In brief

  • The judge’s time limits stay untouched. The Constitutional Court refused to examine on the merits the criticism brought against the 15 days in which the judge supervising the deprivation of liberty decides a prisoner’s complaint and the 3 days in which he communicates the ruling. The reason: that would be a question of how the law is interpreted, not one of constitutionality.
  • The conditions for the intimate visit remain constitutional. The requirements of marriage or partnership, of disciplinary conduct and of taking part in educational programmes were upheld, because the right to an intimate visit is not an absolute right.
  • Watch the numbering. The provisions on the intimate visit examined by the Court are those in force before 9 July 2023. Today’s conditions carry the same words but different letters, and the circle of people who may ask for an intimate visit has widened in the meantime.
Act: Decision no. 137 of 17 February 2026 of the Constitutional Court on the plea of unconstitutionality concerning the provisions of Article 56(6) and (7) and of Article 69(2) to (6) of Law no. 254/2013 on the enforcement of sentences and of custodial measures ordered by the judicial bodies in the course of criminal proceedings, as well as of Article 69(1)(c), (d), (e) and (f) of Law no. 254/2013, in the wording preceding the entry into force of Law no. 200/2023
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 785 of 16 September 2026
In force from: 16 September 2026, the date of publication; decisions of the Constitutional Court are final and generally binding from publication

A prisoner in Aiud asked the Constitutional Court to explain why he loses the right to complain if he is ten days late, while the judge who answers him may exceed the 15 days laid down by law with no consequence at all. The Court answered on 17 February 2026, and the decision appeared in the Official Gazette of Romania on 16 September 2026: the question concerns the way the courts read the law, not the text of the law, so it is not decided by the Constitutional Court. It is the same reasoning the Court used in the case of the employee who wanted to know when the time limit for challenging an employer’s measure starts to run, and the outcome is just as unsatisfying for the person who asked the question.

The complaint at issue here is the only real lever a person in prison has against the decisions of the prison administration: a move to another regime, the refusal of a parcel, a limit on telephone calls, the refusal of a visit. Article 56(2) of Law no. 254/2013 gives him 10 days from the date on which he learned of the measure. If he goes beyond that, the complaint is rejected as out of time, however well founded it may be.

On the other side of the counter, Article 56(6) requires the judge supervising the deprivation of liberty to decide the complaint by reasoned interlocutory judgment within 15 days of receiving it, and paragraph (7) requires him to communicate the interlocutory judgment within 3 days of delivery. Court practice treats these two time limits as mere recommendations: exceeding them annuls nothing and gives the prisoner no additional right. The author of the plea called this discrimination and invoked Article 16 of the Constitution, together with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The second part of the case concerned the intimate visit. The author argued that this right should not be conditional on the existence of a marriage or a partnership, on the absence of any leave to go outside the prison in the previous 3 months, on the absence of disciplinary sanctions for 6 months and on taking part in educational, psychological and social assistance programmes or in work.

The result is a decision with two different answers, adopted unanimously. As regards the time limits in Article 56, the plea was rejected as inadmissible, that is it was not even weighed. As regards the conditions for the intimate visit, the rejection came as unfounded, that is the texts were analysed and found to be in order.

What it changes in practice

For a person in prison, nothing changes in practice. The 10 day limit within which he may complain remains one that is lost for good, and the judge’s time limits remain what they were: targets for organising the work, not guarantees anyone can rely on.

For anyone who receives a finding of inadmissibility, the effect is harsher than it looks. A rejection as unfounded closes the discussion: the text is constitutional, full stop. A rejection as inadmissible leaves the question unanswered while using up the case. Whoever wanted clarification leaves without it and without the possibility of asking for it again by the same route.

The Court does, however, point to where the discussion belongs: before the court hearing the dispute. If someone believes that exceeding the 15 days caused him harm, the argument is made before the district court deciding the challenge against the interlocutory judgment of the supervising judge, not before the Constitutional Court.

For the conditions of the intimate visit, the confirmation has an immediate practical effect: the prison administration may refuse the request of a person who has been disciplined in the previous 6 months or who does not take part in educational programmes or in work, without that refusal being open to challenge on the ground that the rule itself is unconstitutional.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

The decision itself changes nothing. What matters for the reader is something else: between the moment the Aiud District Court sent the file to the Court, on 27 April 2021, and the moment the decision was published, on 16 September 2026, the law was amended. From 9 July 2023, Article IV(1) of Law no. 200/2023 rewrote the list of conditions in Article 69(1) of Law no. 254/2013.

The list examined by the constitutional judges is the old one, with six letters, from a) to f). Today’s list has five letters, from a) to e), and the content has moved by one position. Anyone now looking up Article 69(1)(c) in the law, thinking he will find there the condition of marriage the decision speaks about, comes upon something entirely different: the condition of not having been granted leave to go outside the prison in the previous 3 months. Marriage and partnership have moved to letter b).

The change of substance is more important still. The old letter b) required that the person should not be standing trial as a defendant, which excluded from the intimate visit altogether anyone held in pre-trial detention during the proceedings. Law no. 200/2023 turned the rule on its head: the new letter a) expressly includes persons held in pre-trial detention during the trial. For them, the disciplinary condition is shorter, 30 days without sanctions instead of 6 months, that is a period six times smaller than the 180 days required of a finally sentenced prisoner.

At the same time, Article 69(41) was added: if, between the approval of the request and the date of the visit, the person no longer meets the conditions, the visit is no longer granted. This is a new provision, which the 2026 decision does not analyse, since it did not exist at the date of the referral.

Article 56(6) and (7), by contrast, have remained untouched. The 15 days and the 3 days are written today exactly as they were in 2013, and the rest of the article keeps its own time limits: 5 days for the challenge to the district court against the interlocutory judgment and 2 days for sending the file to the court.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • The decision says plainly where a grievance about the way a judge applies a time limit belongs: before the court hearing the dispute, not before the Constitutional Court.
  • The rules on granting the intimate visit remain predictable. The administration and the prisoner work with the same criteria, with no risk of them collapsing overnight.
  • The Court takes up the argument in the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Varnas v. Lithuania of 9 July 2013: the bond with close family is essential even in detention, and restrictions have to be justified.
  • It is confirmed that the right to an intimate visit cannot be limited arbitrarily. A difference of treatment between people in similar situations remains discriminatory if it has no legitimate aim and is not proportionate.
  • The decision was adopted unanimously, with no separate opinions, so it leaves no room for talk of a fragile majority.
  • The fact that the two heads of claim received different answers shows that the constitutional court does not reject in bulk but weighs each contested text separately.

What remains a problem

  • The substantive question remains unanswered. Nobody has explained why the prisoner’s time limit is lost while the judge’s produces no consequence at all.
  • The file sat before the Court for 1,757 days, from 27 April 2021 to delivery, in order to receive a procedural answer. That is 117 times the 15 days the law gives the supervising judge.
  • From delivery on 17 February 2026 to publication on 16 September 2026, another 211 days passed, during which the decision produced no effect.
  • The decision analyses a text that is no longer in force without saying anywhere that the letters have been renumbered. A reader who does not compare the two versions himself is left with the impression that the rules discussed are today’s rules.
  • The law provides no consequence for exceeding the 15 days, and the Court confirms that it cannot create one. The result is a time limit written into the law that nobody can enforce.
  • The person in prison is left without a quick instrument. Even where the complaint is decided, the challenge to the district court follows, with another 5 days to lodge it and 2 days to send the file, on top of the 15 and the 3 already used up.

Practical advice

  1. Note down the date on which you learned of the prison administration’s measure. The 10 days run from then, not from the date of the act, and exceeding them means the complaint is rejected as out of time.
  2. Write in the complaint what the concrete harm consists of, not just the articles of the Constitution you consider breached. A mere list of constitutional texts is not a criticism, and in this very case the prosecutor asked for rejection on precisely that ground.
  3. If you think the judge exceeded the time limit, raise the argument in the challenge to the district court, within 5 days of the interlocutory judgment being communicated. That is where the application of the law is discussed, not before the Constitutional Court.
  4. Before asking for an intimate visit, check whether you have had a disciplinary sanction in the previous 6 months and whether it has been lifted. Lifting the sanction puts you back within the conditions.
  5. A family preparing proof of a partnership needs a sworn statement authenticated by a notary, and the relationship has to have existed before the date of admission to prison.
  6. If, between the approval of the request and the date of the visit, a sanction or a leave to go outside the prison intervenes, the visit is no longer granted. The rule is in Article 69(41), inserted in 2023.
  7. When you read a decision of the Constitutional Court more than two or three years old, check the current form of the text on the legislative portal. The lettering changes with every amendment, and the references in the decision stay with the old form.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Constitutional Court decide, in plain words?
Two different things. The criticism brought against the time limits of the judge supervising the deprivation of liberty was rejected as inadmissible, that is it was not judged on the merits. The criticism brought against the conditions for the intimate visit was rejected as unfounded, that is it was judged and the texts were found to be constitutional.
What is the difference between an inadmissible plea and an unfounded one?
Inadmissible means that the application does not meet the conditions for being analysed, so the Court does not rule on the legal text. Unfounded means that it was analysed and that the arguments did not convince. In both cases the law stays unchanged, but the reasons are completely different.
How long does a person in prison have to complain about a prison decision?
Ten days from the date on which he learned of the measure, under Article 56(2) of Law no. 254/2013. The complaint is lodged with the judge supervising the deprivation of liberty. After that time limit, the complaint is rejected as out of time.
What happens if the judge exceeds the 15 days?
Nothing, under the court practice the Court refused to review. The time limit is treated as a recommendation, and exceeding it neither annuls the interlocutory judgment nor gives the sentenced person any additional right. The argument can be raised only before the court hearing the dispute.
Can the interlocutory judgment of the supervising judge be challenged?
Yes. Article 56(9) of Law no. 254/2013 allows a challenge before the district court in whose area the prison is located, within 5 days of the interlocutory judgment being communicated. The challenge is lodged with the judge who delivered the interlocutory judgment and is sent on to the court within two days.
Are the conditions for the intimate visit discussed in the decision today’s conditions?
Not in their literal form. The Court analysed the list in force before 9 July 2023, which had letters a) to f). Since 2023 the list has five letters, and the conditions on marriage, leave to go outside the prison, disciplinary sanctions and taking part in programmes are found at letters b), c), d) and e).
Who may ask for an intimate visit today?
Persons finally sentenced and assigned to an enforcement regime, as well as persons held in pre-trial detention during the trial. This second category was added by Law no. 200/2023; before that, standing trial as a defendant excluded the intimate visit.
Why did publication take so long?
The referral left the Aiud District Court on 27 April 2021, the decision was delivered on 17 February 2026, and publication in the Official Gazette of Romania came on 16 September 2026. Between referral and publication, 1,968 days passed. The law sets no time limit within which the Court must decide a plea of unconstitutionality.
Can the decision be challenged anywhere?
No. Decisions of the Constitutional Court are final and generally binding from the date of publication in the Official Gazette of Romania. The same plea may, however, be raised again if new elements appear, and the texts analysed in their old form may be contested in their current form.

Editorial analysis

The act is clean in legal terms. The references check out: Decision no. 444 of 22 June 2017 is published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 909 of 21 November 2017 and contains, in the paragraphs indicated, the reasoning on the legislature’s margin of appreciation; Decision no. 766 of 15 June 2011 is published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 549 of 3 August 2011 and says exactly what is attributed to it about reviewing texts that have ceased to be in force; Law no. 200/2023 appeared in Official Gazette of Romania no. 616 of 6 July 2023, and Article IV(1) does indeed amend Article 69(1). No figure contradicts another, and the double solution, inadmissibility for one text and rejection on the merits for the other, is reasoned separately.

What is not visible on reading the decision from start to finish is the ratio between time and time limits. The Aiud District Court sent the file on 27 April 2021 and received the answer on 17 February 2026, after 1,757 days. The question was whether a 15 day time limit imposed on a judge has any consequence. The answer came in 117 times that period, and publication added another 211 days. The Court’s argument, that the way courts apply a time limit is not subject to constitutional review, reads rather differently when it is delivered after five years and four months.

The second observation concerns the numbering. The decision refers dozens of times to Article 69(1)(c), (d), (e) and (f), without ever saying that since 9 July 2023 those letters are b), c), d) and e), and that the old letter b), which barred the intimate visit to anyone standing trial, has been replaced by its opposite. The formula in the title, referring to the wording preceding the entry into force of Law no. 200/2023, is legally correct, but it does not tell the ordinary reader that the reference he is looking for in today’s law leads somewhere else. Comparing the two versions also reveals an asymmetry the decision does not touch: a finally sentenced prisoner has to have gone 6 months without a disciplinary sanction, that is 180 days, whereas a person in pre-trial detention needs only 30 days, for the same right and in the same prison.

What should be changed

  • A time limit in the law needs a consequence written into the law. If the 15 days in Article 56(6) are to remain without sanction, the text should say so expressly, and if the legislature wants them to count, it should provide a procedural effect. Today the prisoner reads a time limit that nobody can enforce.
  • Published decisions should carry a note about the form in force. A single sentence at the end of the decision, saying that the text analysed has been amended and where it is found today, would spare every reader a comparison he has no way of making on his own.
  • The interval between delivery and publication should be capped. The 211 days in this case have no visible justification, and throughout them the decision produced no effect. A maximum period, of say 30 days, would make the moment from which the rule applies predictable.
  • The disciplinary condition should be aligned. The difference between 180 days for a finally sentenced prisoner and 30 days for a person in pre-trial detention is explained nowhere and concerns exactly the kind of differential treatment the Court declares discriminatory when it has no objective justification.
  • Referrals about time limits would deserve a fast procedural route. When the very object of the question is the length of a procedure, a case lasting five years turns the answer into theory, however legally correct it may be.

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. 785 of 16 September 2026 16 pages PDF, 110 KB the act starts on page 2

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.