In brief
- In 2020, the allowance of 41.5% of the average gross wage was given only to the professionals who had already received the allowance from the state of emergency. Anyone who had not claimed the first allowance was left out of the second one as well.
- The Constitutional Court has rejected the criticism of discrimination. The filter stays constitutional, and the cases brought on that basis no longer have any ground.
- The decision was delivered in October 2025 and published only now, more than ten months later.
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 709 of 26 August 2026
Delivered: 16 October 2025
A taxi driver working through an authorised natural person (PFA) has definitively lost the case in which he claimed the pandemic allowance, because he had not claimed the allowance that came before it. Decision no. 474/2025 of the Constitutional Court, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 709 of 26 August 2026, rejects as unfounded the plea raised by the authorised natural person (PFA) Crafcic Paul Transporturi Taxiuri and by other professionals against Article 3(5), second sentence, of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 132/2020. It is the second decision published on the same day by which the Court confirms a text under challenge, after the one on the lapse of enforcement proceedings.
To see what is at stake, two allowances have to be followed. The first came through Article XV of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 30/2020 and was equal to the national minimum gross base salary for 2020. It was granted only for the duration of the state of emergency, to two categories: the professionals defined by Article 3(2) of the Civil Code, that is, anyone who operates an undertaking, and the persons holding individual labour agreements concluded under Law no. 1/2005 on cooperation.
The second came through Government Emergency Ordinance no. 132/2020 and was a monthly allowance of 41.5% of the average gross wage provided for by the State Social Insurance Budget Law for 2020. It was not limited to the state of emergency; it was granted where activity was temporarily reduced, in a state of emergency, a state of alert or a state of siege.
The text under challenge is the second sentence of Article 3(5): by way of exception, in 2020 the second allowance goes only to the professionals and the persons who received the first one.
What it changes in practice
The first effect is the confirmation of the filter. The condition of having received the first allowance stays in force for the year 2020, and anyone who did not claim it cannot obtain the second one retroactively either.
The second effect concerns the pending cases. The three files from which the plea arose, at the Sibiu Tribunal, at the Caraș-Severin Tribunal and at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, are tried further with the text as it stands, and the discrimination argument can no longer be used.
The third effect is one of method and goes beyond this case. The Court agreed to examine a text that was no longer in force, because its legal effects continue to be produced. It relies on Decision no. 766 of 15 June 2011, which established that the phrase „în vigoare” (in force) in Law no. 47/1992 also covers provisions that have ceased to be in force but whose effects continue.
The fourth effect is the acceptance of the differentiation. The Court says that the State not only may, but has a duty to take account of the objective differences that coexist with the objective similarities, and that here the differences prevail.
The fifth effect has to do with resources. The Court holds that the Government, bound to take account of financial resources under extreme pressure during the pandemic, was entitled to prioritise social protection measures, and that the way it struck the balance is not arbitrary.
The sixth effect is a procedural lesson. The criticism based on Article 41 of the Constitution, on work and the social protection of work, was raised formally, without reasoning, and the Court refused to examine it: doing so would have meant a review of its own motion, which is inadmissible.
What has changed compared with the previous situation
In law, nothing. The text was not in force in the form criticised in any event, having been amended by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 44/2021, and the decision is one of rejection.
What does become clearer is the position of those who missed the first allowance. One of the authors of the plea explained that she did not claim it because, at that moment, she believed the state of emergency would not last long and because nothing in the law showed that a refusal then would block future rights. The Court did not consider that this argument changes the outcome.
The logic of the rule also becomes clearer. Through the first sentence of Article 3(5), the Government had reserved the right to establish by Government decision the duration, the categories of professionals and the payment procedure. Through the second sentence, for 2020, it established the beneficiaries directly, in the emergency ordinance itself, without going on to issue that decision. The Court says that it can be reproached neither for reserving the prerogative nor for exercising it in that way.
Nor does the test of equality change. The Court applies it in the light of Article 16 of the Constitution and of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, invoked through Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
Advantages and disadvantages
What it improves
- The cases on the docket get a clear answer, and the courts no longer have to wait for the constitutional clarification.
- The Court reaffirms that it can review texts that have ceased to be in force but whose effects continue, which protects litigants in old disputes.
- The reasoning states the criterion openly: the variety of professionals and the variety of situations created by the pandemic.
- The decision recalls that a criticism of unconstitutionality has to be reasoned, not merely stated, which helps in framing future pleas correctly.
What remains a problem
- The professionals who did not claim the first allowance because they did not know it would become a condition stay excluded for good.
- The Court acknowledges that the reasons of the Government cannot be identified with certainty and rules on what the Government could have had in mind, not on what it did have in mind.
- Ten months and ten days between delivery and publication, in a matter where people had cases pending.
- The file at the Sibiu Tribunal dated from 2021, so the clarification came after more than four years.
- Neither the presidents of the two Chambers, nor the Government, nor the Ombudsman sent a point of view, although they had been asked.
Practical advice
- If you have a case on this subject, check whether the basis of the claim really is Article 3(5), second sentence. The decision closes off only that argument.
- If you are claiming the allowance for the year 2020, the condition remains that you received the allowance under Government Emergency Ordinance no. 30/2020. Without proof of it, the claim has no basis.
- For the period after 2020 the filter does not apply: the exception in the second sentence concerned the year 2020 expressly.
- If you raise a plea of unconstitutionality, give reasons for every article of the Constitution you invoke. The Court does not examine criticisms that are merely stated.
- A text that has ceased to be in force can be challenged if its legal effects continue. Invoke Decision no. 766/2011 expressly in such situations.
- Keep the proof of payment of the allowances received in 2020. It stays relevant in the tax and social insurance disputes connected with that period.
- The decision is final and generally binding, so there is no point in reformulating the same criticism in another file.
Frequently asked questions
Which allowance is this about?
Who was excluded?
What did the Court decide?
Why is it not discrimination?
Can a text that is no longer in force be challenged?
Why did the Court not examine the criticism based on Article 41 of the Constitution?
What happens to the pending cases?
Editorial analysis
The solution can be defended, and the reasoning has a rare merit: it says openly that the real reasons of the Government cannot be identified with certainty and that the check is made against what the Government could legitimately have had in mind. That is an honest way of putting it, but it also shows the limit of constitutional review of crisis measures: what is verified is the plausibility of a reason, not its existence.
The case itself deserves a close look, though. One of the authors of the plea did not claim the first allowance because, in March 2020, she believed the state of emergency would be short and, more importantly, because nothing in the law as it then stood showed that giving up one form of aid could block access to another, which did not yet exist. The ordinance that turned the first allowance into a condition of eligibility appeared in August 2020, that is, after the window for claiming it had closed. The Court does not deal with that aspect, although it is a matter not of equality but of foreseeability.
The most visible problem remains the calendar. The decision was delivered on 16 October 2025 and published on 26 August 2026, that is, ten months and ten days later. In a case where three courts, among them the High Court, had files suspended or waiting, the delay is not an administrative matter. The file at the Sibiu Tribunal, from which the plea arose, bears a number from 2021.
One last observation, on accuracy. In paragraph 24, the reasoning describes the second category of beneficiaries as „persoane care au încheiat contracte individuale de muncă în baza Legii nr. 1/2005” (persons who concluded individual employment contracts under Law no. 1/2005), although in paragraphs 21, 23 and 26, as in the quoted text of the ordinance, what is at issue is individual labour agreements. Under the law on cooperation the instrument is called an agreement, not a contract, and the difference separates two distinct legal categories. The context leaves the meaning unambiguous, so it does not change the solution, but in a decision that rests precisely on delimiting the categories of beneficiaries, their name ought to be one and the same.
What should be changed
- A maximum internal deadline between delivery and publication, with priority for the decisions that block pending files. Ten months for a decision of rejection, in a matter with three files before first instance courts and the High Court, delays solutions that already existed.
- Express reasoning on the criterion of foreseeability whenever a condition of eligibility is introduced retroactively. Here the condition appeared after the window for meeting it had closed, and the decision does not touch on that aspect.
- Uniform naming of the categories of beneficiaries in the body of the reasoning. „Convenție individuală de muncă” (individual labour agreement) and „contract individual de muncă” (individual employment contract) are not synonyms, and here they designate the same category in different paragraphs.
- An obligation on the authorities consulted to send a point of view or to give reasons for their silence. In this case none of the four authorities consulted replied, although the law provides for consulting them.
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. 709 of 26 August 2026 8 pages PDF, 83 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.