In brief

  • 33 joined case files, brought by dozens of people persecuted for political reasons under the communist regime, asked the Constitutional Court to strike down the rule that the tribunal’s ruling is final in disputes over the monthly compensation granted under Decree-Law No. 118/1990.
  • The Court rejected the challenge as unfounded: free access to justice does not entail a right to two levels of jurisdiction, which the Constitution guarantees only in criminal matters.
  • Nothing changes: a person can still challenge the payments agency’s decision before the tribunal, but the tribunal’s ruling cannot be appealed.
Act: CCR Decision No. 62/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) No. 651 of 6 August 2026
In force from: 6 August 2026

People persecuted for political reasons under the communist regime, or deported or taken prisoner after 6 March 1945, receive a monthly compensation under Decree-Law No. 118/1990. When the county payments and social inspection agency rejects a claim, the only remaining path is a challenge before the tribunal, whose ruling is final. Dozens of claimants, through 33 files joined at the Constitutional Court, argued that having no appeal against this ruling violates their right of defence and free access to justice. Decision No. 62 of 22 January 2026, published in Official Gazette of Romania No. 651 of 6 August 2026, rejects the argument and leaves the rule unchanged.

The challenged provision is Article 13(8), second sentence, of Decree-Law No. 118/1990: “The interested person may challenge the decision before the administrative and fiscal litigation section of the tribunal, within 30 days of communication of the ruling, under Administrative Litigation Law No. 554/2004 (…). The tribunal’s ruling is final.” The referrals, filed between 2022 and 2025 by several courts of appeal (Timișoara, Brașov, Ploiești, Alba Iulia, Bucharest, Suceava, Constanța, Craiova, Târgu Mureș, Galați), were joined into a single file, whose resolution took nearly five years for some of the earliest referrals.

The claimants’ central argument: removing the right of appeal creates discrimination against other litigants in ordinary administrative litigation, where the first-instance ruling can be appealed under Article 20 of Law No. 554/2004. They also argued the provision should have been adopted through an organic law, not the ordinary Law No. 232/2020 that introduced it.

What it changes in practice

The rule stays exactly as it was. A challenge before the administrative and fiscal litigation section of the tribunal remains the only judicial path against the payments agency’s decision, and the tribunal’s ruling remains final, with no appeal to the court of appeal.

The Court described the tribunal challenge as a genuine remedy, not a formality. Because it examines the case on all its aspects, of fact and of law, verifying both the legality and the merits of the administrative decision, a full hearing on the merits satisfies, in the Court’s view, the requirements of free access to justice.

The comparison with the revision procedure under Article 15 of the same decree-law was rejected as irrelevant. That provision concerns a decision already issued and already being paid out, later revised, a different legal situation from the initial determination of the right, which does allow an appeal because it passes through the preliminary procedure under Law No. 554/2004.

The organic-law argument was rejected. Decree-Law No. 118/1990 is, in essence, a reparatory act, not an administrative-litigation one, even though it refers to Law No. 554/2004 for the challenge procedure; that reference does not turn all its provisions into organic-law matters.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

Nothing, legally. The Court noted that the solution and reasoning in Decision No. 133 of 27 March 2025, which had already settled a similar challenge, remain valid, since no new elements had emerged.

What is confirmed is the limit set by the Court’s settled case law: the right to two levels of jurisdiction is guaranteed by the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights only in criminal matters, not in administrative or reparatory disputes. The legislature has discretion in choosing which matters are exempt from the right of appeal.

The decision adds to another ruling on the same decree-law, also published recently, which rejected a request to expand the categories of beneficiaries of the compensation. Together, the two decisions confirm, from different angles, that amending Decree-Law No. 118/1990, whether regarding beneficiaries or regarding appeals, remains solely at Parliament’s discretion.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • Definitively clarifies, for the dozens of similar cases still pending before the courts, that no appeal exists, shortening the length of future litigation.
  • Confirms that a challenge before the tribunal, decided on the merits, satisfies the requirements of free access to justice, without needing a second level of jurisdiction.
  • Keeps uniform treatment for all beneficiaries of Decree-Law No. 118/1990, without exceptions carved out through litigation.
  • Reduces the burden on courts of appeal, which no longer need to hear appeals in a matter explicitly exempted by the legislature.

What remains a problem

  • People dissatisfied with the tribunal’s ruling have no way to challenge it, however elderly or vulnerable the claimants in this category may be.
  • The length of the proceedings, from referral to the Court to publication of the decision, reached nearly five years for the first joined files, a delay hard to justify for elderly beneficiaries.
  • The difference in treatment compared with ordinary administrative litigation, where an appeal exists, remains, even though the Court explained it by the reparatory nature of the act.
  • The decision offers Parliament no recommendation to align the procedure with the common administrative-litigation regime.

Practical advice

  1. If your claim was rejected by the county payments and social inspection agency, prepare your case thoroughly for the tribunal challenge: it is the only court that will examine the case on the merits, with no possibility of a second judicial review.
  2. Do not build your defence around a later appeal. The tribunal’s ruling is final from day one; all relevant evidence and arguments must be presented at that single hearing.
  3. If your situation involves a revision decision (rights already granted, later reduced or cancelled), the procedure is different and an appeal remains available, under Article 15 of Decree-Law No. 118/1990 combined with Law No. 554/2004.
  4. To change this rule, the only remaining path is a legislative initiative in Parliament; the constitutional challenge on the right of appeal has now been found unfounded twice, in 2025 and 2026.

Frequently asked questions

What did those who raised the challenge ask for?
That the rule making the tribunal’s ruling final and unappealable, in disputes over the payments agency’s decision on political-persecution compensation, be declared unconstitutional.
Why did the Constitutional Court reject the request?
Because free access to justice does not entail a right to two levels of jurisdiction, guaranteed constitutionally and conventionally only in criminal matters. A tribunal challenge decided on the merits already satisfies the requirements of effective judicial review.
Has anything changed for pending claims?
No. The procedure remains the same: a challenge before the administrative and fiscal litigation section of the tribunal, within 30 days of the decision’s communication, with a final judgment and no appeal.
Is there any difference for the revision of an already-issued decision?
Yes. If a decision granting rights is later revised, a challenge against the revision decision follows the ordinary procedure under Law No. 554/2004, which includes an appeal to the court of appeal.
Can this same issue be raised again before the Constitutional Court?
The challenge can be raised, but the Court has shown its solution is consistent with Decision No. 133/2025 and that no new elements have emerged; the chances of a different outcome, absent a major legislative or case-law change, are slim.

Original text of the legal act

The full text, as published in the Official Gazette of Romania

Official Gazette of Romania no. 651 of 6 August 2026 48 pages PDF, 243 KB the act starts on page 41

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.