In brief

  • The Court did not review the rule on the merits. The plea raised against Article 78 of the Road Traffic Code was dismissed as inadmissible, not as unfounded. The Constitutional Court, the court that checks whether laws comply with the Constitution, answered that what the referring judge objected to is the way the courts apply the law, not its wording.
  • The ban on drinking after an accident stays whole. Article 78(1) forbids the use of alcohol or psychoactive substances after the event and until the breath test or the taking of biological samples, without setting any outer limit for the test. In the case that produced the plea, the test was carried out roughly a month after the event.
  • The text under review is no longer today’s text. Since 29 June 2024, the presumption in Article 78(2) applies only to accidents resulting in nothing beyond damage to the vehicles and other material loss. The decision concerns the earlier wording, so it concerns old cases.
  • 336 days passed between delivery, on 20 November 2025, and publication, on 22 October 2026, and the decision becomes binding only from publication.
Act: Decision of the Constitutional Court no. 622 of 20 November 2025 on the plea of unconstitutionality concerning the provisions of Article 78 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 195/2002 on traffic on public roads, in the wording in force before Government Emergency Ordinance no. 84/2024 amending and supplementing certain normative acts in order to increase road safety
Published: Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 885 of 22 October 2026, pages 2-3
In force from: 22 October 2026, the date of publication, under Article 147(4) of the Constitution, which provides that the Court’s decisions are generally binding from the date of publication and have effect only for the future

The Constitutional Court did not say whether it is constitutional to be barred from every glass of alcohol after a road accident: it said that this is not its question. By Decision no. 622 of 20 November 2025, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 885 of 22 October 2026, a panel of eight judges unanimously dismissed as inadmissible the plea of unconstitutionality raised of its own motion by the Vatra Dornei District Court against Article 78 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 195/2002 on traffic on public roads, the act known as the Road Traffic Code. The case it all started from was an ordinary administrative-offence complaint, in which the driver had received a warning and, alongside it, the suspension of his right to drive for 90 days, the same combination of warning and suspension that the Court had examined in another case a few days earlier, on 19 October 2026.

The question put by the judge in Vatra Dornei was a practical one, not a theoretical one. Article 78(1) forbids a driver involved in an accident, and also the driving instructor giving practical tuition and the examiner at the practical part of the licence test, to consume alcohol or psychoactive substances after the accident and until the test or until biological samples are taken. Paragraph (2) adds the consequence: if the rule is broken, the result of the test or of the analysis is taken to reflect the person’s state at the moment of the accident, not at the moment of testing. Except that the text does not say by when the test can be carried out. In the case at hand, recorded by the Court in paragraph 16 of the decision, the complainant’s exhaled air was tested roughly a month after the alleged offence, and the result was turned, through the presumption in paragraph (2), into his state at the time of the accident.

The court invoked four provisions of the Constitution: Article 21 on free access to justice, Article 23(11) and (12) on the presumption of innocence and on the legality of the penalty, Article 26 on intimate, family and private life, and Article 53 on the restriction of the exercise of certain rights. The most concrete argument, set out in paragraph 8 of the decision, was that a person who causes an accident ends up with no right to drink alcoholic beverages for a period the referring court put at six months at the least, since that is how long they can be called in for testing. The representative of the Public Prosecutor’s Office asked for dismissal as unfounded, that is a review on the merits followed by confirmation of the text. The Court went another way.

What it changes in practice

A dismissal as inadmissible does not mean that the text passed the constitutionality test. It means the test never took place. The Court found, in paragraphs 16 and 19, that the criticism does not attack the rule but the way it is interpreted and applied by the courts, and that ground belongs to the trial judge and, beyond that, to the courts of judicial review and to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, which secures the uniform interpretation of the law. To get there, the Court relied on its own case law, citing Decision no. 838 of 27 May 2009, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 461 of 3 July 2009, and Decision no. 504 of 7 October 2014, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 941 of 22 December 2014.

For the driver, the immediate effect is that nothing changes. The text stays in force, with everything it entails. After a road accident, any use of alcohol or of a psychoactive substance is forbidden until the test or until samples are taken. If you drink between the accident and the test, the result obtained at the test can no longer be disputed as to timing: the law moves it back to the hour of the accident.

The penalty for breaching that ban sits in the administrative-offence part of the ordinance. If the result thus obtained shows alcohol, and the conduct is not a criminal offence, Article 102(3)(a) of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 195/2002 applies, driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages: a class IV fine and suspension of the right to drive for 90 days. Class IV means, under Article 98(4), between 9 and 20 penalty points, and one penalty point is worth, under Article 98(2), 10% of the gross national minimum wage set by Government Decision, except for the years 2018 to 2022, for which the ordinance fixed the value at 145 lei. That explains the figure in the Vatra Dornei case: the fine was replaced by a warning, but the 90-day suspension stayed, because it is an ancillary penalty and has a regime of its own.

The second effect, a quieter one, concerns what can still be done. A decision of inadmissibility does not shut the door for good, but it shuts it for a criticism framed this way. Anyone who wants to challenge Article 78 again has to show that the rule itself, not its application, produces the result complained of. The argument about the interval between accident and test, on the other hand, stays fully usable where the Court sent it: before the court hearing the administrative-offence complaint, on the evidence.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In the wording of the law, through this decision, nothing. Around it, a great deal, and that is the part a hurried reader misses. The Court itself flags it in paragraph 14: after it had been seised, on 29 June 2024, Article 78(2) was amended by Article I point 14 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 84/2024, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 610 of 29 June 2024. Applying Decision no. 766 of 15 June 2011, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 549 of 3 August 2011, the Court ruled on the earlier wording, the one applicable to the 2021 dispute, and it said so both in the title of the decision and in the operative part.

The difference introduced in 2024 is not cosmetic. In the old wording, the presumption in paragraph (2) applied after any road accident. The wording in force from 29 June 2024 ends the same sentence with a limitation: the presumption operates for an accident resulting in nothing beyond damage to the vehicles and other material loss. Put plainly, from 29 June 2024 the presumption was brought down to accidents that leave nothing worse than bent bodywork, and accidents resulting in the death or injury of a person moved out from under it.

Paragraph (1) was not touched by Emergency Ordinance no. 84/2024. The consolidated version published on the legislative portal of the Ministry of Justice shows its last amendment on 1 September 2014, by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 21/2014, which extended the text to agricultural or forestry tractors and replaced the wording about narcotic substances and medicines with similar effects with the term „substanțe psihoactive”, psychoactive substances, as defined in the ordinance. So the ban on drinking still applies after any accident, including one with casualties, while the automatic consequence of breaching it has been left with accidents involving material damage alone.

For the reader, the conclusion is this: the Court’s reasoning, namely that the problem is one of application and not of constitutionality, transfers without difficulty to the wording in force since 29 June 2024, because the absence of a time limit for testing has not changed. The ruling delivered, however, concerns only the old wording, and the current form of paragraph (2) has never been reviewed by the Constitutional Court. Cases concerning accidents that occurred up to and including 28 June 2024 are tried on the old text; those from 29 June 2024 onwards, on the new one.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It says plainly where the argument about the timing of the test belongs: before the trial court, which can take evidence, not before the Constitutional Court, which does not try facts.
  • It changes nothing for drivers from 22 October 2026, so it creates no new regime on top of the cases already pending.
  • It marks out the boundaries of jurisdiction using two earlier decisions cited by name, Decision no. 838/2009 and Decision no. 504/2014, so it is predictable for anyone who relies on it later.
  • It was delivered unanimously, with no dissenting opinions, which makes a quick turnaround by the same procedural route unlikely.
  • The Court did not take up the prosecutor’s argument on the merits, namely that the right to drive is not a constitutional right, so it closed neither the discussion on Article 26 nor the one on Article 53 of the Constitution.
  • It points out, in paragraph 14, the 2024 amendment, which helps any lawyer see at once that the decision does not apply mechanically to new facts.

What remains a problem

  • The question on the merits is left unanswered: Article 78 sets no moment by which the test has to be carried out, so on the face of the text the ban on drinking has no end.
  • The Court notes that in this case the test was carried out roughly a month after the event and sends the problem to the courts, but gives them no benchmark, so two courts can assess the same interval differently.
  • 336 days between delivery and publication, in a case where the trial court was waiting for an answer in order to rule on an administrative-offence complaint.
  • 1,995 days, that is five and a half years, from the referral order of 6 May 2021 to the publication of the decision, in a case whose subject matter is a 90-day suspension.
  • Inadmissibility settles nothing for the complainant in the case: he goes back to the same court, with the same statutory presumption in front of him.
  • The current wording of Article 78(2), in force since 29 June 2024, has been through no constitutionality review at all, and the 2024 amendment did not touch the problem raised by the referring court.

Practical advice

  1. After any accident, including one that leaves nothing worse than a dented wing, consume nothing, neither alcohol nor medicines whose contents you are unsure of, until your breath is tested or biological samples are taken. The ban in Article 78(1) does not depend on how serious the accident was.
  2. Ask to be tested as soon as possible and note down for yourself the time of the accident and the time of the test. If the interval is long, it becomes an argument before the trial court, where the Court sent the problem.
  3. Ask for the time of the accident and the time of the test to be recorded in the official report. An official report that does not contain them is harder to challenge on this point.
  4. Check the date of the accident against 29 June 2024. For accidents with casualties occurring from that date onwards, the presumption in Article 78(2) no longer operates, and a penalty based on it can be challenged on that ground.
  5. Do not mistake a warning for a let-off. Suspension of the right to drive for 90 days is an ancillary penalty and can stand even if the class IV fine is replaced by a warning.
  6. Do not build your complaint on the idea that Article 78 is unconstitutional. After Decision no. 622/2025, a criticism framed that way is inadmissible; the argument about the interval between accident and test goes to the evidence, before the trial court.

Frequently asked questions

What exactly did the Constitutional Court decide?
It dismissed the plea as inadmissible, by Decision no. 622 of 20 November 2025. It did not review whether Article 78 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 195/2002 complies with the Constitution. It found only that the criticism targets the interpretation and application of the law by the courts, a matter outside its jurisdiction. The representative of the Public Prosecutor’s Office had asked for dismissal as unfounded, that is a review on the merits.
Is it still forbidden to drink after an accident?
Yes. Article 78(1) is in force and forbids the use of alcohol or psychoactive substances after the accident, until the alcohol concentration in exhaled air is tested or until biological samples are taken. The ban covers the driver of a motor vehicle, agricultural or forestry tractor or tram, the certified driving instructor giving practical tuition, and the examiner at the practical part of the licence test.
Until when, in concrete terms, am I not allowed to drink?
Until the test or until biological samples are taken. The text sets no outer limit within which these have to be done, and that is precisely the problem raised by the Vatra Dornei District Court. There, the test was carried out roughly a month after the alleged offence, and the referring court argued that in theory the interval can stretch to six months at the least.
What happens if I drink between the accident and the test?
The presumption in Article 78(2) applies: the result of the test or of the analysis of the biological samples is taken to reflect your state at the moment of the accident. Since 29 June 2024, the presumption works only for an accident resulting in nothing beyond damage to the vehicles and other material loss. What happens to such drinking after an accident with casualties is no longer stated by Article 78, and the answer has to be sought outside the Road Traffic Code.
How much is the fine and how long is the licence gone?
If the result shows alcohol and the conduct is not a criminal offence, Article 102(3)(a) of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 195/2002 applies: a class IV fine, that is between 9 and 20 penalty points, and suspension of the right to drive for 90 days. One penalty point is worth 10% of the gross national minimum wage set by Government Decision, except for the years 2018 to 2022, for which the ordinance fixed the value at 145 lei.
Does the decision change anything in pending cases?
It creates no new obligation and does not take Article 78 out of circulation. Under Article 147(4) of the Constitution, the decision is generally binding from publication, that is from 22 October 2026, and has effect only for the future. Cases concerning accidents that occurred up to and including 28 June 2024 are tried on the old wording of Article 78(2), the one the Court ruled on; those occurring later, on the wording given by Emergency Ordinance no. 84/2024.

Editorial analysis

The most telling figure in this decision is not in it; it comes out of comparing two time limits. The driver is placed under an open-ended obligation, that of consuming nothing until the test, while the administration that carries out the test is placed under no time limit at all. In the Vatra Dornei case, the imbalance was measured: roughly a month until the test. The Court saw it, wrote it down in paragraph 16 and concluded that it is a matter of applying the law. In legal terms the reasoning holds: a constitutional court does not try facts. In practical terms the answer is that an obligation with no limit in time gets corrected case by case, by courts that have no shared criterion.

The second element that escapes a straight reading of the decision is what the legislature did between referral and judgment. On 29 June 2024, with Emergency Ordinance no. 84/2024, the Government opened up Article 78(2) itself and amended it, through Article I point 14, narrowing the presumption to accidents involving nothing beyond damage to the vehicles and other material loss. It touched the article complained of and left untouched the defect complained of: no time limit for testing was introduced. More than that, the amendment produced an asymmetry of its own, because paragraph (1) has stayed unchanged since 1 September 2014. Today the ban on drinking applies after any accident, including one with casualties, but the automatic consequence of breaching it has retreated to accidents involving material damage. For an accident with casualties there is therefore a ban in the Road Traffic Code whose breach the Road Traffic Code no longer penalises.

The third element is editorial and worth saying, without being an error that changes the outcome. In paragraph 13 the Court reproduces the text of Article 78 and states that this was the content of the provisions „la data sesizării”, at the date of referral, that is on 6 May 2021, and in that quotation paragraph (1) forbids the use of „substanțe ori produse stupefiante sau medicamente cu efecte similare acestora”, narcotic substances or products or medicines with similar effects. The consolidated version on the legislative portal of the Ministry of Justice shows that, since 1 September 2014, the text uses instead the term „substanțe psihoactive”, psychoactive substances, introduced by Emergency Ordinance no. 21/2014. Since the decision is one of inadmissibility, no legal conclusion depends on the quotation, and the operative part identifies the subject of the review by reference to the wording in force before Emergency Ordinance no. 84/2024, not through the text reproduced. The difference stays visible, though, to anyone comparing the decision with the law, and in a decision published 336 days after delivery it would have helped to bring the quotation up to date.

One last detail to read closely: Decision no. 577 of 9 July 2020 and Decision no. 238 of 29 April 2025 appear in this decision only in the submissions of the representative of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, not in the Court’s reasoning. The Court rests its ruling solely on Decision no. 766/2011, on Decision no. 838/2009 and on Decision no. 504/2014, all of them about jurisdiction and about the applicable text, none of them about Article 78. Anyone who cites Decision no. 622/2025 as a confirmation that the presumption in Article 78 is constitutional will be citing something the decision does not say.

What should be changed

  1. An outer time limit for testing or sampling, written into Article 78(1), beyond which the presumption in paragraph (2) no longer operates. Practical effect: the driver’s obligation to abstain becomes determinable, and the courts gain the criterion the Court left them to build on their own.
  2. An express rule on drinking after an accident with casualties, either in Article 78 or through a clear reference to the provision that penalises it. Practical effect: the situation disappears in which paragraph (1) forbids conduct that paragraph (2) no longer follows up.
  3. A duty to record the time of the accident and the time of the test in the official report, together with the interval between them. Practical effect: the interval becomes verifiable from the file rather than from statements, and can be argued in court without further evidence.
  4. A fixed deadline for publishing Constitutional Court decisions in the Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial), running from delivery. Practical effect: the trial court no longer waits 336 days for an answer it needs in order to rule on an administrative-offence complaint.
  5. Updating the quotations from legal texts reproduced in the Court’s decisions to the wording in force on the date the decision itself indicates. Practical effect: the reader no longer has to compare the decision with the legislative portal in order to know which rule was under review.

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. 885 of 22 October 2026, pages 2-3 16 pages PDF, 112 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.