Complaints against magistrates: the two years run from the act, not from its discovery

If your complaint against a magistrate reaches the courts and the proceedings drag on, the two years in which disciplinary action could have been brought may simply run out without anyone being held to account. The Constitutional Court of Romania examined exactly this situation and ruled, through Decision No. 756 of 11 December 2025, published in Official Gazette of Romania No. 630 of 30 July 2026, that the provision setting the deadline is constitutional. This is the second time in recent months that the Court has upheld a strict procedural deadline criticised by complainants, after ruling that an institution’s refusal to release public information must also be challenged within 30 days.

The provision at issue is Article 46(7) of Law No. 317/2004 on the Superior Council of Magistracy: disciplinary action may be brought within 30 days of the completion of the disciplinary investigation, but no later than two years from the date on which the act was committed. The second limit is the one that matters, because it is calculated from the act itself, not from the moment it was discovered.

The objections were raised by three individuals, Ingrid-Luciana Mocanu, Petru Bolfă and Lucia Constanța Nicolescu, in cases pending before the Bucharest Court of Appeal, together with an objection raised by the court of its own motion. All of them were joined.

One procedural detail is worth remembering: Law No. 317/2004 was repealed by Law No. 305/2022, published in Official Gazette of Romania No. 1105 of 16 November 2022. The Court nonetheless retained jurisdiction because, under its settled case law, it also reviews provisions whose legal effects continue after they cease to be in force, where they apply to pending disputes.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is confirmation of how the deadline is calculated. The two years run from the date the misconduct was committed, not from the date on which the Judicial Inspection or the Superior Council of Magistracy learned of it. The Court pointed out that this solution follows the logic of the limitation period in criminal law, where time likewise runs from the commission of the act rather than from its discovery.

The second effect is a calculation carried out by the Court itself, useful to anyone trying to understand why the challenge was rejected. Preliminary checks by judicial inspectors are completed within 45 days, with the possibility of a further 45-day extension. Completion of the disciplinary investigation takes no more than 30 days. A decision dismissing the complaint can be challenged within 15 days before the Bucharest Court of Appeal, with no prior administrative procedure required. An appeal to the High Court of Cassation and Justice must be lodged within 15 days and settled within six months. The judgment is drafted within 30 days, with at most two extensions of 30 days each. Adding up all these maximum time limits, the Court finds that the total remains below two years.

The third effect is a line drawn around responsibility. The Court states plainly that any overruns caused by courts failing to observe their duty to act swiftly concern the way the law is applied, not the compliance of the rule with the Constitution. In other words, if the deadline is lost because proceedings were dragged out, the problem lies not in the text but in how it was applied.

The fourth effect concerns the second part of the ruling. The challenge to Article 47(5), the provision governing appeals against a decision dismissing the complaint, was rejected as inadmissible. The court that raised it of its own motion compared that provision with other pieces of legislation instead of identifying a constitutional provision that had been breached. The Court recalled that it does not compare laws with one another but reviews each provision against the Constitution.

The fifth effect is a practical one for pending cases. The provision remains applicable in cases begun under Law No. 317/2004, and the decision removes any possibility of challenging it again on the same ground.

The same 2-year limit was challenged again, and in March 2026 the Court confirmed once more the period for disciplinary action against magistrates.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

At the level of the rule itself, nothing. At the level of legislative history, however, the decision offers a chronology that explains how the issue reached the Court.

In the original wording of Law No. 317/2004, disciplinary action had to be brought within 60 days of the registration of the document establishing the misconduct, but no later than one year from its commission. Government Emergency Ordinance No. 59/2009 changed the deadline to no more than one year from the date on which the act became known. Law No. 36/2011 added the ceiling of two years from commission. Law No. 24/2012 set the current formula: 30 days from the completion of the disciplinary investigation, but no later than two years from the act. After the republication of September 2012, the provision became Article 46(7).

The trend, the Court observes, has been towards extending the deadline for bringing disciplinary action.

The substantive change came with the new law. Law No. 305/2022 introduces two new elements in Article 53. First, while courts are hearing appeals against decisions to close a file or to dismiss a complaint issued by the Judicial Inspection, the two-year deadline is suspended. Second, the disciplinary liability of judges and prosecutors is subject to a four-year limitation period running from the date the misconduct was committed, a period that is suspended while proceedings are stayed but that cannot be exceeded by more than one year, however many suspensions occur.

In other words, the very problem flagged by those who brought the objections has been solved by the legislature, but only for the future. Anyone caught up in older disputes remains subject to the two-year rule, with no suspension.

Advantages and disadvantages

Practical advice

Frequently asked questions