In brief

  • An employee asked the Constitutional Court to say whether the deadline for challenging a measure taken by an employer can start running even when the measure was communicated in a form other than writing. The Court dismissed the plea as inadmissible, without examining the substance.
  • The reason for the dismissal: the issue raised concerns the interpretation and application of the law to a specific case, and that falls within the exclusive competence of the court hearing the dispute, not of the Constitutional Court.
  • The provision under discussion, Article 211(a) of Social Dialogue Law No 62/2011, was repealed in 2021, but it continues to produce effects in proceedings started while it was in force. Today the general rule is the one in Article 268 of the Labour Code: 30 days from the communication of the decision.
Act: CCR Decision no. 125/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 581 of 15 July 2026
Delivered: 12 February 2026

Your employer changes something in your contract and tells you verbally. When does the period in which you can challenge it start running? The Constitutional Court was asked exactly that and answered that it is not the one to decide. Decision No 125 of 12 February 2026, published in Official Gazette of Romania No 581 of 15 July 2026, dismisses as inadmissible the plea raised by an employee from Galați, because his question concerned the way the law is applied in a particular file, not the compliance of the law with the Constitution. It is the same pattern the Court used when it held that a conflict between a collective agreement and the budget law is to be settled by the ordinary courts.

The provision at issue is Article 211(a) of Social Dialogue Law No 62/2011, more precisely the phrase „the date on which the person concerned became aware of the measure taken”. Under that provision, unilateral measures concerning the performance, amendment, suspension or termination of an individual employment contract, including undertakings to pay sums of money, could be challenged within 45 calendar days from that moment.

The author of the plea, Gheorghe Murgoci, was on appeal before the Galați Court of Appeal in a dispute against a decision of his employer. His argument: the wording allows the employer not to communicate the measure in writing, while the period for challenging it runs anyway, which would infringe free access to justice and the right to a defence.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is that the provision stays in force as it is, for the proceedings in which it still applies. A ruling of inadmissibility neither validates nor invalidates the rule. It says only that the issue raised was not one of constitutionality, so Article 211(a) continues to produce its effects in disputes started before the repeal.

The second effect is that the argument moves to the evidence. The Galați Court of Appeal had pointed out, in its own opinion, that the actual manner in which the measure was communicated and the moment from which the period starts are questions of fact, proved with evidence before the trial court. The Constitutional Court confirmed this division of competences. For an employee in the same situation, that means the fight is fought with witnesses, documents and correspondence, not with arguments of unconstitutionality.

The third effect concerns a distinction the Court flags without resolving it. Paragraph 16 of the decision states that, in order to know whether the duty to inform was discharged and from when the period runs, the classification of the measure must first be established: whether or not it alters essential elements of the individual employment contract. That classification is also left to the court.

The fourth effect is the confirmation of a settled line of case law. The Court repeats what it established in Decision No 838 of 27 May 2009 and in Decision No 504 of 7 October 2014: the interpretation and application of the law fall exclusively to the courts, while it is for the High Court of Cassation and Justice to unify practice. Anyone whose problem is inconsistent case law has no business before the Constitutional Court.

The fifth effect is procedural and worth noting. The presidents of the two chambers of Parliament, the Government and the Ombudsman submitted no opinion on the plea, even though one had been requested under Article 30(1) of Law No 47/1992. The Court ruled without their input.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

The decision changed nothing in the text of the law. What did change is the setting around it, and that explains why the matter reached the Official Gazette of Romania so late. The plea was raised in 2020, the court referred the matter to the Constitutional Court in May 2021, and the decision came in February 2026.

In the meantime, Article 211(a) was repealed by Article I of Law No 269/2021 amending Social Dialogue Law No 62/2011 and Law No 53/2003, published in Official Gazette of Romania No 1076 of 10 November 2021. The Court examined the provision nonetheless, relying on Decision No 766 of 15 June 2011: a repealed rule may be reviewed if it continues to produce effects in the case pending before the referring court.

The author’s grievance also came from a comparison between two parallel rules. Article 211(a) of Law No 62/2011 gave 45 calendar days from the date on which the person concerned became aware of the measure. Article 268(1)(a) of the Labour Code gives 30 calendar days from the date on which the employer’s unilateral decision was communicated. A longer period, but with a vaguer starting point, against a shorter period tied to an act of communication.

After the 2021 repeal, that duality disappeared. Today, unilateral measures taken by an employer are challenged within the periods set by the Labour Code, and the starting point is the communication of the decision, not the moment when the employee somehow found out about it.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • The decision draws the line clearly: what can be asked of the Constitutional Court and what has to be asked of the court ruling on the substance. An employee who knocks on the wrong door loses months of litigation.
  • It confirms that the moment when the measure was communicated is a question of fact, so it can be proved by any means of evidence, not only with a signed document.
  • It flags, even without resolving it, a step the courts sometimes skip: first classify the measure, only then discuss the deadline.
  • The criticised provision no longer exists in the law in force, so the problem will not recur for today’s employment relationships.
  • The decision is short and reasoned on settled case law, which makes it easy to rely on in a similar file.

What remains a problem

  • The employee waited almost five years for an answer that does not touch the substance of his problem.
  • The underlying question stays open: if an employer gives notice verbally and the employee cannot prove when he found out, who bears the risk of proof.
  • Neither Parliament, nor the Government, nor the Ombudsman set out a position, even though the law required them to be consulted.
  • For older disputes, still being heard today under the repealed provision, the uncertainty remains exactly where it was.
  • The decision says nothing about how „becoming aware” is proved in practice, even though that was the real stake of the file.

Practical advice

  1. If your employer tells you verbally about a change to your contract, ask for written confirmation the same day. An e-mail sent by you, describing what you were told, is itself a piece of evidence.
  2. Write down the date on which you found out about the measure and how you found out. In a dispute about deadlines, that detail decides everything.
  3. For current employment relationships, the deadline is the one in Article 268 of the Labour Code, 30 calendar days from the communication of the decision. Do not start from the 45 days in the old law.
  4. If you have a dispute started before November 2021, check which provision it is being heard under. The repealed text continues to apply to those cases.
  5. Do not raise a plea of unconstitutionality in order to obtain an interpretation of the law. The Court will dismiss it as inadmissible, and your case stands still in the meantime.
  6. If your problem is inconsistent case law, the route is the unification mechanism at the High Court, not the Constitutional Court.
  7. Keep envelopes, acknowledgements of receipt and any proof of communication. They establish the date from which the period is counted.

Frequently asked questions

What does it mean that the plea was dismissed as inadmissible?
That the Court did not examine whether the provision complies with the Constitution. It found that the issue raised concerned the interpretation and application of the law in a specific case, which does not fall within its competence.
How long do I have to challenge a measure taken by my employer?
Today, under Article 268(1)(a) of the Labour Code, 30 calendar days from the date on which the employer’s unilateral decision was communicated to you.
Why was there talk of a 45-day period?
Because Article 211(a) of Social Dialogue Law No 62/2011, repealed in 2021, provided for 45 calendar days from the date on which the person concerned became aware of the measure.
Is my employer obliged to communicate in writing?
The Court’s decision does not answer that question. It says that the manner of communication and the moment from which the period runs are questions of fact, established by the court on the basis of the evidence.
Why was a repealed provision examined?
Under Decision No 766 of 15 June 2011, a repealed rule may be subject to constitutional review if it continues to produce effects in the case pending before the court that referred the matter.
Does the decision help me if I have an employment case?
It shows you where the argument is held: before the trial court, with evidence about the communication and about the nature of the measure. It is useful as strategy, not as an argument on the substance.
From when is the decision binding?
It is final and generally binding from its publication in the Official Gazette of Romania, that is from 15 July 2026.

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. 581 of 15 July 2026 16 pages PDF, 114 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.