Complaint against a judge: the Constitutional Court confirms the route, from the Judicial Inspection to the High Court

Anyone who has ever had a complaint against a magistrate dismissed by the Judicial Inspection has had the same reaction: who checks the Inspection? The Constitutional Court has now answered that the question is legitimate, but that the provisions organising the procedure contain nothing unconstitutional. By Decision no. 130 of 17 February 2026, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 698 of 22 August 2026, the Court dismissed as unfounded the plea of unconstitutionality raised in a case pending before the Bucharest Court of Appeal, Ninth Division for administrative and tax litigation. This is not the only recent ruling in which the Court examines how the judiciary supervises itself, after it also dismissed 18 files on court stamp duty in a single decision.

The contested provisions were Article 44(3) and (6), Article 45 and Article 45¹ of Law No 317/2004 on the Superior Council of Magistracy. They provide that disciplinary action against judges, prosecutors and assistant magistrates is brought by the Judicial Inspection, through the judicial inspector, that the disciplinary investigation carried out by the Inspection is mandatory, and how complaints from litigants are dealt with.

The author of the plea argued two things. First, that the Judicial Inspection was a body created by a regulation of the plenum of the Superior Council of Magistracy, and therefore had no constitutional basis, since the Constitution does not mention it in the chapter on the judicial authority. Second, that the Inspection settles litigants’ complaints definitively and that its findings are never reviewed by the Superior Council of Magistracy, contrary to Articles 133 and 134 of the Constitution.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is the confirmation of the Judicial Inspection’s powers. Article 44(3) and (6) remain in force, so disciplinary action is still brought by the Inspection, through the judicial inspector, and the disciplinary investigation carried out by the Inspection remains mandatory before that action can be taken.

The second effect concerns the initial filter applied to complaints. Article 45 remains applicable: the Inspection may act of its own motion or may be seised by a written and reasoned complaint from any interested person, but a complaint that is unsigned, that lacks the author’s identification details or that gives no concrete indications about the facts is dismissed, and the author is informed accordingly. A fresh complaint may be filed if the conditions are met.

The third effect concerns time limits. The preliminary check must be completed within 45 days of the complaint, and the chief inspector may extend that period by no more than a further 45 days where there are good reasons. The time limits laid down in this article carry forfeiture, which means that exceeding them is not a mere administrative slip.

At the end of this calendar stands a limit that nothing suspends, confirmed by the Constitutional Court in March 2026: disciplinary action can no longer be brought 2 years after the act.

The fourth effect matters most to an ordinary litigant: the right of challenge stays open. A dismissal order may be contested by a complaint to the chief inspector within 15 days of notification, and that complaint must be settled within 20 days of registration. If the chief inspector rejects the complaint, both his order and the dismissal order may be challenged before the Division for administrative and tax litigation of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, within 15 days of notification, and its judgment may be appealed on points of law before the High Court of Cassation and Justice, again within 15 days.

The fifth effect concerns case law. The Court pointed out that it had already examined the same provisions in Decision no. 617 of 7 November 2024 and that no new elements had arisen, so the ruling and its reasoning remain valid. Courts may no longer set these provisions aside.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

Nothing changes in the wording of the law, but one clarification matters here: Law No 317/2004 was repealed by Law No 305/2022 on the Superior Council of Magistracy, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 1.105 of 16 November 2022. The Court nevertheless examined the old provisions, because they apply to the pending case, under the rule laid down in Decision no. 766 of 15 June 2011: constitutional review may also cover provisions whose legal effects continue to be produced after they cease to be in force.

The second change is one of argument. The idea that the Judicial Inspection has no legal basis was taken apart with precise references. The Court showed that the Inspection had been governed by law as far back as 2004, through Article 60 of the original version of Law No 317/2004, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 599 of 2 July 2004, then through Article 61 after the 2005 republication and, in the version republished in 2012, as a structure with legal personality within the Superior Council of Magistracy.

The third change concerns operational independence. The Court recalled that, under Article 65(3) of Law No 317/2004, the Judicial Inspection acts on the principle of operational independence from the Superior Council of Magistracy, from the courts, from the prosecutor’s offices and from other public authorities. That is why its findings are not subject to review by the Council, and the Court held that this arrangement is constitutional.

What does not change is the scope of the analysis. The criticisms alleging that the provisions were unclear were not examined in detail, because the author confined himself to claiming that the law was of poor quality, without showing what the specific shortcomings were.

Advantages and disadvantages

Practical advice

Frequently asked questions