In brief

  • ANPC inspectors can require a trader, alongside the fine, to refund money collected without legal basis within no more than 15 days. The Constitutional Court has confirmed that the rule is constitutional.
  • A travel agency argued that, in doing so, ANPC becomes an extraordinary court, which the Constitution forbids. The Court dismissed the plea, unanimously.
  • The Court’s argument: finding an administrative offence is not a trial, and the trader can challenge the offence report in court.
Act: CCR Decision no. 236/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 717 of 27 August 2026
Delivered: 12 March 2026

An ANPC inspector walks into a travel agency, finds a breach and orders the money returned to the customer within 15 days. The agency argued that this is a judge’s job, not a civil servant’s. The Constitutional Court sided with the state. Decision no. 236 of 12 March 2026 of the Constitutional Court, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 717 of 27 August 2026, dismisses as unfounded the plea raised by Societatea Christian 76 Tour of Bucharest in two administrative offence cases. This is the fourth time this week that the Court has appeared with published decisions, after the two on the costs of the proceedings.

The pleas were raised in case no. 26.345/325/2020 before the Timișoara District Court and in case no. 28.607/325/2020 before the Arad District Court, joined at the Court. The decision was taken unanimously.

ANPC inspectors now also have a compulsory consumer information notice, carrying the single telephone number of the commissariats, in force from 4 October 2026.

What it changes in practice

Three provisions were at issue, all of them giving control authorities the same power, in three different laws.

Article 15(4) of Government Ordinance no. 21/1992 on consumer protection states that the persons empowered to find administrative offences shall establish, alongside the penalty, remedial measures or, if that is not possible, replacement or refund of the value of the services.

Article 27(3) of Government Ordinance no. 2/2018, the one on package travel, goes further and lists the additional penalties: immediate compliance with the contractual clauses that were breached, refund of the amounts collected without legal basis within no more than 15 days, and repair of the deficiencies found in the offence report.

Article 15^1 of Law no. 363/2007, on unfair commercial practices by traders, provided that, alongside the fine, the finding officer may order the refund of the value of the product or service within no more than 15 days from the moment the offender learns of the offence report.

All three remain constitutional. For the consumer, this means that a complaint to ANPC does not necessarily end with a fine paid to the state: the inspector can also order the money returned to the customer, within a short deadline and without a civil trial.

One important clarification, written into the operative part itself: the review concerns the provisions as worded before they were amended by Article II point 12 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 58/2022. The Court noted, at paragraph 15, that Article 15^1 had been amended after the case reached it.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In law, nothing. The decision confirms provisions that already exist and, beyond that, confirms a solution the Court had already given: by Decision no. 237 of 29 April 2025, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 1011 of 3 November 2025, the same provisions had already been declared constitutional, against identical criticisms.

The second thing to keep is the reasoning, because it applies beyond this case. The Court draws a line between finding and judging. The inspector who assesses the content of a contractual clause makes an assessment that is necessary in order to be able to find the administrative offence, but that assessment does not have the value of a judgment. The trader can lodge a complaint against the offence report and, if the complaint is dismissed, can challenge the judgment before an independent court.

The third is a comparison the Court explicitly rejects: the precedent in which the jurisdiction exercised by the National Council for the Study of the Securitate Archives was classified as an extraordinary jurisdiction, by Decision no. 51 of 31 January 2008. The Court says that the powers of ANPC inspectors are not similar, because their activity is exclusively administrative.

The fourth is the timeline. The pleas were raised in the trial courts, the interlocutory judgments referring them to the Court are dated April and November 2021, the decision was delivered on 12 March 2026 and published on 27 August 2026. More than five years from referral to effect, and five and a half months from delivery to publication.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • The consumer has a fast route to getting the money back: 15 days, by decision of the inspector, without a civil trial.
  • The Court explains clearly why finding an administrative offence is not a trial, which helps the courts answer the same objection in future.
  • The trader keeps full access to a court: the offence report can be contested and the judgment can be appealed against.
  • Confirming a solution already given in 2025 brings predictability to a matter that often reaches the district courts.

What remains a problem

  • The decision concerns the provisions as worded before the 2022 amendment, so it says nothing about the current form of Article 15^1.
  • More than five years between the referral and the publication of the decision, an interval in which the cases on the merits were left waiting.
  • The Court does not examine whether the 15 day deadline is enough for a trader who contests the measure, because the complaint does not automatically suspend the obligation.
  • Criticisms about the concrete way in which the inspectors established the legal basis of the offence report remain outside constitutional review, so every litigant has to raise them again before the trial court.

Practical advice

  1. If you have paid for a service that was not provided, a complaint to ANPC can lead not only to a fine for the trader, but also to the money being refunded within a short deadline. Ask expressly for the refund measure in your complaint.
  2. Keep the contract, the proof of payment and the correspondence. The inspector establishes the measure on the basis of their own findings, and your documents are what show what was collected without a basis.
  3. If you are a trader and you receive an offence report with a refund measure, check whether the document contains all the mandatory particulars, including the place of the offence. The absence of an essential particular is raised in the complaint.
  4. The refund deadline runs from the moment you learn of the offence report, not from the moment it becomes final. Lodging a complaint does not automatically release you from the deadline.
  5. Check which version of the text applies to your situation. Today’s decision concerns the wording of Article 15^1 of Law no. 363/2007 as it stood before the 2022 amendment.

Frequently asked questions

Can ANPC give me my money back?
ANPC does not pay the money itself, but it can require the trader to refund it, as an additional penalty applied alongside the fine. The deadline laid down by law is no more than 15 days.
What did the Constitutional Court decide?
It dismissed the plea as unfounded and found that Article 15(4) of Government Ordinance no. 21/1992, Article 27(3) of Government Ordinance no. 2/2018 and Article 15^1 of Law no. 363/2007 are constitutional.
Why was it said that ANPC would be an extraordinary court?
The author of the plea argued that, by ordering sums to be refunded, ANPC is in fact settling a civil dispute, establishing fault and quantifying damage, that is doing what a judge does. The Court dismissed the argument.
How did the Court answer?
It said that drawing up the offence report does not amount to judging the act, that the activity of the inspectors is exclusively administrative and that access to a court remains open through the complaint against the offence report.
Can the trader still contest the measure?
Yes. A complaint can be lodged against the offence report and, if the complaint is dismissed, the judgment can be challenged before an independent and impartial court.
Does the decision apply to the texts as they stand today?
Not entirely. The operative part states that the review concerns the provisions as worded before the amendment made by Article II point 12 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 58/2022.

Editorial analysis

The real stake in this case is not the fate of a travel agency, but the question whether a civil servant can order money moved from one pocket to another without going through a trial. Put that way, the question sounds serious, and the author of the plea put it exactly that way. The Court’s answer is firm and, in essence, procedural: the measure settles nothing definitively, because everything the inspector orders can be reopened in court, at the trader’s request.

The argument works because it keeps judicial review at the end of the chain. The inspector finds, the state penalises, and if the person penalised disagrees, the judge checks. What is missing from the reasoning is what happens in the meantime. The refund deadline runs from the moment the offender learns of the offence report, not from the settlement of the complaint, and the decision does not dwell on that interval at all. For a trader who is right and proves it a year later, the money has already gone.

The second point is what exactly was reviewed. The operative part is explicit: the provisions were examined as worded before the 2022 amendment. The Court notes the amendment at paragraph 15 and continues its review on the old form, which is procedurally correct, because that was the form applicable in the cases on the merits. The practical effect, though, is that a reader looking today for an answer about the powers of ANPC finds a fresh decision on a text that is no longer in force in the same form.

The third is the length of time. More than five years passed between the interlocutory judgments of 2021 and today’s publication, of which the last five and a half months went only on the step between delivery and appearance in the Gazette. For a plea that in fact holds up two administrative offence cases, the interval says more about how the system works than about the point of law.

What should be changed

  • Clarifying the regime of the 15 day deadline where a complaint is lodged. The law should say expressly whether the refund obligation is suspended until the complaint is settled.
  • Marking the version reviewed visibly. A decision that concerns a repealed form of the text should say so in the title, not only in the operative part.
  • A maximum deadline between delivery and publication. Five and a half months for a four page text is not justified by the volume of the drafting.

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. 717 of 27 August 2026 16 pages PDF, 105 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.