In brief
- A company involved in litigation cannot be exempted from the court stamp duty, no matter how tight its finances are. It can only obtain a reduction, payment in instalments or a deferral, and the Constitutional Court has just confirmed that this limitation is constitutional.
- Full exemption, through public legal aid, remains reserved for individuals. The Court holds that the two categories cannot be compared and that the difference stems from a European directive transposed into domestic law.
- The plea had been raised by two companies, one from Bistrița-Năsăud county and one from Bulgaria, whose applications for relief on the duty had been refused. The decision was taken unanimously.
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 582 of 15 July 2026
Delivered: 20 November 2025
A company whose accounts have been garnished wants to go to court but has nothing to pay the stamp duty with. The law offers it a reduction, instalments or a deferral, never an exemption. The Constitutional Court was asked whether this closes off its access to justice, and it answered no. Decision No 616 of 20 November 2025, published in Official Gazette of Romania No 582 of 15 July 2026, dismisses as unfounded the plea concerning Article 42 paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) of Government Emergency Ordinance No 80/2013. This is the second time in a matter of months that the same act has withstood an attack of this kind, after the ruling in which the Court dismissed 18 cases on stamp duties in a single judgment.
The contested text sets out what a legal person may ask for. On request, the court grants reductions, instalments or deferrals in two situations: where the duty amounts to more than 10% of the average net income over the last three months of activity, or where payment in full is impossible because the company is in liquidation or dissolution, or its assets have been frozen. Exceptionally, the court may grant the same relief in other cases as well, if it considers, in the light of the company’s economic and financial position, that paying the duty in full would significantly affect its day to day business.
The two companies that raised the plea, Genel Internațional, based in the commune of Rebra, Bistrița-Năsăud county, and Adi Construct Eood, based in Ruse, Bulgaria, complained about precisely what is missing from that list: the possibility of an exemption where the accounts have been garnished or the company is in liquidation. They also argued that they were being discriminated against compared with individuals, who can be exempted in full.
What it changes in practice
The first effect is that the list of available relief stays closed. A company that asks a court to exempt it from the stamp duty is asking for something the law does not provide for, and the decision confirms that this omission is not unconstitutional. The application has to be framed as a reduction, instalments or a deferral, otherwise it risks being rejected from the outset.
The second effect concerns public legal aid. The Court restates a blunt formula from its own case law: in no circumstances can a legal person be a beneficiary of public legal aid. Government Emergency Ordinance No 51/2008, which governs that aid, transposes Council Directive 2003/8/EC, and the Romanian legislature’s choice to reserve it for individuals is consistent with that framework.
The third effect is confirmation of the legal nature of the duty. The obligation to pay the court stamp duty is a fiscal obligation, laid down by special legislation only for those who turn to the courts. A tax law relationship arises between the payer and the court, separate from the dispute with the opposing party, and the proceedings begin only once that obligation has been discharged.
The fourth effect concerns the equality argument. The Court repeats the principle set out in Plenary Decision No 1 of 8 February 1994: equality before the law does not mean uniformity, and different situations call for different treatment. Legal persons and individuals, even though both are parties to a dispute, are not in comparable situations.
The fifth effect is that the solution also rests on European case law. The Court cites the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, of 28 May 1985, and Larco and Others v. Romania, of 11 October 2007. The right to a court is not absolute, and the obligation to pay a duty proportionate to the claims brought does not amount to a restriction on access to a court.
The sixth effect is a practical one, for lawyers and company directors. The argument about garnished accounts or liquidation does not open up a new avenue, but it does fall under letter b) of paragraph (2), which refers precisely to a company in the course of liquidation or dissolution and to frozen assets. The relief exists, it is simply called something other than an exemption.
What has changed compared with the previous situation
In legislative terms nothing has changed. The text remains in force exactly as it was, and the decision merely confirms it. What does change is the weight of the argument: after this decision, a court faced with the same complaint can dismiss it by pointing to case law that has become settled.
The Court itself notes that these provisions have been reviewed before, in Decision No 188 of 26 March 2024, Decision No 28 of 16 February 2023, Decision No 671 of 17 November 2016 and Decision No 749 of 16 December 2014. Its conclusion in 2025 is that no new factors have arisen that would change the outcome or the reasoning of those earlier decisions.
The journey of the two case files is also worth noting. The first referral came from the Iași Court of Appeal, by an order of 1 March 2018. The second came from the Prahova County Court, by an order of 28 October 2022. The Court joined them of its own motion, under Article 53 paragraph (5) of Law No 47/1992, and ruled on them together in November 2025. More than eight years passed between the first referral and the publication of the decision.
Advantages and disadvantages
What it improves
- The rule is now predictable. A company knows from the start what it can ask for and how to frame its application, without testing the exemption route.
- In a single sentence, the decision clears up a common confusion: public legal aid does not apply to companies, ever.
- Paragraph (3) remains a genuine safety valve, because it allows relief outside the two listed situations, on the basis of the company’s economic and financial position.
- Reasoning built on judgments of the European Court of Human Rights makes the outcome hard to challenge under the Convention.
- Joining the two cases saved time and avoided two separate rulings on the same question.
What remains a problem
- A company with all its accounts garnished is left, in practice, without access to a court if instalments are out of reach as well.
- The criterion under letter a), the average net income over the last three months, is hard to apply to a company that has no activity at all.
- The relief under paragraph (3) depends on the court’s assessment, so the outcome can differ from one bench to another.
- Eight years between the first referral and publication mean that the company which raised the plea received its answer long after its own dispute had moved on.
- Neither the Chambers of Parliament nor the Ombudsman submitted their views, although they had been asked to.
Practical advice
- If your company cannot pay the stamp duty, ask for a reduction, instalments or a deferral, not an exemption. An application for exemption has no legal basis and will be refused.
- File, together with the application, the documents showing your economic and financial position: trial balances, annual accounts, bank statements, proof of the garnishment or of the freezing of assets.
- Check whether you fall below the threshold of 10% of the average net income over the last three months of activity. It is the only numerical criterion in the text and the easiest one to prove.
- If the company is in liquidation or dissolution, expressly invoke letter b) of paragraph (2). Your situation is named directly in the law.
- If you fall into neither of the two situations, use paragraph (3) and set out concretely how payment would affect your day to day business.
- Remember that a reduction can be combined with instalments or with a deferral, under paragraph (4). Ask for them together, not one after the other.
- Do not build a strategy on the comparison with individuals. The Court has said plainly that the two situations are not comparable.
Frequently asked questions
Can a company be exempted from the court stamp duty?
Why can individuals be exempted but companies cannot?
What exactly can I ask for if the company has no money for the duty?
Are garnished accounts a sufficient ground?
Does the decision change anything in the law?
Was the decision unanimous?
From when does it take effect?
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. 582 of 15 July 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.