Court stamp duties in administrative litigation escape constitutional review because the challenger never said why

Anyone who challenges a law before the Constitutional Court has to say specifically why they consider it unconstitutional, not merely reel off articles of the Constitution. That is the practical lesson of Decision no. 757 of 11 December 2025, published on Tuesday in the Official Gazette of Romania, by which the Court dismissed as inadmissible the challenge to the court stamp duties payable in administrative litigation. The decision comes from the same issue of the Official Gazette of Romania that also carried the procedure for benefits for adults with disabilities, but unlike that one it changes nothing in law: it only confirms a rule of constitutional procedure.

The contested provision was Article 16 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 80/2013 on court stamp duties, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 392 of 29 June 2013. It sets out what it costs to sue a public authority: 50 lei for an application to annul an administrative act, to have a claimed right recognised or to obtain a certificate or an attestation, and 10% of the amount claimed, but no more than 300 lei, for applications that also seek compensation for the damage caused by the administrative act.

The plea was raised by the claimant Dan Băzăvan in a case pending before the Bucharest Court of Appeal, Eighth Administrative and Tax Litigation Division, in proceedings whose very subject matter was an application for review of the court stamp duty. His argument was that Article 16 restricts free access to justice, is ambiguously worded and creates the conditions for inconsistent application by the courts.

Court stamp duties are closely tied to legal aid, the mechanism through which the State covers those sums for people without sufficient income, and the CCR has recently upheld the income thresholds of 300 and 600 lei at which it is granted.

What it changes in practice

The duties stay exactly as they were. Dismissal as inadmissible means the provision was never examined on the merits, so it was neither upheld nor struck down. Article 16 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 80/2013 continues to apply in its 2013 wording, untouched by the later amendments to the ordinance. Anyone who sues a town hall, a prefect’s office or a ministry still pays 50 lei for annulment and no more than 300 lei when damages are claimed as well.

The three-element rule. The genuinely useful part of the decision is the reasoning set out in paragraph 14, where the Court returns to a test established by Decision no. 1.313 of 4 October 2011. Every plea of unconstitutionality must contain the contested provision, the constitutional provision said to have been breached, and the reasoning that shows the conflict between them. The first two can be identified with certainty. The third, the reasoning, is subjective, and the Court makes clear that it is not measured by quantity: what matters is not how many pages it runs to, but whether a criticism can reasonably be drawn from it.

Where the argument broke down. In this case, the party relied on Articles 1, 15(1), 16, 21, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47 and 135(2)(f) of the Constitution, together with Articles 7, 8 and 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Court found these provisions to be far too general, and held that simply listing them cannot be treated as a genuine plea of unconstitutionality. It had reached the same conclusion in Decision no. 602 of 21 November 2023, at paragraph 15.

Why the Court cannot supply the reasoning itself. If it examined on the merits a plea whose reasoning is threadbare, the constitutional review court would be taking the place of the party in framing the criticisms. That would amount to review of its own motion, which Article 29(4) of Law no. 47/1992 forbids. The Court also cites Article 10(2) of the same law, under which referrals must be reasoned.

A failing by the court that made the referral. Paragraph 7 of the decision notes drily that, although the law requires it to do so, the Bucharest Court of Appeal did not state its opinion on the plea, contrary to Article 29(4) of Law no. 47/1992. The referring court’s opinion is one of the few items that might have helped the Court identify a criticism where the party had failed to frame one. It was missing. Neither the presidents of the two Chambers of Parliament nor the Ombudsman submitted their views either. The only submission received came from the Government, which likewise asked for the plea to be dismissed as inadmissible.

How long it took. The plea was raised by an interlocutory order of 15 April 2021. The Court delivered its decision on 11 December 2025 and published it in the Official Gazette of Romania on 28 July 2026. More than five years passed between referral and publication, for an outcome that never touched the merits.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In law, nothing. The decision amends no provision, suspends nothing and places the legislature under no obligation to act. Its effect is confined to the case in which the plea was raised: the application for review of the stamp duty continues before the Bucharest Court of Appeal, without Article 16 having been examined on the merits.

What does change is the case law available to anyone who wants to challenge the same provision in future. A dismissal as inadmissible for lack of reasoning does not bar a fresh plea with the same subject matter. Unlike a dismissal as unfounded, which finds the provision constitutional, or a dismissal as having become inadmissible, which follows where the provision has already been declared unconstitutional, this outcome leaves the substantive question wide open. Another litigant may raise the same plea tomorrow, provided it is properly reasoned.

For lawyers and for litigants acting for themselves, the decision serves as a reminder of what counts as sufficient reasoning. It is not the volume that matters, but the explicit link between the contested provision and the constitutional rule relied on. Listing a string of articles, however long, is no substitute for that link.

Advantages and disadvantages

Practical advice

Frequently asked questions