In brief

  • The fine of 10,000 to 30,000 lei for obstruction, in any form, of inspections carried out by the consumer protection authorities stays in force. The Constitutional Court dismissed the challenge brought by a company which argued that the provision is too vague.
  • The Court explains why the general wording is correct: what the law penalises is a result, the obstruction of the inspection, and the concrete ways in which that result may be brought about cannot be listed exhaustively by the legislature.
  • Affected are all business operators inspected by ANPC, the National Consumer Protection Authority, from shops and restaurants to manufacturers and service providers. The decision also concerns the consumers in whose interest the inspection is carried out.
Act: CCR Decision no. 40/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 598 of 22 July 2026
Delivered: 20 January 2026

A company fined for blocking a consumer protection inspection tried to knock out the very provision that penalised it, arguing that nobody can know what „obstruction in any form” means. The Constitutional Court dismissed the criticism by Decision no. 40 of 20 January 2026, now published in the Official Gazette of Romania, and upheld Article 51(1) of Government Ordinance no. 21/1992 on consumer protection. Inspections carried out in the consumer’s interest have come to our attention before, when the State changed the rules under which petrol and diesel quality is checked at the pump.

The contested provision is short and has immediate consequences for any company under inspection: „Obstruction, in any form, of the public administration bodies responsible for consumer protection in the exercise of their official duties relating to the prevention and combating of acts which may affect the life, health or safety of consumers or their economic interests constitutes an administrative offence and is punishable by a fine of 10,000 lei to 30,000 lei.”

The plea was raised by The Family Butchers România S.R.L., in proceedings for the annulment of an offence report pending before the Brașov District Court, civil division. The company argued that the phrase „obstruction in any form” is general and ambiguous, that the ordinance defines it nowhere and that, without any benchmarks, nobody can know which conduct falls under the provision. Even the Government took the view that the plea was inadmissible, pointing out that the company’s grievances concern the interpretation and application of the law, which is a matter for the courts.

From 4 October 2026 the same operators must display next to the till the new ANPC notice with the consumer helpline, under Order no. 505/2026.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is that the penalty stands. The fine of 10,000 to 30,000 lei remains applicable, and offence reports drawn up on this basis cannot be annulled on the ground that the provision lacks clarity.

The second effect is the practical definition the Court gives to the offence. The provision penalises a result: the obstruction of the inspection. What matters, therefore, is not the means by which that point is reached, but whether the inspection team was in fact prevented from carrying out its duties.

The third effect is the explanation of legislative technique, which changes the way such provisions are to be read. A result-based offence can take various concrete forms, which the legislature cannot identify and list exhaustively. The use of the phrase „in any form” is, the Court says, a choice justified precisely by the plurality of possible situations.

The fourth effect concerns the way the meaning of the provision is established. The Court points out that the meaning of the conduct penalised is not determined in isolation, by looking only at the phrase under challenge, but by interpreting it within the regulation as a whole: consumers’ rights, the obligations of business operators and the powers of the competent authorities, all set out in the same ordinance.

The fifth effect is the guarantee left to companies. The acts finding and penalising the administrative offence are subject to review by the courts, which check in each specific case whether the act established falls within the scope of the rule. Anyone who considers that they obstructed nothing challenges the offence report in court, not the statutory provision.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In the law, nothing. Article 51(1) remains exactly in the form republished in 2007, as subsequently amended and supplemented, and the amount of the fine does not change.

What has changed is the standing of the argument that „the provision is too vague” in litigation of this kind. Until now it could be raised as a plea of unconstitutionality in any case concerning the annulment of an ANPC offence report. From now on there is a published decision dismissing it on the merits, with reasoning that applies to any result-based offence, not only to this one.

The second clarification is that the foreseeability of the law does not mean absolute precision. The Court restates the case law of the European Court of Human Rights: resorting to general categories, instead of exhaustive lists, is a standard regulatory technique, and an element of judicial interpretation is always present, including in a rule of criminal law. Total certainty would entail excessive rigidity, and the law must be able to adapt to changing circumstances.

The third clarification concerns the role of the court. The Court cites the judgments in Dragotoniu and Militaru-Pidhorni v. Romania and Sud Fondi srl and others v. Italy: the principle of foreseeability does not prevent the person concerned from having recourse to clarifying guidance, including the advice of a specialist, in order to assess the consequences of a given act.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • Consumer protection inspections remain shielded against forms of obstruction that no closed list could have anticipated.
  • Companies learn, from a published decision, what the real test is: not the form of the conduct, but whether the inspection was in fact prevented from taking place.
  • The courts keep the last word, because every offence report can be reviewed on its specific facts, and the provision leaves no room for arbitrariness.
  • The reasoning is transferable: the same logic applies to any administrative offence defined by its result, which reduces the number of similar pleas.

What remains a problem

  • The business operator still has no list of prohibited conduct and finds out what counted as obstruction only from the offence report, sometimes after the inspection.
  • The difference between a natural delay, such as waiting for the manager, and punishable obstruction remains a matter for the inspector’s assessment.
  • The fine starts at 10,000 lei, a threshold that weighs heavily on a small company, whatever the actual seriousness of the act.
  • More than four and a half years passed between the referral to the Court, in October 2021, and the publication of the decision, in July 2026, and throughout that time the case in Brașov remained on hold.

Practical advice

  1. Train the front-line staff, cashiers, reception, stock keepers, in what to do when an inspection team arrives: call the person in charge, allow access and block nothing. The fine falls on the company, not on the employee who hesitated.
  2. Do not refuse access to storage areas and do not postpone handing over the documents requested on the ground that the manager is away. The result, namely the halting of the inspection, is exactly what the provision penalises.
  3. Record in writing, on the spot, any objective reason for a delay. A document signed on the day of the inspection carries far more weight than an explanation given months later in court.
  4. If you have received an offence report for obstruction, challenge it on the facts, showing what you actually made available and when. The argument that the statutory provision is unclear no longer stands a chance after this decision.
  5. Check whether the act established falls within the scope of the rule: the obstruction must concern duties relating to the prevention and combating of acts affecting the life, health, safety or economic interests of consumers.
  6. Keep in mind the time limits in administrative offence proceedings, in particular the 15 days for lodging a complaint against the offence report. A well argued challenge filed out of time never gets to be examined.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Constitutional Court decide?
It dismissed the plea as unfounded and found that Article 51(1) of Government Ordinance no. 21/1992 is constitutional in relation to the criticisms put forward. The provision and the fine remain unchanged.
How much is the fine for obstructing an inspection?
From 10,000 lei to 30,000 lei, under Article 51(1) of Government Ordinance no. 21/1992 on consumer protection.
What does obstruction in any form mean?
Any conduct that results in the obstruction of the inspection. The law does not list the concrete forms, because it penalises the result, not the manner in which that result is brought about.
Why did the Court not find the provision unclear?
Because the result penalised is determined with sufficient clarity, and resorting to general categories, instead of an exhaustive list, is a standard regulatory technique, accepted also by the European Court of Human Rights.
Who can impose this fine?
The public administration bodies responsible for consumer protection, in the exercise of their duties relating to the prevention and combating of acts which may affect the life, health, safety or economic interests of consumers.
Can I still challenge the offence report?
Yes. The acts finding and penalising the offence remain subject to review by the courts, which check in each specific case whether the act established falls within the scope of the statutory rule.
What did the company that raised the plea argue?
That the phrase „obstruction in any form” is general and ambiguous, that the ordinance does not define it and that, in the absence of benchmarks, it is impossible to establish with certainty which conduct falls under the provision.
Does the decision apply to other generally worded administrative offences?
The reasoning is transferable to any offence defined by its result, but each provision is judged separately. The decision concerns strictly Article 51(1) of Government Ordinance no. 21/1992.

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. 598 of 22 July 2026 16 pages PDF, 107 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.