CCR upholds civil servant incompatibility: no second public office, no public dignity office

A civil servant may not combine the office to which he was appointed with another public office or with a public dignity office. The Constitutional Court dismissed as unfounded the plea of unconstitutionality raised by Gicu Cojocaru in a case pending before the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Administrative and Tax Litigation Division, and found that Article 94(1) of Law No. 161/2003, in the wording preceding Law No. 87/2017, is constitutional. The regime governing public office has also gone through substantive legislative change of late, after the Administrative Code was overhauled by Law No. 165/2026. Decision No. 4 of 15 January 2026 was published in the Official Gazette of Romania No. 612 of 27 July 2026.

The underlying dispute concerns the annulment of an evaluation report drawn up by the National Integrity Agency. The text applicable on the date of the report was short and categorical: “The status of civil servant is incompatible with any public office other than the one to which the person was appointed, as well as with public dignity offices.”

The author of the plea invoked three articles of the Constitution: Article 1(5), in its component concerning the quality of the law, Article 37, the right to stand for election, and Article 41(1), work and the social protection of work. He argued, in essence, that the text is unclear and that it prevents him both from standing for election and from choosing his place of work.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is procedural. The decision is final and generally binding from the date of publication, so the court ruling on the annulment of the integrity report is bound by the Court’s conclusion, and Article 29(3) of Law No. 47/1992 bars the same plea from being raised again.

The second effect confirms the regime of incompatibilities as an integrity instrument. The Court restates a point of principle: regulating incompatibilities is a measure necessary to ensure transparency in the exercise of public office and to prevent corruption, and its purpose is to guarantee that those offices are exercised impartially.

The third effect is the most concrete one for anybody in that position, and it is worth remembering as a procedure. Under Article 91(1) of Law No. 161/2003, the state of incompatibility arises only after the validation of the mandate, and under Article 91(3) the person may resign from the office held either before being appointed or elected to the office that triggers the incompatibility, or within no more than 15 days of the appointment or election. If no resignation is made within that period, the mandate terminates by operation of law.

The fourth effect concerns the standard for the quality of the law. The Court considers that the text is worded with sufficient precision to allow the persons concerned, who may seek specialist advice where necessary, to foresee to a reasonable degree the consequences of a given act. The argument of a lack of clarity can no longer be used against this text.

The fifth effect marks out what may still be argued in court. The Court notes that the remaining submissions of the author concern the way the text is interpreted and applied, read together with Article 88(1)(c) of the same law, matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, not of the Constitutional Court. In other words, the debate stays open on the facts, not on constitutionality.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In law, nothing changes. The Court confirms a text it has reviewed before, against the same criticisms, and refers expressly to its own earlier rulings, among them Decision No. 455 of 25 October 2022 and Decision No. 336 of 11 May 2017. What does change is the position of the claimant, who loses the constitutional argument.

It is worth noting that the text under review is the one predating Law No. 87/2017. The Court ruled on it because it was in force on the date when the National Integrity Agency drew up the evaluation report, and the fact that its legal effects continue after it ceased to be in force justifies the review, in line with Decision No. 766 of 15 June 2011.

On the criticism regarding clarity, the Court adds a piece of context that explains the severity of the regime. Legislation on combating corruption and promoting integrity in the public sector represents, in the Court’s wording, the response to a genuine demand of Romanian society and a core component of Romania’s dialogue with its European partners. For preventive reasons, the legislature may impose additional obligations on specifically identified categories of staff, precisely in view of the activity they carry out.

On the right to stand for election, the answer lies in the mechanism rather than in the principle. The Court points out that, when it prohibited the simultaneous exercise of two incompatible offices, at least one of them elective, the legislature designed the safety valve at the same time: the incompatibility does not block the candidacy, but is triggered after validation and can be removed by resignation. The text is therefore not an obstacle to standing for election and being elected.

On the right to work, the Court holds that the incompatibility does not restrict the choice of profession or place of work, since the activity of civil servants must fall within the rules laid down to ensure transparency and impartiality. The argument is drawn, by analogy, from Decision No. 39 of 30 January 2024, delivered in the matter of incompatibilities affecting local elected officials.

Advantages and disadvantages

Practical advice

Frequently asked questions