In brief

  • Administrative fines issued during the state of alert for breaching the anti-COVID measures remain valid: the three provisions of Law no. 55/2020 that establish them are constitutional.
  • The criticism concerning discrimination against unvaccinated people was dismissed with a simple argument: the word vaccine appears in none of the challenged provisions.
  • The Government decision that extended the state of alert cannot be challenged before the Constitutional Court, because Government decisions are not on the list in Article 146(d) of the Constitution.
Act: CCR Decision no. 700/2025
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 567 of 10 July 2026
Pronounced: 4 December 2025

A person fined during the state of alert asked the Constitutional Court to strike down both the legal basis of the fine and the Government decision that had imposed the measure, and the Court dismissed both requests, one as unfounded and the other as inadmissible. Decision no. 700 of 4 December 2025, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 567 of 10 July 2026, confirms that Article 65(m), Article 66(a) and Article 69(1) of Law no. 55/2020 are constitutional. It is the third time in the same summer that the Court has closed a case started from a challenge against an administrative fine, after the one in which a driver sought the annulment of his fine because the law does not specify what school the enforcement officer must have graduated from.

The three challenged provisions cover the full chain of a fine: Article 65 establishes which acts are administrative offences, Article 66 sets their amount, and Article 69(1) sets out how the fine is paid. Letter m) of Article 65 concerns the failure to observe the measures restricting or prohibiting the movement of persons and vehicles, laid down in Article 5(3)(b) of the same law.

The plea was raised by a person fined before the Bucharest District 3 Court, which referred the matter to the Court by the interlocutory order of 9 March 2022. The author argued that Law no. 55/2020 bypasses the strict conditions for restricting rights set out in Article 53 of the Constitution, that it leaves the Government to regulate in the field of fundamental rights and that the measures discriminated between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, without any scientific basis.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is that the fines stand. The provisions that establish them are declared constitutional in relation to the criticisms raised, so challenges against administrative fines built on these arguments lose their support.

The second effect concerns what can be challenged and what cannot. The Court dismissed as inadmissible the criticism directed at Article 2 of Annex no. 3 to Government Decision no. 1,090/2021, relying on Decision no. 259 of 15 May 2025: a plea of unconstitutionality whose object is a category of acts other than those exhaustively listed in Article 146(d) of the Constitution and in Article 29(1) of Law no. 47/1992 is inadmissible, and Government decisions do not appear in that list.

The third effect concerns the relationship between a law and a Government decision. The Court restated the reasoning of Decision no. 78 of 3 March 2022 and pointed out that, after Decision no. 457 of 25 June 2020, the decisions establishing the state of alert are no longer subject to the approval of Parliament, and the Government’s power to issue them falls under Article 108(2) of the Constitution. Since the measures were laid down at the level of the law, neither a breach of the separation of powers nor one of Article 53 of the Constitution can be found.

The fourth effect is one of argumentative technique. The Court dismissed the discrimination criticism without entering the scientific debate proposed by the author. It found, in paragraph 21, that simply reading the three provisions shows that neither the word vaccine nor any word from the same family appears in them, so no question of differential treatment on that ground can arise.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In law, nothing. The decision confirms a line already formed, built on Decision no. 36 and Decision no. 40, both of 27 January 2022, and on Decision no. 78 of 3 March 2022.

What has become clearer is why the provisions were considered sufficiently precise. The Court held that Article 5 of Law no. 55/2020 forms an exhaustive picture of the measures that may be taken, and that Article 5(3)(b) refers expressly to restricting or prohibiting the movement of persons and vehicles in the places and, where applicable, during the time slots established. The fact that applying them requires secondary normative administrative acts does not mean that the administrative offences are established by the administration.

The limit of the requirement of precision in the law has also been clarified. The Court invoked the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, including the judgment of 15 November 1996 in Cantoni v. France, paragraph 31, according to which the content of laws cannot be absolutely precise, and the use of general categories instead of exhaustive lists is a standard regulatory technique.

An older limitation of the same article also remains unchanged. The Court notes, in paragraph 14, that by Decision no. 457 of 25 June 2020 Article 4(3) and (4), Article 65(s) and (ș) and Article 66(a), (b) and (c) had already been declared unconstitutional as regards the references to Article 65(s), (ș) and (t). Letter m), the one at issue in the present case, was not affected by that decision.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It closes, unanimously, a series of challenges against administrative fines built on the same three arguments.
  • It states clearly where a Government decision is to be challenged: not before the Constitutional Court, but through administrative litigation.
  • It dismisses the discrimination criticism with an argument anyone can verify, by simply reading the provisions, rather than through scientific debate.
  • It explains why a law may use general wording without becoming unforeseeable, with reference to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

What remains a problem

  • The argument about the word vaccine answers the form of the criticism, not its substance: a measure can produce different effects across categories without naming the criterion in the penalising provision.
  • Paragraph 15 lists Article 1(3) of the Constitution among the grounds invoked, but the examination, in paragraph 17, answers Article 1(5).
  • The observation in paragraph 14 about the partial unconstitutionality of Article 66(a) is left without a conclusion in the rest of the decision.
  • Between the referral to the Court and the publication of the decision, 1,584 days passed, in a case about an administrative fine.

Practical advice

  1. If you still have a pending challenge against an administrative fine built on the unconstitutionality of Law no. 55/2020, check whether the court has stayed the case. From publication onwards, the reason for the stay disappears.
  2. Do not challenge a Government decision before the Constitutional Court. The list in Article 146(d) of the Constitution is exhaustive, and Government decisions are not in it.
  3. If you are nevertheless targeting a Government decision, the route is an action in administrative litigation, with the time limits and conditions specific to that procedure.
  4. Check which letter of Article 65 was held against you in the official report. Decision no. 457/2020 removed letters s) and ș) from play, but not letter m), which is the one concerning the restriction of movement.
  5. If you claim discrimination, show how it operates, not merely that it exists. The Court dismissed the criticism because the penalising provisions did not contain the criterion invoked.

Frequently asked questions

Which provisions did the Court examine?
Article 65(m), Article 66(a) and Article 69(1) of Law no. 55/2020, that is, the administrative offence, the amount of the fine and the way it is paid, plus Article 2 of Annex no. 3 to Government Decision no. 1,090/2021.
Why was the criticism directed at the Government decision dismissed?
As inadmissible. The Constitutional Court may review only the categories of acts listed in Article 146(d) of the Constitution, and Government decisions do not appear there.
Can my fine from the state of alert period still be annulled?
Not on the ground of the unconstitutionality of these three provisions. Other grounds, relating to the act held against you or to the procedure for establishing it, are still decided by the court.
Did the Court say anything about vaccination?
It found only that neither the word vaccine nor any word from the same family appears in the challenged provisions, so the criterion invoked could not produce discrimination through those provisions.
Did the law allow the Government to restrict rights?
According to the Court, the measures were laid down at the level of the law, and the Government decisions put them into effect, which falls under Article 108(2) of the Constitution.
Was the decision taken unanimously?
Yes, by unanimous vote, according to paragraph 23.
When does it take effect?
From publication in Official Gazette of Romania no. 567 of 10 July 2026. The decision is final and generally binding.

Editorial analysis

The most effective argument in the decision is also the shortest. In paragraph 21, the Court does not discuss vaccine efficacy, studies or proportionality. It finds that the word vaccine does not appear in the three challenged provisions and that, consequently, the criterion invoked cannot produce a difference in treatment through those provisions. Procedurally, this is a correct move: the object of the review is formed by the provisions indicated, not by health policy as a whole. At the same time, it is an answer that leaves the underlying question untouched, because a measure can produce different effects on categories of people without the penalising rule ever naming the criterion.

The second observation concerns a mismatch between what was invoked and what was answered. Paragraph 15 lists the constitutional grounds of the criticism: Article 1(3) on the rule of law, Article 16 on equality of rights, Article 25 on freedom of movement and Article 53 on the restriction of the exercise of rights. Paragraph 17, however, begins with “With reference to the alleged breach of the provisions of Article 1(5) and Article 25 of the Constitution”, that is, with a paragraph that does not appear in the list. Paragraph (5) of Article 1, the one concerning observance of the Constitution and of the laws, is indeed the ground on which the quality of a law is usually assessed, and paragraphs 18 and 19 discuss precisely the clarity and foreseeability of the rules. The Court therefore corrected the classification of the criticism, but without saying that it was doing so. This is the second decision in the same issue of the Official Gazette of Romania in which the list of grounds invoked and the list of grounds examined do not coincide.

The third observation starts from a paragraph that is left hanging. In paragraph 14, the Court points out that, by Decision no. 457 of 25 June 2020, Article 66(a) had already been declared unconstitutional, but only as regards the references to Article 65(s), (ș) and (t). The observation is introduced with the phrase “As regards the provisions of Article 66(a)”, and then never returns. The reader is left to work out alone that, since the letter criticised here is m), the 2020 finding does not affect the case. The conclusion is correct, but it is nowhere written down.

Finally, the timeline, which in this file says something about proportions. The Bucharest District 3 Court referred the matter to the Court by the interlocutory order of 9 March 2022, a few days after the state of alert had ended. The decision was pronounced on 4 December 2025 and published on 10 July 2026, 218 days after it was pronounced. From referral to publication, 1,584 days passed, that is, more than four years and three months, for a challenge against an administrative fine.

What should be changed

  • The reclassification of the ground invoked should be stated explicitly. If the referring court indicates Article 1(3) and the Court rules on Article 1(5), a single sentence marking the change would spare the lower courts a comparison they have to make on their own.
  • The observation in paragraph 14 should close with a conclusion. As it is written, it opens a question about the extent of an earlier finding of unconstitutionality and does not say why it does not apply in the case.
  • The lexical argument in paragraph 21 would deserve to be paired with one on the substance. The absence of a word from the text answers the way the criticism was framed, not the situation in which a measure produces different effects without naming the criterion.
  • Cases started from challenges against administrative fines would need a shorter route. Four years and three months for the constitutional review of a fine turns the stay of proceedings into a penalty in its own right.

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. 567 of 10 July 2026 16 pages PDF, 111 KB the act starts on page 10

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.