In brief
- Anyone who seeks the recusal of a three-judge panel pays 100 lei for each judge challenged, that is 300 lei, and the Constitutional Court has confirmed that the rule is constitutional.
- The main argument: recusal rests on personal grounds, specific to each individual judge, so the duty is owed separately for each of them.
- The comparison with the duty charged on a claim on the merits does not hold, the Court says, because one concerns a procedural incident and the other the resolution of the dispute itself.
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 591 of 20 July 2026
Delivered: 21 October 2025
Seeking the recusal of an appeal panel costs 300 lei, because each of the three judges is charged separately, and the Constitutional Court says that is how it should be. Decision no. 491 of 21 October 2025, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 591 of 20 July 2026, rejects as unfounded the plea raised by a litigant who had paid more for the recusal than for the application to set aside the judgment in the same case. It is one of the decisions through which the Court has upheld, year after year, the architecture of court stamp duties.
The text at issue is Article 9(a) of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 80/2013. It provides that applications for recusal in civil matters are charged 100 lei for each participant in the proceedings whose recusal is sought.
The author of the plea, a party in a case pending before the Craiova Court of Appeal, argued two things: that he was paying a triple duty for a mere procedural incident, and that in an ordinary claim several claimants may pay a single duty jointly, whereas he pays separately for each judge.
What it changes in practice
The first effect is confirmation of the calculation rule. The duty of 100 lei is owed for each participant in the proceedings whose recusal is sought. For a panel of three judges, the total comes to 300 lei.
The second effect is the substantive argument, stated directly by the Court: an application for recusal rests on considerations of a personal nature, specific to each member of the panel individually, which is why it is natural for the duty to be owed on an individual basis.
The third effect concerns access to justice. The Court restates its settled case law: free access to justice does not mean that justice must be free of charge. The function of restoring the rule of law is a public service whose costs are borne by the state budget, and the legislature is entitled to impose duties so that the budget does not bear in full the costs of proceedings brought by the parties.
The fourth effect concerns the level of the duty. The Court holds that 100 lei is a reasonable amount, fixed in nature, which does not affect the litigant financially and therefore does not restrict access to justice.
The fifth effect is the safety valve. The Court recalls that Article 42 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 80/2013 allows the court to grant exemptions, reductions, payment in instalments or deferrals of court stamp duties, precisely for situations in which a party cannot meet the costs of proceedings for lack of means.
The sixth effect concerns equality. The Court finds that persons who lodge applications for recusal are not in a situation comparable to that of persons who lodge claims on the merits, so no breach of the principle of equality before the law can be established. The first concerns a procedural incident, the second the resolution of the dispute itself.
What has changed compared with the previous situation
Nothing. The decision rejects the plea as unfounded, and Article 9(a) remains in force in the same wording.
What is added is one more confirmation in a long line. The Court expressly cites Decision no. 682 of 15 December 2022, Decision no. 647 of 13 December 2022, Decision no. 646 of 13 December 2022 and Decision no. 538 of 10 November 2022, all on similar complaints, plus Decision no. 560 of 29 October 2024 and Decision no. 466 of 15 October 2024 for the limb concerning equality.
Something useful in practice is also added: an explicit statement of reasons for the individual character of the duty. Until now, the argument appeared mainly through a reference to the margin of appreciation of the legislature. Here, the Court explains why the duty follows the person of the judge challenged, not the application.
The Court also recalls that the equivalent of court stamp duties forms part of the legal costs awarded by the judgment, and that payment of those costs ultimately falls on the losing party.
The decision was delivered unanimously and is final and generally binding.
Advantages and disadvantages
What it improves
- It clarifies, in express terms, why the recusal duty is calculated per judge and not per application.
- It keeps a fixed and predictable amount of 100 lei instead of a duty calculated on the value of the claim.
- It recalls the exemptions, reductions, payment in instalments and deferrals available under Article 42 of the ordinance.
- It discourages blanket applications for recusal used as a tool for dragging out proceedings.
- The duty paid can be recovered from the party that loses the case, as part of the legal costs.
What remains a problem
- For a litigant on a low income, 300 lei for the recusal of an appeal panel remains a discouraging sum, even if it is recoverable at the end.
- Recovery of the duty depends on winning the case, so a party who is right on the recusal but loses on the merits bears the cost.
- An exemption or payment in instalments is not granted automatically, but on the basis of an application and evidence, which adds a procedural step.
- More than five years passed between the raising of the plea, in June 2021, and the publication of the decision, in July 2026.
- Neither the presidents of the two Chambers of Parliament, nor the Government, nor the Ombudsman submitted their views.
Practical advice
- Before seeking the recusal of an entire panel, do the arithmetic: 100 lei for each judge whose recusal you request. For a panel of three, that is 300 lei.
- If the grounds for recusal concern a single judge, lodge the application against that judge alone. The duty follows the person, not the panel.
- If you cannot pay, ask for an exemption, a reduction, payment in instalments or a deferral under Article 42 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 80/2013 and attach documents showing your financial situation.
- Bear in mind that, if you are unable to meet the costs of the proceedings, you can apply for public legal aid, under the conditions laid down by the special law.
- The duty paid forms part of the legal costs. Ask for them expressly in your closing submissions, otherwise the court will not award them of its own motion.
- You can challenge the way the duty was set by lodging an application for reconsideration with the same court, within three days of being notified. The application for reconsideration is itself exempt from duty.
Frequently asked questions
How much does an application for recusal cost?
Why is the duty payable for each judge?
Does anything change after this decision?
Can I be exempted from paying the duty?
Do I get my money back if I am right?
Why do I pay more than for the claim on the merits?
What can I do if I disagree with the duty set?
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. 591 of 20 July 2026 16 pages PDF, 113 KB the act starts on page 2
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.