In brief

  • The Constitutional Court dismissed, on the same day of publication, two challenges to the Romanian Citizenship Law, one about the remedy against the withdrawal of citizenship, the other about the domicile requirement for children.
  • Anyone whose citizenship is withdrawn has a single remedy, before the county court, within 15 days, with no appeal on points of law. The Court says this is constitutional, because the situation differs from that of the other disputes under the same law.
  • A child who wants Romanian citizenship without the consent of one parent must be domiciled in Romania. The Court says citizenship is a matter of State, so the requirement is justified.
Act: CCR Decisions no. 758/2025 and no. 425/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 713 and no. 716 of 27 August 2026
Delivered: 11 December 2025 and 30 April 2026

Two Constitutional Court decisions published on the same day leave unchanged two rules that decide who loses and who receives Romanian citizenship. The first, Decision no. 758 of 11 December 2025, appeared in Official Gazette of Romania no. 713; the second, Decision no. 425 of 30 April 2026, in Official Gazette of Romania no. 716. Both concern Romanian Citizenship Law no. 21/1991 and both were dismissed unanimously. This is the third day this week on which the Court appears in the Official Gazette of Romania, after the decision on the biodiversity law.

The first plea had been raised by a person whose citizenship had been withdrawn, in a case before the Constanța Court of Appeal. The second came from a case before the Bucharest County Court, opened in 2017, concerning a child who wanted Romanian citizenship.

What it changes in practice

Also about avenues of appeal, though with a far shorter deadline, is the decision under which a refusal to refer a case to the Constitutional Court is challenged within 48 hours.

The first decision concerns Article 32(7) and Article 37^1 of the Citizenship Law, in the version preceding the amendments made by Law no. 14/2025. Article 32(7) provides that the order withdrawing citizenship may be challenged within 15 days of notification, before the administrative and tax litigation division of the county court of the applicant’s domicile, and, if the applicant has no domicile in Romania, before the Bucharest County Court. The judgment of the county court is final and irrevocable, so there is no appeal on points of law.

By comparison, Article 37^1 gives the other disputes arising under the same law a two-step route: the county court, then an appeal on points of law before the court of appeal. That difference was the heart of the challenge.

The Court answered on two levels. The first: the right to two levels of jurisdiction is recognised only in criminal matters, and the regulation of remedies falls within the exclusive competence of the legislature, which may lay down special procedural rules for particular situations.

The second level is the more interesting one. The Court observes that, in every case of acquisition or loss of citizenship, the law serves a private interest, with a single exception: the withdrawal of citizenship, which serves a public interest. Withdrawal occurs, under the law, for particularly serious acts committed abroad against the interests of the Romanian State, for enlistment in the army of a State with which Romania has broken off diplomatic relations, for obtaining citizenship by fraudulent means, or for links with terrorist groups. Because the situation is different, the different procedural treatment has an objective and rational justification, namely the speed of the procedure.

The second decision concerns two phrases in Article 10(6): „and who is domiciled, at the date of the application, on the territory of Romania” and „the county court of the minor’s domicile”. The text allows the court to substitute for the consent of one parent so that a child may acquire Romanian citizenship, where the other parent has acquired or reacquired it, but only if the minor is domiciled in Romania.

The author of the plea complained of three inequalities: between the parent, who is not required to be domiciled in Romania in order to receive citizenship, and the child, who is; between children domiciled in Romania and those who are not; and between children who acquire citizenship on different grounds under the same law. The Court dismissed all the criticisms, on the ground that, since Romanian citizenship is at stake, it is natural for a national court to decide, and for territorial jurisdiction to lie with the court of the minor’s domicile. The Court also recalled that citizenship is, par excellence and exclusively, a matter of State.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In law, nothing. Both decisions confirm the existing texts, so the rules remain what they were.

What has changed, in the meantime, is the law itself. The Court expressly observes that, after it was seised, Article 32(7) was amended by Law no. 14/2025. The decision therefore rules on the earlier version, the one applicable in the case from which the plea came. For anyone challenging an order withdrawing citizenship today, the applicable text is the new one, not the one examined here.

The third thing worth noting is how long the proceedings take. The case from which the second plea came dates from 2017, and the plea reached the Court in 2020. The decision was delivered in April 2026 and published in August. Nine years from the opening of the case to the constitutional clarification.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • Both solutions were reached unanimously, which leaves little room for a change of position later.
  • The Court explains why the withdrawal of citizenship is treated differently: it is the only case in the law where the interest pursued is public rather than private.
  • The reasoning draws a clear line between the right to two levels of jurisdiction, guaranteed in criminal matters, and access to a court, guaranteed generally.
  • In the second case, the Court recalls a useful procedural limit: constitutional litigation stays within the bounds of the referral order, so new grounds cannot be added along the way.
  • The decisions are final and generally binding, so the courts hearing similar disputes now have a firm point of reference.

What remains a problem

  • Anyone who loses their citizenship has a single chance in court, with a 15-day time limit and no appeal on points of law, in a procedure where everything is at stake.
  • The first decision concerns a version of the text that has already been amended, so it says nothing about the rule that applies today.
  • A child who is not domiciled in Romania remains dependent on the consent of both parents, even where one of them is a Romanian citizen.
  • The argument that it is natural for the court of the minor’s domicile to decide does not explain what happens when the minor has no domicile in Romania.
  • Nine years between the opening of the case and the publication of the decision mean that, for the child in the original case, the question probably no longer has an object.

Practical advice

  1. If you receive an order withdrawing your citizenship, keep the time limit in mind: 15 days from notification, before the administrative and tax litigation division of the county court. It is the only remedy, there is no appeal on points of law.
  2. Check which version of the law applies to you. The first decision examines the text that preceded Law no. 14/2025, while applications made today fall under the amended version.
  3. If you have no domicile or residence in Romania, jurisdiction lies with the Bucharest County Court, not with a court abroad.
  4. For a child who wants Romanian citizenship without the consent of one parent, the requirement of domicile in Romania at the date of the application remains mandatory. Without it, the application has no basis in Article 10(6).
  5. If you raise a plea of unconstitutionality, set out all your grounds before the court that refers the matter to the Constitutional Court. Grounds raised later, directly before the Court, are not taken into account.
  6. For accurate citation, mind the superscript: the text is Article 37^1 of Law no. 21/1991, not Article 371.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Court decide in the first case?
It dismissed the plea as unfounded and found that Article 32(7) and Article 37^1 of Romanian Citizenship Law no. 21/1991, in the version preceding Law no. 14/2025, are constitutional in relation to the criticisms raised.
Why is there no appeal on points of law against the withdrawal of citizenship?
Because, the Court says, the right to two levels of jurisdiction is recognised only in criminal matters, and the legislature may lay down special procedural rules. On top of that, the withdrawal of citizenship pursues a public interest, unlike the other procedures in the law, and the need for speed justifies the difference.
In which cases is Romanian citizenship withdrawn?
Under Article 25 of the law, in the version in force when the Court was seised: particularly serious acts committed abroad against the interests of the Romanian State, enlistment in the army of a State with which Romania has broken off diplomatic relations or is at war, obtaining citizenship by fraudulent means, and links with terrorist groups.
Where is the withdrawal order challenged?
Before the administrative and tax litigation division of the county court of the applicant’s domicile or residence, within 15 days of notification. If the person has no domicile or residence in Romania, before the Bucharest County Court.
What did the Court decide in the second case?
It dismissed the plea as unfounded and found that the phrases „and who is domiciled, at the date of the application, on the territory of Romania” and „the county court of the minor’s domicile” in Article 10(6) are constitutional.
What does Article 10(6) regulate?
The situation in which the court may substitute for the consent of one of the parents so that a child may acquire Romanian citizenship, where the other parent has acquired or reacquired it. The text requires the minor to be domiciled in Romania at the date of the application.
What was the criticism?
That inequalities are created: the parent does not need to be domiciled in Romania in order to receive citizenship, but the child does; and children domiciled in Romania are treated differently from those who are not.
What did the Court answer?
That, since Romanian citizenship is at stake, it is natural for a national court to decide, with territorial jurisdiction at the minor’s domicile, and that citizenship is, par excellence and exclusively, a matter of State.
Are the decisions binding?
Yes, both are final and generally binding and are published in the Official Gazette of Romania.

Editorial analysis

The two decisions share a line of reasoning that is worth looking at together, even though they were delivered four and a half months apart: in matters of citizenship the State has a wider margin of appreciation than in other fields, and the Court acknowledges it every time. The formula „citizenship is, par excellence and exclusively, a matter of State” is not rhetoric; it explains why differences in treatment that would be struck down in another context pass the constitutional test here.

The strongest argument is the one in the first decision. The distinction the Court draws, between the procedures in the citizenship law that serve a private interest and the single one that serves a public interest, can be verified in the text of the law and explains why withdrawal follows a shorter procedural route. This is not an argument of convenience, it is a careful reading of how the law is built.

What remains uncomfortable is the proportion between what is at stake and the guarantees on offer. A person whose citizenship is withdrawn loses everything that flows from it, and the defence is played out in a single set of proceedings, with 15 days to bring the action. The Court is right that no constitutional rule requires an appeal on points of law outside criminal matters. But speed, invoked as the justification, is hard to sustain as the decisive argument in a procedure which, in this very case, ran from 2019 until the decision was published in 2026. The argument defends a rule that, in practice, does not deliver the speed it was designed for.

The second decision leaves open a question it was not called upon to settle. A child living abroad, whose parent has reacquired Romanian citizenship, remains dependent on the consent of the other parent, with no way of having that consent substituted. The Court explains why jurisdiction lies with the court of the minor’s domicile, which is logical, but it does not say which court has jurisdiction when the minor is not domiciled in Romania, because the text simply does not provide for that situation.

What should be changed

  • A longer time limit for the action against the withdrawal of citizenship. Fifteen days to find a lawyer, obtain the documents and draft an application in a case of this gravity is short, especially for someone living abroad.
  • A jurisdiction rule for children who are not domiciled in Romania. Even if the substantive solution stays restrictive, the absence of any court with jurisdiction leaves one category without any way in.
  • Faster publication of the Court’s decisions. Four and a half months between delivery and publication, in a case that had been waiting since 2020, add to a delay that is already long.
  • An official note on the version of the text examined. The first decision concerns wording that has already been amended; without a visible mention, the reader may believe it applies to the text in force today.

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. 713 and no. 716 of 27 August 2026 16 pages PDF, 117 KB the act starts on page 2

Open the official PDFDownload the PDF

The other editions cited: nr. 716/2026

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.