In brief

  • The Constitutional Court examined the entire ordinance on court stamp duties, not just one article, and rejected as unfounded the challenge brought by a litigant required to pay 50 lei for an appeal on points of law.
  • The central argument is the same one that has been used since 2009: free access to justice does not mean free justice, and the courts are a public service whose costs cannot be left entirely to the state budget.
  • Anyone who cannot pay has two routes: the exemptions and instalment arrangements in the ordinance, and public legal aid, provided for by the special law.
Act: CCR Decision no. 36/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 591 of 20 July 2026
Delivered: 20 January 2026

A 50-lei duty for an appeal on points of law before the High Court became the ground for a challenge that called into question the whole body of legislation on court stamp duties. The Constitutional Court rejected it. Decision no. 36 of 20 January 2026, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 591 of 20 July 2026, finds that Government Emergency Ordinance no. 80/2013 is constitutional in relation to the criticisms raised. It is the second decision on the same subject published in that issue, alongside the one concerning the 100-lei duty for each judge challenged for bias.

The plea was raised before the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Panel of 5 Judges, in a request for review of the way the duty had been set. The author argued that the obligation to pay a duty for the settlement of statements of claim restricts his free access to justice and breaches Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Unlike other cases, the subject of the plea here was not one particular article, but the ordinance as a whole, as subsequently amended and supplemented.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is a blanket confirmation. The Court finds that the provisions of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 80/2013 are constitutional in relation to the criticisms raised, so the entire architecture of court stamp duties remains standing.

The second effect is the reaffirmation of the principle. Judicial services need not and cannot be free of charge in every case, and free access to justice does not mean free justice. No constitutional provision prohibits duties in the justice system, and it is justified that the people who turn to the judicial authorities should contribute to covering the costs.

The third effect concerns equality. Both the obligation to pay the duties and the exceptions laid down by law apply alike to all citizens in identical situations and to all disputes of the same nature, so there is no discrimination or privilege contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution.

The fourth effect relates to the penalty. Since payment of the duties is a legal condition for commencing civil proceedings, the obligation to pay in advance is justified, as is the annulment of the action or of the application in the event of non-payment.

The fifth effect is recovery. The litigant’s contribution can be recovered, at his request, under Article 453 of the Code of Civil Procedure, from the party that loses the case. The rule is that court actions carry stamp duty, and exceptions are possible only to the extent that the legislature lays them down.

The sixth effect is the social safety valve. The Court recalls Article 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure: anyone who cannot meet the costs of civil proceedings without endangering his own maintenance or that of his family may receive legal assistance, under the conditions of the special law on public legal aid.

The seventh effect is one of method. The Court finds that the author formally invoked Article 1 paragraphs (3) and (5), Article 15 paragraph (1) and Article 124 of the Constitution, without giving any reasons for the alleged conflict. The Court cannot take the author’s place in framing the grounds, because that would amount to a review of constitutionality of its own motion, which is inadmissible.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In law, nothing. The ordinance remains in force in the form it had. The Court states expressly that no new elements have arisen that would warrant a change of case law, so the reasoning and the solutions of the earlier decisions retain their validity.

What is added is a confirmation covering the entire act, not a single article. The Court lists six earlier decisions on similar criticisms: Decision no. 690 of 12 December 2023, Decision no. 371 of 29 June 2023, Decision no. 721 of 29 October 2015, Decision no. 358 of 24 September 2013, Decision no. 87 of 20 January 2009 and Decision no. 808 of 19 May 2009. The representative of the Public Ministry invoked three more.

One further clarification is useful for practitioners: the legislature may impose fixed duties or duties calculated by value, depending on the subject of the dispute, and setting the method of payment and the amount is a matter of fiscal legislative policy, not of constitutional review.

Nothing changes for the author’s own case either. His request for review remains within the competence of the court that set his duty.

The decision was delivered unanimously and is final and generally binding.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • Closes, at the level of the entire act, the debate on the constitutionality of court stamp duties.
  • Sets out explicitly the two routes open to those who cannot pay: the exemptions in the ordinance and public legal aid.
  • Confirms that the duty paid can be recovered from the party that loses the case.
  • Standardises the reasoning for courts that receive similar pleas, cutting the time lost on cases with no prospect of success.
  • Reaffirms that merely invoking articles of the Constitution in a formal way is no substitute for reasoned argument.

What remains a problem

  • The decision does not rule on the actual level of the duties, so it does not answer the question whether some amounts really do deter access to justice.
  • Public legal aid and the exemptions are granted on request and on the basis of evidence, which means an extra procedural step for those without resources.
  • More than four years passed between the plea being raised, in March 2022, and the decision being published, in July 2026.
  • Neither the presidents of the two Chambers of Parliament, nor the Government, nor the Ombudsman submitted their points of view.
  • Challenging an entire act, without specific criticisms, runs into a standard of reasoning that few litigants without a lawyer can meet.

Practical advice

  1. If you raise a plea of unconstitutionality, give reasons for every article you invoke. The Court rejects formal criticisms unsupported by argument, and it will not complete the reasoning for you.
  2. Do not attack a piece of legislation as a whole. Identify the text that actually applies to you and explain how it infringes a specific right of yours.
  3. If you cannot pay the duty, ask for an exemption, a reduction, payment in instalments or a postponement under the ordinance, with documents on your income.
  4. Check as well whether you qualify for public legal aid, provided for by the special law referred to in Article 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
  5. Ask expressly for legal costs in your closing submissions. The duty you paid is recovered from the party that loses the case, under Article 453 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
  6. Against the way the duty was set you may file a request for review with the same court, within three days of being notified, without paying a further duty.
  7. Bear in mind that failure to pay the duty leads to the application being annulled. The payment deadline applies even if you have filed a request for review.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Constitutional Court decide?
It rejected the plea as unfounded and found that the provisions of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 80/2013 on court stamp duties are constitutional in relation to the criticisms raised.
Is anything changing about stamp duties?
No. The ordinance remains in force in the same form, and the Court shows that no new elements have arisen that would change its case law.
Why is justice not free of charge?
Because, in the Court’s reasoning, the function of restoring the rule of law is a public service, and it is justified that the people who turn to the courts should contribute to covering the costs, rather than those costs being borne in full by the state budget.
What do I do if I cannot afford the duty?
You can ask for an exemption, a reduction, payment in instalments or a postponement of the duty, and if you cannot meet the costs of the proceedings without endangering your own maintenance or that of your family, you can ask for public legal aid, under the conditions of the special law.
Do I get my duty back if I win?
Yes, on request. The contribution is recovered from the party that loses the case, under Article 453 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
What happens if I do not pay the duty?
Payment is a legal condition for commencing civil proceedings, and non-payment leads to the annulment of the action or of the application.
Why did the Court reject the criticisms concerning Articles 1, 15 and 124 of the Constitution?
Because they were invoked formally, without showing in what way they conflict with the legal provisions challenged. The Court cannot take the place of the author of the plea in framing the grounds.

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. 591 of 20 July 2026 16 pages PDF, 113 KB the act starts on page 4

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.