In brief

  • The National Integrity Agency may start a check without anyone having complained, and the Constitutional Court has confirmed that it has that right. Decision no. 8 of 15 January 2026 rejected as unfounded the plea raised against Article 12(1) and (2) of Law no. 176/2010 and was published on 21 September 2026.
  • The law provides exactly two ways for the agency to act of its own motion. A referral report drawn up by the president of the agency, or a note from the integrity inspector, approved by the management of the integrity inspectors. If that management rejects the proposal, the reasoned refusal goes to the president of the agency, who decides either that the checks are to begin or that the proposal is to be maintained.
  • The argument that saved the text is that the agency does not adjudicate, it assesses. The Court held that the agency does not deliver rulings with res judicata effect but draws up reports, that it does not decide contentious cases and does not sanction breaches of the law, and that its procedure lacks publicity, orality and the hearing of both sides. The safeguards for the person assessed remain those in the law, including the challenge to the report within 15 days before the administrative court.
Act: Decision no. 8 of 15 January 2026 of the Constitutional Court on the plea of unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 12(1) and (2) of Law no. 176/2010 on integrity in the exercise of public offices and dignities, amending and supplementing Law no. 144/2007 on the establishment, organisation and functioning of the National Integrity Agency, and amending and supplementing other normative acts
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 799 of 21 September 2026
In force from: the decision is generally binding from the date of publication, 21 September 2026

Two local elected officials, a mayor and a deputy mayor, ended up before the High Court of Cassation and Justice because the National Integrity Agency had drawn up assessment reports finding them to be in a state of incompatibility: during their term of office they had sat on the boards of lower secondary schools. Both challenged not the finding itself but the mechanism by which the agency started the check on its own initiative. The Constitutional Court rejected their plea, unanimously, in a decision published on 21 September 2026. Incompatibility rules change often, and in August 2026 the rules imposed on administration employees were repealed retroactively; what stays constant is how the agency finds out that it has something to check.

The text challenged has two paragraphs, reproduced in full in the decision. The first says that the agency carries out the assessment provided for in Article 8 „of its own motion or upon referral by any natural or legal person”, in compliance with Government Ordinance no. 27/2002 on the handling of petitions. The second lists the two ways in which a referral of its own motion may be made: a referral report drawn up by the president of the agency, or a note from the integrity inspector approved by the management of the integrity inspectors, with the proviso that, if that management rejects the proposal, the reasoned refusal is sent to the president of the agency, so that he may order either that the checks begin or that the proposal be maintained.

The authors’ argument came out of the history of the law. In 2010, by Decision no. 415 of 14 April 2010, the Constitutional Court had declared Article 4 of Law no. 144/2007 unconstitutional, including as regards referral of the agency’s own motion. Under Article 147(1) of the Constitution, a text declared unconstitutional is suspended for 45 days from the publication of the decision and, if it is not brought into line with the fundamental law, ceases to have effect. The authors argued that taking up the same mechanism again in Article 12 of Law no. 176/2010 amounts to bringing back into force a text already removed. Decision no. 415/2010 was published on 5 May 2010 and Law no. 176/2010 on 2 September 2010, 120 days apart.

The two files, raised by different authors before the same division of the High Court, were joined by the Constitutional Court of its own motion, under Article 53(5) of Law no. 47/1992, because they had the same subject matter.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is the closing of a line of defence frequently used in integrity litigation. From 21 September 2026, under Article 147(4) of the Constitution, the decision is generally binding, so it can no longer be argued in court that an assessment report is void because the check started of the agency’s own motion, without anyone having made a referral.

The second effect is a distinction that matters beyond this case. The Court repeats the finding from Decision no. 663 of 26 June 2012: the agency does not carry out an adjudicatory activity but an administrative one, „because it is also carried out of its own motion within a procedure lacking publicity, orality and the hearing of both sides, and because its powers do not extend to deciding contentious cases or to sanctioning breaches of the law”. The agency does not deliver rulings with res judicata effect; it draws up reports, and their purpose is to give a right to refer the matter to the courts or to other competent authorities. The practical consequence is that the safeguards of a trial, the hearing of both sides and orality, cannot be claimed at the assessment stage; they appear only before the administrative court.

The third effect concerns what remains open to challenge. The decision touches neither the substance of the assessment nor the safeguards that Law no. 176/2010 lays down for the assessment procedure. The integrity inspector must inform the person assessed and invite her to state her point of view, the communication is made by registered letter, the person may be assisted or represented by a lawyer, has the right to submit any evidence, data or information she considers necessary and has 15 days from the acknowledgement of receipt in which to reply. The assessment report is communicated within 5 days of completion, and the challenge is lodged within 15 days of receipt, before the administrative court. All of this remains untouched and continues to provide the grounds of nullity that can be invoked.

The fourth effect is that the triggering mechanism remains confined to two options. The law does not allow an assessment to be started of the agency’s own motion by any other route: either the report of the president of the agency, or the inspector’s note approved by the management of the integrity inspectors. Anyone challenging a report therefore has one concrete question to put: by which of the two routes did the check start, and is the corresponding act on the file.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In the letter of the law, nothing. Article 12(1) and (2) remains as it has been since 2 September 2010, and the decision adds and removes not a word. What changes is the status of the historical argument: the claim that Article 12 of Law no. 176/2010 brought back into force a text removed by Decision no. 415/2010 can no longer be made before a court after 21 September 2026.

The decision opens no new path; it confirms one trodden for fourteen years. The Court lists its own rulings on the same text: Decision no. 663 of 26 June 2012, Decision no. 72 of 26 February 2015, Decision no. 566 of 15 September 2015 and Decision no. 243 of 15 May 2025, to which is added Decision no. 1.606 of 15 December 2011, cited to the same effect. The Government, in its point of view, adds three more. From the first of them, of 26 June 2012, to the giving of this decision, more than thirteen and a half years passed, and the formula used is the usual one: „no new elements have arisen such as to change the case law of the Constitutional Court”.

Something does change, however, for the two cases on the merits. The assessment reports challenged date from 2016 and 2017, and the second appeals are before the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Division for administrative and tax litigation, in files registered in 2017. After the publication of the decision, those appeals can resume, and if the reports become final, only then does the 3-year ban provided for in Article 25(2) of Law no. 176/2010 start to run, that is 1,096 days in which the person may no longer hold a public office or dignity of the kind covered by the law, with the exception of elective ones.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It puts a substantial part of the agency’s work on a secure footing. An assessment started of the agency’s own motion can no longer be challenged for the very fact that it started that way, which shortens the litigation and removes a defence that had nothing to do with the merits.
  • It limits the triggering to two written routes, both of which leave a trace on the file: the report of the president of the agency or the inspector’s note, approved by the management of the integrity inspectors. There is no informal third route.
  • It provides a mechanism of internal control over refusals. Where the management of the inspectors rejects a proposal to act of the agency’s own motion, the refusal must be reasoned and goes to the president of the agency, so the decision not to check does not itself go unchecked.
  • It draws a clear line between assessment and adjudication. The agency’s report has no res judicata effect and imposes no sanction; it merely opens up the right to refer the matter to the courts or to other authorities. For the person assessed, that means nothing is final at the end of the assessment.
  • It leaves intact the safeguards in Law no. 176/2010: the information, the invitation to state a point of view, the 15 days in which to reply, the right to be assisted by a lawyer and the challenge to the report within 15 days before the administrative court.

What remains a problem

  • The argument that saves the text is the very absence of procedural safeguards. The Court holds that the agency does not adjudicate precisely because its procedure lacks publicity, orality and the hearing of both sides. The absence of those elements thus becomes the basis of constitutionality, not a problem to be solved.
  • The text sets no threshold for acting of the agency’s own motion. It does not say what the president’s report or the inspector’s note must contain, what indications are needed, or that the reasons should be communicated to the person assessed, even though the same law requires a reasoned communication of a refusal inside the agency.
  • The wording of point (b) is hard to read even for a lawyer. Where the management of the inspectors rejects the proposal, the president of the agency may order „either that the checks begin or that the proposal be maintained”, which leaves it unclear what actually happens in the second case.
  • The length of the proceedings empties the sanction of content. The reports challenged in these cases are from 2016 and 2017, and in September 2026 the second appeals had still not been decided. The 3-year ban starts to run only after the report becomes final, that is a decade after the act found.
  • From the first referral order, made on 19 November 2020, to the publication of the decision, 2,132 days passed, of which 249 between the ruling, on 15 January 2026, and publication, on 21 September 2026, alone.

Practical advice

  1. If you receive an invitation from the National Integrity Agency, first check by which route the assessment started. The law allows only two ways of acting of the agency’s own motion, and the corresponding act, the president’s report or the inspector’s note approved by the management of the integrity inspectors, must be on the file.
  2. Reply within the time limit. After being informed you have 15 days from the acknowledgement of receipt in which to state your point of view, you may be assisted or represented by a lawyer and you may submit any evidence, data or information you consider necessary. Silence does not stop the assessment.
  3. Count the days from the receipt of the assessment report. The challenge is lodged within 15 days of receipt, before the administrative court. This is the time limit that decides whether the report becomes final or not, and missing it can no longer be repaired with arguments on the merits.
  4. Do not build your defence any longer on the idea that a check started of the agency’s own motion is unconstitutional. The law does not forbid raising a new plea, since Article 29(3) of Law no. 47/1992 only bars pleas on texts already declared unconstitutional, but the predictable result is another rejection, with a reference to this decision.
  5. Local elected officials should check, before accepting, any additional position taken on during their term of office. Both cases in this decision have the same mundane cause: membership of a school board while serving as mayor or as deputy mayor.
  6. Bear in mind what the agency cannot do: it does not deliver rulings, it does not decide disputes and it does not impose sanctions. Its report is an administrative act that opens up a right for others to act, and the real defence is mounted before the administrative court, where the hearing of both sides that is missing from the assessment stage does apply.

Frequently asked questions

Can the agency check me without anyone having complained about me?
Yes. Article 12(1) of Law no. 176/2010 provides that the assessment is carried out „of its own motion or upon referral by any natural or legal person”, and the Constitutional Court confirmed on 21 September 2026 that this possibility is constitutional.
In concrete terms, what triggers a check of the agency’s own motion?
The law provides two ways, and no third. A referral report drawn up by the president of the agency, or a note from the integrity inspector, approved by the management of the integrity inspectors. In the second variant, if that management rejects the proposal, the reasoned refusal is sent to the president of the agency, who may order the checks to begin.
What safeguards do I have during the assessment?
Law no. 176/2010 provides that the integrity inspector informs you and invites you to state a point of view, by registered letter, that you have 15 days from the acknowledgement of receipt in which to reply, that you may be assisted or represented by a lawyer and that you may submit any evidence, data or information. The report is communicated within 5 days of completion.
Why did the Court say the text holds up?
Because the agency does not adjudicate, it administers. It does not deliver rulings with res judicata effect, does not decide contentious cases and does not sanction breaches of the law; it draws up reports which open up the right to refer matters to the courts or to other authorities. For that reason, the Court considered that arguments about the lack of a fair trial at the assessment stage do not apply.
But had Decision no. 415/2010 not already removed referral of the agency’s own motion?
That is exactly what the authors of the plea argued, pointing out that Article 4 of Law no. 144/2007 had been declared unconstitutional, including in that respect. The Court rejected the argument, holding that Decision no. 415/2010 concerned an activity with adjudicatory elements, which Law no. 176/2010 no longer provides for, so the two situations are not the same.
What happens if the assessment report becomes final?
Under Article 25 of Law no. 176/2010, the act constitutes a disciplinary offence, and the person forfeits the right to hold a public office or dignity of the kind covered by the law, with the exception of elective ones, for 3 years from removal from office or from the end of the term.
Were there any dissenting or concurring opinions?
No. The decision was taken unanimously by a panel of eight judges, with no dissenting or concurring opinion.
From when does the decision produce effects?
From 21 September 2026, the date of publication in the Official Gazette of Romania no. 799. Under Article 147(4) of the Constitution, decisions of the Constitutional Court are generally binding from the date of publication and have effect only for the future.

Editorial analysis

The outcome is predictable and, in relation to the argument received, correct. The authors of the plea tried to turn a 2010 decision, which concerned a law with different content, into a permanent ban on ever regulating action of an authority’s own motion again. The Court answers that Decision no. 415/2010 struck down the adjudicatory elements in Law no. 144/2007, not the mere fact that an administrative authority may start a check on its own initiative. The distinction is sound: almost every inspection body of the state works of its own motion, and to forbid that would make them depend on somebody’s complaint.

What is interesting, though, is the structure of the argument, which becomes visible only when paragraph 19 is read against the criticism. The Court establishes that the agency does not adjudicate because its procedure is „lacking publicity, orality and the hearing of both sides”. In other words, it is precisely the absence of procedural safeguards that takes the assessment outside the requirements of a fair trial and, by that route, saves the text. The reasoning is legally valid, but it has a practical effect worth dwelling on: the closer the assessment procedure came to a trial, the more exposed it would be to criticism on constitutional grounds. The incentive it creates points not towards more safeguards, but towards fewer.

The second observation calls for counting. From the order of 19 November 2020, by which the High Court referred the matter to the Constitutional Court in the first file, to the publication of the decision, 2,132 days passed, of which 249 between the ruling and publication alone. The comparison can be made within the same issue of the Official Gazette of Romania: the other two decisions of the Court published on 21 September 2026, no. 194 and no. 209, had been given on 5 March 2026, that is 200 days earlier. A decision given on 15 January waited longer than two given almost two months later. And in the two cases on the merits, the assessment reports are from 2016 and 2017: the 3-year ban the law provides for, that is 1,096 days, had not started to run even in 2026, because the reports had not become final. A sanction applied a decade after the act has neither a preventive effect nor any reparative sense.

The third element concerns an asymmetry written into the confirmed text itself. The law requires the refusal of the management of the inspectors to start a check to be reasoned and sent to the president of the agency, so the decision not to check is subject to internal control. The decision to check has no equivalent: neither the president’s report nor the inspector’s note has to meet any condition of content laid down by law, and neither is communicated to the person assessed. The state has organised control over its own passivity, not over its own initiative.

What should be changed

  • The act triggering the check should be communicated to the person assessed together with the information notice. Today she learns that she is being checked, but not by which route the check started or on what indications. Communication would make the formal condition verifiable and would remove part of the challenges that today start from not knowing.
  • The law should lay down a minimum content for the referral report and for the inspector’s note. A requirement to state the facts and the source of the information would align action of the agency’s own motion with the standard that the same law imposes on a refusal, which must be reasoned.
  • The wording of Article 12(2)(b) should be rewritten. The phrase „that the proposal be maintained” leaves it unclear what the president of the agency decides in the second variant, and a procedural rule whose effects cannot be deduced from its text produces inconsistent practice.
  • There should be a statutory time limit for deciding integrity cases. Reports from 2016 and 2017 still under second appeal in 2026 turn the 3-year ban into a sanction with no start date. A time limit for deciding, even an indicative one, would shorten the period in which neither the person nor the authority knows what applies.
  • Law no. 47/1992 should set a deadline for publishing decisions after they are given. The 249 days between 15 January 2026 and 21 September 2026 are days in which the decision existed but produced no effects, while the cases awaiting it stood still for no procedural reason at all.

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. 799 of 21 September 2026, pages 2-4 8 pages PDF, 80 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.