In brief

  • A litigant challenged the rule under which an appeal on points of law is charged 100 lei whether you raise one ground for quashing or seven, but the Constitutional Court never examined the substance of that complaint.
  • The reason for the rejection: the grievance concerns the way the court applied the law, not the wording of the law, and applying and interpreting the law falls within the exclusive competence of the courts.
  • The rules stay as they are: 100 lei for the grounds for quashing under points 1 to 7, and 50% of the duty owed on the amount in dispute where the complaint is that rules of substantive law were infringed.
Act: CCR Decision no. 37/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 591 of 20 July 2026
Delivered: 20 January 2026

Anyone who is told to pay 200 lei for an appeal on points of law, with no explanation of how the figure was reached, has no business before the Constitutional Court. They have to go back to the court that set the duty. That is the conclusion of Decision no. 37 of 20 January 2026, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 591 of 20 July 2026, by which the plea of unconstitutionality was rejected as inadmissible. The decision appears in the same issue as the one in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the entire ordinance on court stamp duties.

The plea was raised before the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Administrative and Tax Litigation Division, in an application for review of the way the duty had been set. The author said he had been told to pay 200 lei for the appeal on points of law, with no explanation of how it had been calculated, and that seven grounds of illegality attract a duty of 100 lei, exactly like a single ground for quashing.

The provisions challenged are Article 24(1) and (2) and Article 39(1) of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 80/2013.

What it changes in practice

The first effect concerns competence. The Court holds that the matters criticised are questions of interpretation and application of the law by the courts and do not fall within its jurisdiction. Under Article 2 of Law No 47/1992, the Court reviews the constitutionality of laws, ordinances, international treaties and the rules of procedure of Parliament, by reference to the Constitution.

The second effect is the definition of those two notions. Interpreting and applying the law covers identifying the applicable rule, analysing its content and fitting it to the facts as established, and it is the trial court that has the tools needed to decide on such matters.

The third effect is one of principle, with a reference to European case law. The Court cites the judgment of 22 November 1995 of the European Court of Human Rights in C.R. v. the United Kingdom: however clearly worded a legal provision may be, in any legal system there is an inevitable element of judicial interpretation.

The fourth effect concerns the limits of constitutional review. Applying and interpreting the law is a matter solely for the court hearing the merits of the case and for the courts hearing appeals against its ruling, as follows from Article 126(1) and (3) of the Constitution.

The fifth effect is a practical one: the rules on calculating the duty remain in force. An appeal on points of law is charged 100 lei where one or more of the grounds set out in Article 488(1), points 1 to 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure are relied on. Where the complaint is that rules of substantive law were infringed or wrongly applied, an appeal in claims that can be valued in money is charged 50% of the duty owed on the amount in dispute, but not less than 100 lei, and in claims that cannot be valued in money it is charged 100 lei.

The sixth effect concerns the remedy that is left. Article 39(1) provides that a claimant may challenge the way the duty was set by lodging an application for review with the same court, within three days of being notified of the duty owed, and that the application for review is exempt from stamp duty.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

Nothing in the wording. A decision rejecting a plea as inadmissible has no effect on the challenged provisions, which stay in force exactly as they are.

What is clarified is the boundary. The Court draws a sharp distinction between two kinds of grievance: the one directed at the rule itself, which can be examined in constitutional review, and the one directed at the way a court calculated the duty in a particular case, which cannot. The second is dealt with through the application for review, not through a plea of unconstitutionality.

An older line of case law is confirmed as well, with references to Decision no. 838 of 27 May 2009, Decision no. 164 of 21 March 2024, Decision no. 600 of 14 April 2009 and Decision no. 294 of 28 May 2024.

For the author of the plea, the only change is that the review route remains open, if the three day time limit has not already expired, along with the ordinary appellate scrutiny of how the court applied the law.

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

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It draws a clear line between criticising the text of the law and criticising the way a court applied it.
  • It points litigants towards the route that can actually solve the problem: the application for review, which is free of charge.
  • It keeps constitutional review from turning into an extra form of appeal against court rulings.
  • It acknowledges expressly, through the reference to European case law, that judicial interpretation is unavoidable in any legal system.

What remains a problem

  • The underlying grievance, that nobody explained how the 200 lei were arrived at, goes unanswered in this procedure.
  • The three day time limit for the application for review is very short for anyone without a lawyer.
  • The law does not require a detailed calculation of the duty to be communicated, only the amount, which makes the result hard to challenge.
  • More than four years passed between the plea being raised, in May 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 views.

Practical advice

  1. If you disagree with the duty you have been charged, lodge an application for review with the same court, within three days of being notified. It is the only direct route and it costs nothing.
  2. In the application for review, set out precisely what you believe was miscalculated: how the grounds of appeal were classified, whether the claim can or cannot be valued in money, the amount in dispute.
  3. Do not raise a plea of unconstitutionality over a miscalculation. The Court will reject it as inadmissible, and the time you lose is not recoverable.
  4. Check which grounds for quashing you are relying on. For those under Article 488(1), points 1 to 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure, the duty is a flat 100 lei.
  5. If you argue that rules of substantive law were infringed in a claim that can be valued in money, the duty is 50% of the duty owed on the amount in dispute, but not less than 100 lei. Work out the amount in dispute before you lodge the appeal.
  6. Pay the duty on time even if you have lodged an application for review, so that you do not risk having your claim annulled for failure to pay the stamp duty.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Constitutional Court decide?
It rejected the plea as inadmissible, without examining the substance of the complaint, because the matters raised concern the interpretation and application of the law by the courts, not the constitutionality of the provisions.
Does anything change about the duty for an appeal on points of law?
No. Article 24(1) and (2) and Article 39(1) of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 80/2013 remain in force in the same form.
How much does an appeal on points of law cost?
100 lei where one or more of the grounds under Article 488(1), points 1 to 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure are relied on. Where the complaint is that rules of substantive law were infringed or wrongly applied, the duty is 50% of the duty owed on the amount in dispute, but not less than 100 lei, and for claims that cannot be valued in money it is again 100 lei.
Why do I pay the same for one ground as for seven?
Because for the grounds under points 1 to 7 the law sets a flat duty, whatever their number. The Court did not examine this complaint, taking the view that it concerns how the court applies the law.
What do I do if I do not understand how the duty was calculated?
You lodge an application for review with the same court, within three days of being notified of the duty owed. The application is exempt from court stamp duty.
Can the Constitutional Court correct a court’s miscalculation?
No. Applying and interpreting the law falls within the exclusive competence of the court hearing the merits and of the courts hearing appeals against its ruling, under Article 126 of the Constitution.
What does rejection as inadmissible mean?
That the constitutional court did not examine the substance of the complaint, because its subject matter did not fall within the Court’s jurisdiction. The legal provisions are left untouched.

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 6

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.