In brief

  • Two citizens asked the Constitutional Court to extend the category of persons entitled to the rights under Decree-Law No. 118/1990, the act compensating those politically persecuted by the communist regime, the deported and prisoners.
  • The Court dismissed the request as inadmissible: the criticisms did not concern a conflict between the law and the Constitution but the absence of a legislative solution, namely the inclusion of an additional category of beneficiaries.
  • The point of principle: defining the categories of beneficiaries is a choice for the legislature, and constitutional review cannot be turned into a tool for supplementing the law.
Act: Constitutional Court Decision No. 239/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) No. 659 of 10 August 2026
In force from: 10 August 2026

The 1990 law compensating victims of communist repression lists exhaustively who is entitled to money. Two people from Alba county argued in court that the list is too narrow and that their situation is similar to those included. The Constitutional Court replied that it cannot write the law in Parliament’s place. Decision No. 239 of 12 March 2026 was published in Official Gazette of Romania No. 659 of 10 August 2026 and settles two joined cases from the Alba County Court. It is the third Court decision published in the same gazette, alongside the one on postponing the increase of the pension point, all three confirming the limits of constitutional review in matters of monetary entitlements.

The contested text is Article 1(2)(b) of Decree-Law No. 118/1990 on granting rights to persons politically persecuted by the dictatorship established from 6 March 1945, and to those deported abroad or held as prisoners. The authors of the objection are Viorica Sicoe and Vasile Goia, in two cases before the Alba County Court, joined by the Court of its own motion.

One procedural detail says something about how long such disputes last: the assistant magistrate noted that one of the authors had died in the meantime, and no application had been made to bring an heir into the proceedings. The referrals date from September and November 2021, the decision came in March 2026, and publication in August 2026.

The representative of the Public Ministry asked for dismissal as unfounded, explaining that the law targets a category defined by the legal effects of the armistice talks begun by the Romanian state on 23 August 1944, and that the legislature’s choice reflects the continued captivity of Romanians held by the Soviet Union even after the armistice agreement of 12 September 1944.

What it changes in practice

The list of beneficiaries stays exactly as it is. No new category is added. Anyone who does not fall within the current wording of Decree-Law No. 118/1990 acquires no rights through this decision.

The Court classified the request as one of legislative policy, not of constitutionality. The criticisms concerned the limited scope of the rule, the authors arguing that the legislature should have included others in situations they considered similar. That amounts to adding a legislative solution absent from the contested rule.

The limit is express in statute, not merely in case law. Under Article 2(3) of Law No. 47/1992, the Court rules only on the constitutionality of the acts referred to it, without being able to amend or supplement the provisions under review. The Court cited Decision No. 438/2011 to that effect.

The remaining route is parliamentary. If anyone considers the range of beneficiaries should be widened, the answer is not a constitutional objection but an amendment of the decree-law. The Court cannot make up for the absence of a rule.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

Nothing changes in law. As a decision of inadmissibility, it produces no effect on the contested text, which remains in force as it stands.

What is clarified is the nature of this type of request. A criticism aimed not at what the law says but at what it does not say, that is at the omission of a category, is not a constitutional challenge in the sense of the review the Court carries out. The distinction matters for any litigation invoking different treatment between categories of beneficiaries of reparatory measures.

The Court did not examine whether the situation invoked by the authors is indeed similar to the one covered by the text. It never got there, because the issue was classified as falling within the competence of the legislature, in the sense of amending and supplementing the legal provisions.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It draws a clear, verifiable line between constitutional review and legislating, useful well beyond this particular case.
  • It prevents the constitutional court from creating, through case law, categories of beneficiaries with an undetermined budgetary impact.
  • It confirms that the legislature may delimit the categories of persons entitled to reparatory measures, according to historical and legal criteria that it sets.
  • It gives an explicit, therefore predictable, answer for similar cases pending before the courts.

What remains a problem

  • Those who consider themselves wronged are left without a practical remedy: the judicial route is closed, and the legislative one depends on Parliament’s will.
  • The length of the procedure, almost five years from referral to publication, is hard to justify for a group of claimants who are largely elderly. One of the authors died in the meantime.
  • The Court does not rule on the substance of the comparison invoked, so it does not say whether the situations are similar, leaving the discussion without a benchmark.
  • Publication five months after delivery further delays clarity for pending cases.
  • The decision does not flag the issue to Parliament, although the mechanism of inadmissibility decisions sometimes allows observations of that kind.

Practical advice

  1. If you claim rights under Decree-Law No. 118/1990, first check whether your situation fits the letters of Article 1 as written. Extensive interpretation by analogy has no prospects.
  2. Do not build the claim on the idea that the law ought to include other categories. The Court said explicitly that this is an argument of legislative policy, not of unconstitutionality.
  3. If your problem concerns proving the facts (the period of captivity, the deportation, the persecution), that is where the useful battle is fought, before the trial court, with documents and witnesses, not before the Constitutional Court.
  4. If the holder of the right dies during proceedings, apply to bring the heirs into the case. In one of the cases settled here no such application was made.
  5. To extend the categories of beneficiaries, the only route is a legislative proposal. Petitions to the relevant parliamentary committees are the appropriate instrument, not a constitutional objection.

Frequently asked questions

What were the authors of the objection asking for?
The inclusion of an additional category of beneficiaries of the reparatory measures under Decree-Law No. 118/1990, considering themselves to be in situations similar to those expressly covered by the law.
Why was the objection dismissed as inadmissible?
Because it did not concern a conflict between the law and the Constitution but the addition of a legislative solution absent from the contested rule. The Court cannot amend or supplement the provisions under review.
Has anything changed for current beneficiaries?
No. The text remains in force untouched, and the rights of persons already covered by the law are unaffected.
Who can widen the category of beneficiaries?
Only Parliament, by amending the decree-law. Defining the categories of beneficiaries of statutory rights is, according to the Court, a choice for the legislature.
Does the decision say the situations invoked are not similar?
No. The Court did not examine the substance of the comparison, because it classified the request as falling within the legislature’s competence rather than constitutional review.

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. 659 of 10 August 2026 16 pages PDF, 185 KB the act starts on page 6

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.