In brief

  • Whoever loses the case pays the successful party’s costs of the proceedings, even if they acted in good faith. The Constitutional Court has confirmed the rule.
  • The basis is not bad faith but procedural fault: whoever forced the opposing party to incur costs in order to defend a right bears the risk, whatever the intention.
  • Decision no. 111 dismisses, as inadmissible, a challenge to the rule under which the Code of Civil Procedure applies only to cases begun after it entered into force.
Act: CCR Decisions no. 111/2026 and no. 382/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 712 and no. 716 of 27 August 2026
Delivered: 5 February 2026 and 28 April 2026

You lost the case, but you acted in good faith. You pay the other side’s lawyer anyway. That is the confirmation given by Decision no. 382 of 28 April 2026 of the Constitutional Court, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 716 of 27 August 2026. The same day brought, in Official Gazette of Romania no. 712, Decision no. 111 of 5 February 2026, which also concerns civil procedure, this time the rule on how the Code applies in time. This is the third time this week that the Court has appeared with published decisions, after the two on the Citizenship Law.

Both were adopted unanimously. Decision no. 111 concerns a plea raised before the Bucharest Tribunal, while the two pleas in Decision no. 382 came from the Bacău Tribunal and from the Bucharest Court of Appeal.

What it changes in practice

The practical core lies in Decision no. 382. Article 453(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires the party who loses the case to pay, upon request, the costs of the proceedings incurred by the successful party, remains constitutional.

The Court’s reasoning is worth reading in full, because it answers precisely the objection that anyone who loses a case without having acted in bad faith raises instinctively. The basis for bearing the costs of the proceedings, the Court says, remains procedural fault and full compensation of the successful party. The good faith of the party who lost the case does not justify releasing that party from paying the costs. As between the party who won, whose right was recognised by the judgment, and the party who accepts the trial and loses, the risk of the situation is borne by the second, who, through their own conduct, even if not in bad faith, forced the opposing party to incur those costs.

The Court also notes a difference in terminology that carries no consequence: the current Code speaks of the party who loses the case, whereas the 1865 code spoke of the „partă căzută în pretenții”, the party whose claims failed. The change of words does not change the basis.

The second limb of the same decision was dismissed as inadmissible. It concerned Article 509(1) point 11 and Article 513(1) of the Code, provisions that belong to revision.

Decision no. 111 concerns two other provisions: Article 3(1) and Article 4 of Law no. 76/2012, the law implementing the Code of Civil Procedure. The first states that the provisions of the Code apply only to cases and to enforcement proceedings begun after it entered into force. The second says the same about the bailiff’s power in principle to enforce any enforceable title.

The plea was dismissed as inadmissible, and the reason is instructive. The author had invoked several constitutional provisions but framed the criticism elliptically, without showing the link between them and the contested texts. The Court said that, were it to proceed otherwise, it would substitute itself for the author of the plea in framing the criticisms, which would amount to a review carried out of the Court’s own motion, and that is inadmissible. In addition, Articles 20 and 148 of the Constitution had been invoked without any indication of the rules said to have been infringed in the international treaties to which Romania is a party.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

Nothing, in law. Both decisions confirm the existing texts. What is added is the clarity of the reasoning on a question that comes before the courts often.

The second thing to note is the continuity with the earlier regime. The Court expressly links the current rule to the one in the 1865 code, which means that the old case law on the costs of the proceedings remains relevant, despite the change of vocabulary.

The third thing concerns the technique of raising pleas. Decision no. 111 is the second dismissal on inadmissibility published in the same week, after the one from the High Court on 22 June. Both say, in different fields, the same thing: whoever brings the matter must frame the criticism themselves, rather than leave the higher court to build it for them.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • The rule on the costs of the proceedings stays predictable: whoever loses pays, whatever the intention.
  • The reasoning explains why, which helps the courts answer the same objection in future.
  • Continuity with the 1865 regime keeps the earlier case law useful.
  • The Court restates an essential limit: it cannot carry out a review of its own motion, so it cannot reframe the criticism in the author’s place.
  • Both decisions were taken unanimously.
  • The rule on how the Code applies in time remains unchanged, which protects cases begun under the old law.

What remains a problem

  • A party who loses in good faith bears the other side’s costs in full, however large they may be.
  • The author’s objection about the lack of proportionality is referred to Articles 451 and 452 of the Code and to the assessment of the trial court, so it is not settled by this review of constitutionality.
  • Challenging the amount of the costs remains a matter for the trial court to assess, with no constitutional benchmarks.
  • Dismissal on inadmissibility leaves the provisions of Law no. 76/2012 unexamined on the merits.
  • Anyone who raises a plea without legal assistance risks losing it on form rather than on substance.
  • Seven months between the delivery of Decision no. 111 and its publication, four months for Decision no. 382.

Practical advice

  1. Before starting or continuing a case, work out the risk: if you lose, you also pay the other side’s costs of the proceedings, even if you acted properly.
  2. Ask expressly for the costs of the proceedings if you won. Article 453 awards them upon request, not of the court’s own motion.
  3. If the costs claimed by your opponent seem out of proportion, challenge them before the trial court, with arguments about the work actually performed. The Constitutional Court does not settle the amount.
  4. Check when the case or the enforcement proceedings began. The current Code applies only to those begun after it entered into force; for older ones the previous code still governs.
  5. If you raise a plea of unconstitutionality, set out explicitly the link between each constitutional provision invoked and the contested statutory text. Without that link, the plea falls on inadmissibility.
  6. When you invoke Article 20 or Article 148 of the Constitution, also indicate the specific rule in the international treaty that you consider to have been infringed.

Frequently asked questions

Who pays the costs of the proceedings?
The party who loses the case, at the request of the successful party, under Article 453(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court has confirmed that the rule is constitutional.
Does it matter that I acted in good faith?
No. The Court says expressly that the good faith of the party who lost does not justify releasing that party from paying the costs of the proceedings.
What is the obligation based on?
On procedural fault and on full compensation of the successful party. The risk is borne by the person who, through their own conduct, forced the opposing party to incur costs in order to have a right recognised.
Can I challenge the amount of the costs?
Yes, but before the court hearing the case. The Constitutional Court’s decision concerns the rule, not the specific sum in each case.
What was decided on the other provisions in Decision no. 382?
The plea concerning Article 509(1) point 11 and Article 513(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed as inadmissible.
What do the provisions in Decision no. 111 regulate?
Article 3(1) of Law no. 76/2012 states that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply only to cases and to enforcement proceedings begun after it entered into force. Article 4 says the same about the bailiff’s power to enforce any enforceable title.
Why was the plea in Decision no. 111 dismissed?
As inadmissible. The criticism had been framed elliptically, without showing the link between the constitutional provisions invoked and the contested provisions, and the Court cannot substitute itself for the author, because that would mean a review carried out of its own motion.
Are the decisions binding?
Yes, both are final and generally binding, and they are communicated to the courts from which the pleas came.

Errors and inconsistencies in the published text

  • Decision no. 382, paragraph 28: the reference to „art. 415” is wrong. The published text says that identifying the type of costs, proving them and the criteria for reducing the fee „se fac prin art. 415 și 452 din Codul de procedură civilă”, that is, are done under Article 415 and Article 452 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Article 415, however, governs the resumption of a trial after it has been stayed and has nothing to do with the costs of the proceedings. The correct reference is to Article 451, which sets the amount of the costs itself and the power of the court to reduce the lawyer’s fee. That Article 451 is what is meant is shown by paragraph 26 of the same decision, which examines it by name, at Article 451(2), and restates the reasoning of Decision no. 463 of 28 June 2016 on exactly that text. Anyone who follows the reference as printed arrives at a rule that has nothing to do with the subject.
  • Decision no. 382: the same case file appears under two numbers. The Constitutional Court file opened on the referral from the Bacău Tribunal is identified as „nr. 3.643D/2021” in paragraphs 1, 6 and 19, but as „nr. 3.463D/2021” in paragraph 16, which sets out the position of that same court. The digits are transposed. The real number is 3.643D/2021: it appears three times, and Case file no. 3.101D/2023 was joined to it precisely because 3.643D/2021 „a fost primul înregistrat”, that is, was the first to be registered.

Editorial analysis

The part of Decision no. 382 that deals with the costs of the proceedings is the most useful legal text published today for an ordinary person, because it answers a puzzlement that almost anyone entering a lawsuit has: why do I pay the other side’s lawyer if I sincerely believed I was right. The Court does not dodge the question. The answer, that the basis is procedural fault and not bad faith, and that as between the person whose right was recognised and the person who forced them to defend it in court the risk falls on the second, is coherent and can be explained to a non-specialist in two sentences.

The most practical objection raised by the author of the plea, that the courts do not check whether those costs genuinely exist and do not weigh them against the work performed, does receive an answer, but one that moves it elsewhere. The Court says at paragraph 28 that those criteria sit in Articles 451 and 452 of the Code, not in the contested text, so the criticism cannot be examined here, and at paragraph 29 that determining in concrete terms whether Article 453(1) applies is a matter of interpreting and applying the law, which falls to the trial court and goes beyond the powers of the Constitutional Court. The answer is procedurally correct, but it leaves standing an area where the rule is clear and its application is not.

The two dismissals on inadmissibility in this batch, the one in Decision no. 111 and the one on the second limb of Decision no. 382, together say something about real access to constitutional justice. A plea is lost not because the text is constitutional, but because the person who raised it did not build the criticism in the required form. For a litigant without a lawyer the distinction is invisible and the result is the same: the file moves on without an answer. The Court is right that it cannot carry out a review of its own motion; the problem lies not with the Court, but in the fact that nobody helps the person bringing the matter to frame their own question properly.

What should be changed

  • A mandatory statement of reasons when the lawyer’s fee is reduced or awarded in full. The criteria already exist in Articles 451 and 452, but the law does not require the court to show how it applied them. A duty to give reasons on this point would make verifiable the proportionality that the Court says is a matter of application.
  • A standard form for raising a plea of unconstitutionality. The requirement to link each constitutional provision to the contested text is simple, but unknown to those without a lawyer; an official template would reduce dismissals on form.
  • Faster publication of decisions. Seven months from delivery to publication, as it took for Decision no. 111, keep the courts hearing the same question in a state of uncertainty.
  • An express reference to the case law on the old code. The Court links the current rule to the one from 1865; an explicit mention that the old solutions remain applicable would spare practitioners the search.

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. 712 and no. 716 of 27 August 2026 16 pages PDF, 114 KB the act starts on page 2

Open the official PDFDownload the PDF

The other editions cited: nr. 716/2026

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.