of service or communication. Before the court you may prove that your reason for not appearing was well founded or that the time allowed was insufficient.

Original text of the legal act

The text below is reproduced in Romanian, the official form of publication.

The full text, as published in the Official Gazette of Romania

Official Gazette of Romania no. 659 of 10 August 2026 16 pages PDF, 185 KB the act starts on page 4

Open the official PDFDownload the PDF

The viewer is not shown on small screens. Use the buttons above to open or download the file.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult a licensed attorney or tax advisor.