In brief

  • An officer challenged before the Constitutional Court 20 articles of the Statute on military personnel and two points of an emergency ordinance, invoking 44 articles of the Constitution, 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights and 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  • He lost without a single one of his arguments being examined. The Court found that a list does not stand in for reasoning: what was missing was the explanation of how each provision of the law would breach each constitutional provision.
  • The lesson concerns any litigant who raises a plea of unconstitutionality, whatever the field: the number of texts invoked does not count, what counts is the link demonstrated between them.
Act: CCR Decision no. 32/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 599 of 22 July 2026
Delivered: 20 January 2026

Fifty-nine texts invoked, not one of them explained, and the result was a dismissal at the outset. The Constitutional Court dismissed as inadmissible the plea by which a member of the military challenged a large part of Law no. 80/1995 on the status of military personnel. Decision no. 32 of 20 January 2026 is a short manual on what a reasoned plea means, in the same line as the decisions in which the Court showed that a criticism aimed at the court judgment rather than at the law never gets to be examined.

The plea was raised by Dan Băzăvan, in a case pending before the Bucharest County Court, eighth division for labour disputes and social insurance. The provisions challenged cover almost the whole course of a military career: Articles 5, 7, 9, 13 and 141, Article 36(1)(c1), Articles 411, 46, 48, 56, 57, 59, 73, 75-771, 773, 78 and 84-86 of Law no. 80/1995, plus Article I points 7 and 8 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 36/2020.

The substantive criticisms were solid as themes. The author argued that the statute had not been brought into line with the reality of an army within NATO and within a European Union member state, that the mechanism for carrying out orders was „a disguised form of forced labour”, that the statute restricts freedom of expression and that it does not show the member of the military whose dignity has been harmed which courts he may turn to. The problem was not the theme, but the way it was tied to the Constitution.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is that the Statute on military personnel remains untouched. None of the 20 articles challenged was examined on the merits, so the provisions have been neither upheld nor struck down.

The second effect is the threshold the Court sets out unequivocally. Although the author had formally invoked 44 articles of the Constitution, 7 of the Convention and 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he gave no reasons for the alleged conflict between the criticised provisions and those texts. His submissions, the Court says, are not sufficient to trigger a review of constitutionality.

The third effect is the definition, taken up from Decision no. 1,313 of 4 October 2011, of the three elements of any plea: the provision challenged, the constitutional provision said to have been breached and the reasoning of the relationship of conflict between them. The first two can be determined exactly, the third carries a degree of relativity, but it cannot be absent. The bulk of the reasoning is not a condition, meaning that length does not matter, yet the link must be identifiable.

The fourth effect is the rule the Court repeats from Decision no. 785 of 16 June 2011: the mere listing of constitutional or convention provisions cannot be regarded as a genuine claim of unconstitutionality. This is exactly the trap that catches applications trying to cover as much ground as possible.

The fifth effect explains why the Court does not fill in the reasoning itself. Were it to examine a plea reasoned in elliptical terms, it would be substituting itself for the author in framing the criticisms, which would amount to a review of the court’s own motion, inadmissible under Article 29(4) of Law no. 47/1992. The condition left unmet is the one on reasoning, in Article 10(2) of the same law.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In law, nothing. The decision does not amend Law no. 80/1995 and does not create a new rule. It is a ruling of constitutional procedure.

Something has changed, however, for anyone following the case law: the clearest example so far of what an inadmissible plea for want of reasoning looks like. This is not a short or careless application, but a very wide-ranging one, in which the number of texts invoked was inversely proportional to the explanation given for each.

The second clarification is a practical one for military personnel. The Statute on military personnel governs the categories of professional serviceman and the military career guide, the duties and rights of military personnel, including unpaid leave, the sources of recruitment of officers, warrant officers and non-commissioned officers on active duty, the award of ranks and promotion in rank, the contracts concluded with the Ministry of National Defence, appraisal and promotion in post, as well as disability compensation and the survivor’s pension in cases of death occurring during and by reason of service. Each of these topics can be challenged separately, with reasoning of its own.

The third clarification concerns the state of the provisions. The Court notes that, after the matter was referred to it, Article 36(1)(c1) and Article 411(1) of Law no. 80/1995 were amended by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 28/2024. Anyone wishing to challenge these texts today must start from their current wording, not from the one reproduced in the decision.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • The decision states plainly where the threshold lies: every constitutional provision invoked has to be tied, concretely, to a defect in the provision of the law under attack.
  • Being a finding of inadmissibility, it does not close the discussion. The articles of the Statute on military personnel can be challenged again, with reasoning built properly.
  • The Court explains why it does not fill in the reasoning itself, which protects the adversarial character of the procedure and avoids a review of the court’s own motion.
  • The list in the decision of the topics covered by the Statute is useful in itself to any member of the military looking for the article that fits his situation.

What remains a problem

  • The issues raised, from freedom of expression for military personnel to access to a court where dignity has been harmed, remain undiscussed on the merits, although they concern an entire professional category.
  • The author went the whole way, from the first-instance court to the Constitutional Court, for a ruling that examines none of his arguments.
  • More than four and a half years passed between the referral to the Court, in October 2021, and the publication of the decision, in July 2026, and in that time two of the criticised provisions had already been amended.
  • A litigant without a lawyer has little chance of working out the reasoning requirement alone, and the decision offers him no model, only the finding that it was not met.

Practical advice

  1. Choose few and explain much. A plea with two provisions of the law and two articles of the Constitution, reasoned concretely, stands a better chance than one with fifty unexplained references.
  2. For every constitutional provision invoked, write a sentence showing in what way the rule under attack comes into conflict with it. This is the relationship of conflict the Court asks for.
  3. Do not confuse dissatisfaction with the effects of the law on your career with a claim of unconstitutionality. The first concerns the appropriateness of the rules, which is a matter for Parliament.
  4. Check whether your problem is one of interpreting and applying the law. In that case, jurisdiction belongs to the ordinary courts, not to the Constitutional Court.
  5. Before raising the plea, check the wording in force. Article 36(1)(c1) and Article 411(1) of Law no. 80/1995 were amended by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 28/2024.
  6. Keep in mind the basis for the dismissal: Article 10(2) of Law no. 47/1992 requires the referral to be reasoned. An application that is complete in form but carries no real criticism is dismissed as inadmissible.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Constitutional Court decide?
It dismissed the plea as inadmissible, by unanimous vote, because the reasoning requirement laid down in Article 10(2) of Law no. 47/1992 was not met.
Does that mean the Statute on military personnel is constitutional?
No. A finding of inadmissibility says nothing about the merits. The provisions were neither upheld nor struck down, and a properly reasoned challenge can be brought in the future.
Why was invoking dozens of articles not enough?
Because, according to Decision no. 785 of 16 June 2011, the mere listing of constitutional or convention provisions does not amount to a genuine claim of unconstitutionality. The explanation of the relationship of conflict was missing.
What must a plea of unconstitutionality contain?
Three elements: the provision of the law challenged, the constitutional provision said to have been breached and the reasoning of the relationship of conflict between them. The first two are determined exactly, the third must be reasonably identifiable.
Why did the Court not fill in the reasoning?
Because it would have substituted itself for the author of the plea, which would have amounted to a review of the court’s own motion, inadmissible under Article 29(4) of Law no. 47/1992.
What do the provisions under attack govern?
The categories of professional serviceman and the military career guide, the duties and rights of military personnel, the sources of recruitment of officers, warrant officers and non-commissioned officers, the award of ranks and promotion in rank, the contracts with the Ministry of National Defence, appraisal and promotion in post, disability compensation and the survivor’s pension.
Are the criticised provisions still in the same form?
Not all of them. Article 36(1)(c1) and Article 411(1) of Law no. 80/1995 were amended by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 28/2024.
Can the same plea be raised again?
Yes. Inadmissibility for want of reasoning does not bar a fresh referral, provided that this time the criticism is tied concretely to a constitutional provision.

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. 599 of 22 July 2026 16 pages PDF, 114 KB the act starts on page 4

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.