In brief

  • A company asked the Constitutional Court to correct a gap in the rules on revision, the extraordinary review of a final judgment. The Court replied that it cannot supplement the law and rejected the application as inadmissible.
  • When you seek revision on the ground of conflicting final judgments, the file goes to the court immediately above the one that delivered the first judgment, not to the court that examined the merits.
  • The lesson for any lawyer: a criticism through which you ask for a situation to be added to the text is not a criticism of unconstitutionality, it is a request for legislation.
Act: CCR Decision no. 210/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 711 of 26 August 2026
Delivered: 5 March 2026

A company from Argeș spent five years waiting for an answer the Constitutional Court could not give: to write into the law something the legislature had not written. Decision no. 210/2026 of the Constitutional Court, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 711 of 26 August 2026, rejects as inadmissible the plea of unconstitutionality raised by Societatea Viator & Vektor Ro, of the commune of Mărăcineni, against Article 510(2) and (3), read together with Article 509(1) point 8 and Article 513(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is the third decision of the Court published on the same day, alongside the ones on the lapse of enforcement proceedings and on the pandemic allowance for professionals.

The stake is a practical one: with which court an application for revision is filed when the ground is the existence of two conflicting final judgments. The Code lays down two rules. The general rule, in Article 510(1), sends the application to the court that tried the merits. The special rule, in Article 510(2), first sentence, sends it to the court immediately above the one that delivered the first judgment. Where the conflicting judgments come from courts ruling on appeals on points of law and one of them is the High Court of Cassation and Justice, jurisdiction lies with the supreme court.

The company argued that Article 510(2) says nothing about the court that examined the merits, which would create confusion between institutions, time limits and applicable rules and would leave room for subjective interpretations. It invoked the principle of legality, free access to justice, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the administration of justice and the legislative drafting rules in Law no. 24/2000.

On 28 August 2026 the Court published two more decisions on the Code of Criminal Procedure, no. 117/2026 and no. 139/2026, both dismissals, in which it again refuses to fill a gap in the law.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is the limit of the Court’s own jurisdiction. The Court rules only on the constitutionality of the acts referred to it, under Article 2(3) of Law no. 47/1992, and cannot amend or supplement the provisions under review.

The second effect is how the criticism is classified. Reasoning that in reality asks for a legal situation favourable to its author to be added is not a genuine criticism of unconstitutionality. That is why the plea was rejected as inadmissible, not as unfounded.

The third effect confirms the rules of jurisdiction in revision. For the grounds that presuppose a judgment examining the merits, jurisdiction lies with the court that ruled on the merits of the claim, even where appellate remedies were used through which the merits were not examined.

The fourth effect concerns exactly the situation of the company. For revision based on conflicting judgments, jurisdiction lies with the court immediately above the one that delivered the first judgment.

The fifth effect is one of hierarchy. Where the conflicting judgments were delivered by courts ruling on appeals on points of law and one of them is the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the application is decided by the supreme court.

The sixth effect is that the texts under challenge remain unchanged, and the revision file at the Dolj Tribunal is tried further with them.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In law, nothing. The decision is one of inadmissibility, so it neither confirms nor denies the constitutionality of the texts; it merely finds that it was not seized of a criticism it is able to adjudicate.

What does become clearer is the boundary between a criticism of unconstitutionality and a request for legislation. The Court says expressly that it has no power to create new rules by supplementing a legal text.

The map of jurisdiction in revision also becomes clearer, set out compactly in the reasoning: Article 510(1) for the grounds that call for a judgment on the merits, Article 510(2), first sentence, for conflicting judgments, and the second sentence for the case where one of the judgments comes from the supreme court.

It is also worth remembering that, under Article 510(3), where grounds are invoked that attract different jurisdictions, there is no extension of jurisdiction. The applications are separated.

What does not change is the position of the Government, which considered from the outset that the plea was inadmissible, for the same reasons.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • The reasoning sums up clearly, in a single paragraph, the three rules of jurisdiction in revision, useful to anyone drafting such an application.
  • The Court reaffirms the separation of powers: supplementing a law is the business of Parliament, not of the constitutional court.
  • The decision offers a practical test for lawyers: if the application sounds like „the text ought to cover my situation as well”, the plea will be rejected as inadmissible.
  • The texts remain unchanged, so the pending files undergo no change of procedure.

What remains a problem

  • The problem flagged by the company stays unsolved: nobody tells it what happens when the court that examined the merits and the court immediately above the first judgment are not the same.
  • Five years from the referral to the solution, in a procedural case that could have been clarified far earlier.
  • Almost six months between delivery and publication, although the decision runs to three pages.
  • Neither the presidents of the Chambers nor the Ombudsman sent a point of view.
  • A decision of inadmissibility does not prevent the same problem being raised in another file, so the time lost can be repeated.

Practical advice

  1. If you seek revision on the ground of conflicting final judgments, file the application with the court immediately above the one that delivered the first judgment, not with the court that tried the merits.
  2. If one of the conflicting judgments was delivered by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on an appeal on points of law, the application is decided by the supreme court.
  3. For the other grounds of revision, which presuppose a judgment examining the merits, jurisdiction stays with the court that ruled on the merits.
  4. If you invoke several grounds of revision that attract different jurisdictions, do not count on an extension of jurisdiction. Article 510(3) rules it out expressly.
  5. When you raise a plea of unconstitutionality, check whether you are asking for a text to be removed or for one to be added. The second is inadmissible.
  6. Do not build the plea solely on a breach of the legislative drafting rules in Law no. 24/2000. The Court treats them as a supporting argument, not as a benchmark in its own right.
  7. If the gap really affects you, the route is a legislative proposal or an interpretation given by the High Court through an appeal in the interest of the law, not constitutional review.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Court decide?
It rejected the plea as inadmissible, because the reasoning was in reality aimed at supplementing the legal text, which goes beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.
What is the difference between inadmissible and unfounded?
Unfounded means that the text was examined and found constitutional. Inadmissible means that the Court could not examine the criticism, because it was not a criticism of constitutionality.
With which court is an application for revision for conflicting judgments filed?
With the court immediately above the one that delivered the first judgment, under Article 510(2), first sentence, of the Code of Civil Procedure.
What if one of the judgments comes from the High Court?
Where the conflicting judgments were delivered by courts ruling on appeals on points of law and one of them is the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the application is decided by the supreme court.
What happens if I invoke several grounds of revision?
If they attract different jurisdictions, there is no extension of jurisdiction, under Article 510(3).
Can the Constitutional Court supplement a law?
No. Under Article 2(3) of Law no. 47/1992, it rules only on the constitutionality of the acts referred to it, without being able to amend or supplement the provisions.
Does anything change in the revision files already on the docket?
No. The texts stay in force unchanged.

Editorial analysis

The decision is, technically, beyond challenge. The Court cannot write into the law a situation that is missing, and that is exactly what the company was asking for: that Article 510(2) should say something about the court that examined the merits as well. The distinction between removing an unconstitutional text and supplementing it is the line that separates constitutional review from legislating, and the reasoning draws it in three sentences.

One question, though, is left for nobody to take up. The company did not invent a problem: in revision for conflicting judgments, jurisdiction is fixed by reference to the court that delivered the first judgment, whether or not that court tried the merits, and in proceedings with several procedural cycles the result can look counterintuitive. The Court says, correctly, that this is not its business. The Ministry of Justice and the Superior Council of Magistracy, however, are under no obligation to act on a decision of inadmissibility, so the signal is lost.

The part that is hard to defend is the calendar. The referral order dates from 2 February 2021, the decision was delivered on 5 March 2026 and published on 26 August 2026. Five and a half years for a finding of inadmissibility that rests on a rule about the Court’s own jurisdiction, not on an examination of the merits. During that time, the revision file at the Dolj Tribunal stood still.

One detail of constitutional procedure is also worth noting: of the authorities consulted, only the Government replied, and it too considered the plea inadmissible. The presidents of the two Chambers and the Ombudsman sent nothing. This is the second decision published on the same day where that happens.

What should be changed

  • An admissibility filter applied early in the procedure of the Court. A criticism that asks for the law to be supplemented can be identified when the file arrives, not after five years, and the case on the merits could carry on in the meantime.
  • Communication of decisions of inadmissibility to the Ministry of Justice where they point to a real gap. Here a problem of jurisdiction was identified that the Court cannot solve, and nothing in the act shows that it reaches anyone who can.
  • Legislative clarification of jurisdiction in revision for conflicting judgments, where the court that examined the merits differs from the court immediately above the first judgment. It would remove the very situation from which the plea arose and would prevent applications being filed with the wrong court.
  • An obligation on the authorities consulted to send a point of view or to give reasons for their silence. Three out of four did not reply, 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. 711 of 26 August 2026 16 pages PDF, 126 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.