In brief

  • The Constitutional Court dismissed, by a unanimous vote, the plea raised by a security company from Oradea and found that the obligation of employers with at least 50 employees to hire persons with disabilities in a proportion of at least 4% is constitutional.
  • The argument that certain activities, such as guarding, cannot be performed by persons with disabilities does not exempt the employer: the Court recalls that the obligation is alternative in nature, meaning that it can also be discharged through a monthly payment to the state budget or through purchases from authorised sheltered units.
  • Who is concerned: all public authorities and institutions and all legal persons, public or private, with at least 50 employees. The decision is final and generally binding as of 24 July 2026.
Act: CCR Decision no. 7/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 606 of 24 July 2026
In force from: 24 July 2026

The 4% quota for hiring persons with disabilities remains mandatory, including for companies whose line of business requires medically fit staff. The Constitutional Court dismissed as unfounded the plea raised by the company WGS Security Group S.R.L. of Oradea and found that Article 78 paragraphs (2) and (3) of Law no. 448/2006 on the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities are constitutional. This is the second time the Court has upheld the same mechanism, after Decision no. 615 of 12 May 2011, and it adds to other measures through which the state is trying to reduce the barriers faced by persons with disabilities, such as the programme for making homes accessible by installing lifts. Decision no. 7 of 15 January 2026 was published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 606 of 24 July 2026.

The dispute that started it all is a tax dispute. The security company received a tax assessment decision establishing the amounts owed for not employing persons with disabilities, challenged it, and its administrative challenge was rejected. It thus reached the Bihor Tribunal, Third Division for administrative and tax litigation, where it raised the plea of unconstitutionality in Case File no. 3.112/111/2020.

The company’s argument had a simple logic. Law no. 333/2003 on the guarding of premises requires guarding duties to be carried out only by certified persons, and certification is granted only to those who are medically fit. Therefore, the company argued, the obligation to hire persons with disabilities is impossible to fulfil given its line of business and turns into a disguised tax. In addition, public institutions in the fields of national defence, public order and national security are expressly exempted by Article 78 paragraph (4), although they carry out similar activities, which would distort competition.

What is unusual is that the referring court agreed. The Bihor Tribunal considered the plea to be well founded insofar as the obligation is not linked to the jobs that can actually be filled by persons with disabilities, and pointed out that, in this way, the obligation effectively turns into a penalty for certain economic operators. The Public Ministry asked for the plea to be dismissed. The presidents of the two Chambers of Parliament, the Government and the Ombudsman did not submit any point of view.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is procedural and immediate. The decision is final and generally binding from publication, so the administrative and tax litigation courts hearing identical disputes are bound by the Court’s conclusion. The same plea can no longer be raised, under Article 29 paragraph (3) of Law no. 47/1992, and challenges against tax assessment decisions issued on this basis are left without the constitutional argument.

The second effect concerns employers’ budgets directly. The threshold of 50 employees and the minimum quota of 4% remain in force as they stand. An employer that does not fill those positions with persons with disabilities pays monthly to the state budget the guaranteed gross national minimum base wage multiplied by the number of unfilled jobs, under Article 78 paragraph (3) letter a).

The third effect is the one many employers overlook and the Court highlights: the obligation is alternative in nature. Letter b) of the same paragraph allows the payment of at least 50% of the amount to the state budget, while with the difference up to the level under letter a) the employer may purchase, on a partnership basis, products or services made through the own activity of persons with disabilities employed in authorised sheltered units. In other words, half of the money can flow back into the economy as products and services actually received, instead of leaving entirely as a levy.

The fourth effect concerns the limits of constitutional review and is worth remembering in any future dispute. The Court expressly refused to examine the alleged contradiction between Law no. 333/2003 and Law no. 448/2006, because, under Article 2 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law no. 47/1992, it reviews compliance with the Constitution, not the consistency between two laws. The conflict between the medical fitness requirement for guards and the 4% quota therefore remains a question of applying the law, to be settled before the court hearing the merits or through the intervention of the legislature, not before the Constitutional Court.

The fifth effect is one of principle. The Court reaffirms that economic freedom can be exercised only within the limits imposed by respect for the rights and legitimate interests of all, and that the 4% quota is a legislative expression of the duty that Article 50 of the Constitution places on the state. Along the same lines, it invokes Article 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 27 letters g) and h) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by Romania through Law no. 221/2010.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In law, nothing changes. The Court confirms a mechanism that has been running since 2006 and that it had already upheld once, through Decision no. 615 of 12 May 2011, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 513 of 20 July 2011. What does change is the procedural position of employers who hoped that the specific nature of their activity would take them outside the scope of the obligation.

One technical detail deserves an explanation, because it can be confusing. The Court ruled on the text as worded before Law no. 81/2021 entered into force, that is, on the version applicable in the dispute before the Bihor Tribunal. The rule comes from Decision no. 766 of 15 June 2011: a provision that is no longer in force may nonetheless be subject to constitutional review for as long as the outcome of a pending case depends on it.

The practical conclusion, however, is that the decision does not concern a museum piece. Paragraph (2), with the threshold of 50 employees and the 4% quota, is today identical to the one examined. Paragraph (3) was amended by Law no. 81/2021, in force since 16 April 2021, but the amendment touched the wording, not the structure: the two options remained, and in letter b) the phrase „products or services” became „products and/or services”. The exemption for public institutions of national defence, public order and national security under paragraph (4), which the company complained of as discriminatory, is also unchanged.

The path between the two versions was bumpy, and it explains why the text under review contains both options. Government Emergency Ordinance no. 60/2017 had removed the possibility of a partnership with sheltered units and had left only the payment to the budget. Through Decision no. 906 of 16 December 2020, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 79 of 25 January 2021, the Court found those amendments unconstitutional, and they ceased to produce legal effects on 11 March 2021, because the legislature did not intervene within the 45-day time limit. Law no. 81/2021 then enshrined the return to the two-option system.

Law no. 81/2021 also added two new paragraphs, (4^2) and (4^3), concerning authorised sheltered units set up within organisations of persons with disabilities. These may also carry out sales or intermediation activities, provided that at least 75% of the profit is allocated to socio-professional integration programmes, and they are required to submit an annual financial report. Intermediation may cover only products or services offered by another authorised sheltered unit.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It keeps in place the main instrument through which the law pushes the labour market towards employing persons with disabilities, an objective assumed constitutionally through Article 50 and internationally through the United Nations Convention.
  • It brings fiscal predictability. Tax assessment decisions issued by the tax authorities on this basis no longer risk being annulled across the board, and the state budget does not face refund claims.
  • It brings back to employers’ attention the option under letter b), far less used than the plain payment, even though it allows half of the amount to turn into products and services actually received.
  • It indirectly supports authorised sheltered units, which depend on these partnerships to sustain their jobs.

What remains a problem

  • The underlying problem flagged by the Bihor Tribunal remains unresolved: the obligation is calculated on the total number of employees, not on the positions that can actually be filled by persons with disabilities.
  • For employers in fields with legal medical fitness requirements, such as guarding, the obligation works in practice almost exclusively as a payment, not as a hiring instrument.
  • The difference in treatment between public institutions of defence, public order and national security, which are exempted, and private companies carrying out similar activities remains in the law, and the Court does not examine it on the merits in this decision.
  • The Court cannot resolve the contradiction between Law no. 333/2003 and Law no. 448/2006, and the signal that one exists came from the referring court itself. The solution lies with the legislature, which has not intervened so far.
  • The amounts rise automatically together with the minimum wage, because the levy is calculated by reference to it, without any correlation with the specific situation of each employer.

Practical advice

  1. Check how you calculate the threshold of 50 employees. It is based on the total number of employees, and exceeding the threshold even temporarily triggers the obligation for the months concerned. The number of unfilled positions is determined in accordance with the implementing rules, not at the employer’s discretion.
  2. If you already pay the levy in full, compare it with the option under Article 78 paragraph (3) letter b). By paying at least 50% to the budget and using the rest for purchases from authorised sheltered units, you receive products or services in exchange for half of the amount, instead of receiving nothing.
  3. Ask the supplier for proof of authorisation as a sheltered unit, valid on the invoice date, and check that the products or services are made through the own activity of the persons with disabilities employed there. These are exactly the conditions set out in the text, and tax inspections verify them.
  4. Do not rely on the argument that your activity cannot be performed by persons with disabilities. After this decision, it no longer has constitutional support. Look instead at administrative, commercial or support positions, where hiring is possible.
  5. If you already have a pending dispute against a tax assessment decision, discuss with your lawyer whether the claim rested exclusively on unconstitutionality. If it did, move the defence onto factual grounds, for example the way the number of employees or the period was calculated.
  6. Bear in mind that the monitoring and enforcement of compliance with Article 78 paragraphs (2) and (3) are carried out by the tax authorities within the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, so the obligation is declared and checked through the ordinary tax channel, not through the labour inspectorate.

Frequently asked questions

What exactly did the Constitutional Court decide?
It dismissed as unfounded the plea raised by the company WGS Security Group S.R.L. of Oradea and found that Article 78 paragraphs (2) and (3) of Law no. 448/2006, as worded before Law no. 81/2021 entered into force, are constitutional in relation to the criticisms formulated. The decision was taken by a unanimous vote and carries no dissenting opinion.
My company has 52 employees, but its line of business requires medical fitness. Am I exempt?
No. The Court established that the specific nature of the activity does not remove the obligation, because the obligation is alternative in nature: it can be fulfilled through hiring, through the monthly payment to the state budget or through the combination of a partial payment and purchases from authorised sheltered units. The exemption under paragraph (4) covers only public institutions of national defence, public order and national security.
How much do I pay if I do not employ persons with disabilities?
Monthly, to the state budget, the guaranteed gross national minimum base wage multiplied by the number of jobs in which persons with disabilities have not been employed. The second option means at least 50% of that amount to the budget, with the difference used to purchase products or services from authorised sheltered units, on a partnership basis.
The decision concerns an old version of the text. Does it still matter today?
Yes. Paragraph (2), with the threshold of 50 employees and the 4% quota, is identical to the one in force now. Paragraph (3) was amended by Law no. 81/2021, but the structure of the two options stayed the same, and in letter b) only the wording changed, from „products or services” to „products and/or services”. The Court’s reasoning therefore applies to the current version as well.
Why did the Court examine a version of the text that was no longer in force?
Because that was the version applicable in the dispute in which the plea was raised. The rule comes from Decision no. 766 of 15 June 2011: a provision that is no longer in force may be subject to constitutional review for as long as the outcome of a pending case depends on it.
What is an authorised sheltered unit?
It is an economic operator authorised under Law no. 448/2006, employing persons with disabilities, whose products or services may be purchased by employers towards the obligation under Article 78 paragraph (3) letter b). Units set up within organisations of persons with disabilities may also carry out sales or intermediation, if at least 75% of the profit goes to socio-professional integration programmes and if they submit an annual financial report.
Who checks compliance with the obligation?
The tax authorities within the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, under Article 78 paragraph (5) of Law no. 448/2006. The dispute that led to this decision started precisely from a tax assessment decision challenged administratively and then in court.
When does the decision take effect?
From its publication in the Official Gazette of Romania, that is, from 24 July 2026. Under Article 147 paragraph (4) of the Constitution, decisions of the Constitutional Court are generally binding from the date of publication and have effect only for the future.

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. 606 of 24 July 2026 16 pages PDF, 117 KB the act starts on page 7

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.