In brief

  • The Constitutional Court has blocked the online publication of the statements of financial interests that the new integrity law imposed on office holders, senior officials and their life partners.
  • The phrase „the person who is in a relationship similar to that of spouses” also fell, because the law never said from what moment a de facto relationship gives rise to obligations, and the assessment would have been left to the National Integrity Agency.
  • The penalty side, by contrast, survived intact: termination of the office or of the mandate for incompatibility established by a final decision, together with the transitional 30-day deadline, are constitutional. The law now returns to Parliament for re-examination.
Act: CCR Decision No 883/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 696 of 21 August 2026
Delivered: 17 August 2026

The law that would have put the economic interests of office holders and of their spouses or partners on the website of the National Integrity Agency will not enter into force in this form. By Decision No 883 of 17 August 2026, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 696 of 21 August 2026, the Constitutional Court upheld the objections of unconstitutionality raised by 27 senators and by the President of Romania against the Law amending and supplementing several normative acts in the field of integrity. This is the second time this summer that the Court has ruled on the integrity regime attached to public office, after it confirmed the three-year forfeiture of the right to hold public office in August for those found to be in a state of incompatibility.

The law, recorded in the Court’s file as L464/2026 and PL-x No 530/2026, introduced a new type of document: the statement of financial interests. Unlike the asset declaration and the statement of interests, which have been filed for years and are not published in full, the statement of financial interests was to be posted by the National Integrity Agency on its website within 60 days of being generated, for 43 categories of persons. The last of them, point 43, covered the husband, the wife and „the person who is in a relationship similar to that of spouses” with the President of Romania, with deputies and senators, with the Prime Minister, with members of the Government, with state secretaries or with the presidents of county councils.

The Court struck down precisely this publicity mechanism, while leaving the duty to file the statements untouched. The distinction matters: the data still reaches the Agency, it simply does not reach the internet.

What it changes in practice

Another integrity document, the one filled in for public tenders, went the other way: it left the statute book and asks for more data than the law provided.

The first effect is that the law is halted before promulgation. Since this was a review carried out prior to promulgation, under Article 146 letter a) of the Constitution, the law cannot be promulgated in the form in which it was voted. It goes back to Parliament, which must bring the provisions declared unconstitutional into line with the Court’s decision.

The second effect is that the publication of the statements of financial interests falls in its entirety. The Court found unconstitutionality not only in point 43, the one concerning spouses and partners, but also in points 1 to 42, that is, for every office holder and public official on the list. The reason is that the statement of financial interests reproduced almost word for word, through Annex No 5 to the law, the content of the asset declaration and the statement of interests, and those may not be the object of any form of publication, according to Decision No 297 of 29 May 2025. The Court said explicitly that publishing similar forms under a new name does not sidestep that ruling.

The third effect concerns unmarried life partners. The phrase „the person who is in a relationship similar to that of spouses” was declared unconstitutional, so the obligation is left without an identifiable addressee. The Court held that the law laid down no objective criterion, neither the duration of the relationship, nor a shared household, nor economic interdependence, nor public acknowledgement, so that a person would have had to decide alone whether the obligation applied, under threat of an administrative fine, while an inspector of the Agency would have ended up assessing the nature of a private relationship.

The fourth effect is confirmation of the penalty. Point 4 of the operative part rejects the objections against Article II point 17, which amends Article 25 of Law No 176/2010, and against Article X of the law. What therefore remains constitutional is the regime under which a breach of the rules on conflict of interests or on incompatibility triggers disciplinary liability and forfeiture of the right to hold office, while the transitional provision causes the office, the public dignity or the mandate to cease within 30 days of the entry into force of the law, for persons covered by an earlier final report of the Agency or final judgment.

The fifth effect is that of binding force. The decision is final and generally binding from the date of publication, that is, from 21 August 2026, and is communicated to the President of Romania, to the presidents of the two Chambers of Parliament and to the Prime Minister.

The sixth effect concerns the limits of constitutional review. Two judges filed a dissenting opinion against points 3 and 4 of the operative part, arguing that extending the review to points 1 to 42, which none of the authors of the referrals had challenged, amounts to a review carried out of the Court’s own motion, something Article 146 of the Constitution does not allow.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

Until this decision, the law passed by Parliament brought three novelties at once: a new public form, the extension of filing obligations to unmarried partners, and the conversion of forfeiture of the right to hold office into a ground for terminating an office already held. Of the three, the first two were stopped and the third went through.

The second change is a matter of nuance, but an important one. The Court did not forbid the legislature to place the filing obligation directly on the husband or the wife. It said expressly that this option falls within the legislature’s margin of appreciation and that a spouse’s financial interests are relevant for detecting conflicts of interests. What cannot be done is publishing that data online and extending the obligation to a category of persons the law does not define.

The third change concerns the reference to European law. The Court relied on the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 1 August 2022, delivered in Case C-184/20, according to which the online publication of the name-based data of a spouse or partner goes beyond what is strictly necessary, since the objective can be achieved through a generic mention of the existence of the partner and of the relevant interests.

What does not change is the day-to-day work of the National Integrity Agency. Asset declarations and statements of interests are still filed, under the regime of Law No 176/2010 and Law No 161/2003, and the procedures for establishing incompatibilities continue unchanged.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It protects the financial data of private individuals, spouses or partners, who do not themselves hold public office and have not accepted the obligations that come with it.
  • It removes an obligation that the addressee would have had to apply to themselves, guessing whether their relationship is „similar to that of spouses”, under the threat of a fine.
  • It stops a state institution from classifying, through its inspectors, the nature of a private relationship, something the Court saw as direct interference with intimate life.
  • It preserves the part with immediate practical effect on integrity: termination of office for incompatibility established by a final decision remains in place.
  • It gives Parliament concrete guidance for redrafting, including the indication that placing the filing obligation on a spouse is permissible so long as it is not coupled with publication.

What remains a problem

  • The transparency promised to the public disappears: citizens will not be able to consult the financial interests of office holders online, not even those under points 1 to 42, which nobody had challenged.
  • The law remains stuck in Parliament, and the Constitution sets no deadline within which the re-examination must be carried out.
  • Two judges pointed out, in a dissenting opinion, that extending the review to provisions nobody had criticised goes beyond the referral, which leaves open the debate about the limits of review prior to promulgation.
  • Unmarried partners remain outside any filing obligation until the legislature finds a definition that passes the clarity test.
  • The confirmed penalty applies to mandates obtained by popular vote as well, and the dissenting opinion argues that this neutralises the choice of the electorate after the fact.

Practical advice

  1. If you hold a public office or a public dignity, do not wait for the new form. The statement of financial interests does not apply for the time being, and your obligations remain those set out in Law No 176/2010, with the asset declaration and the statement of interests.
  2. If you already have a report of the National Integrity Agency or a final judgment on incompatibility behind you, keep an eye on the promulgation of the law. The part confirmed by the Court provides for termination of office within 30 days of its entry into force.
  3. Do not confuse the two declarations. The asset declaration and the statement of interests are still filed today, but they are not published in full. The statement of financial interests, which was meant to be public, was stopped before it ever came into being.
  4. If you are the husband, the wife or the partner of an office holder, this law creates no new obligation for you as long as it is not promulgated in an amended form.
  5. Read the operative part, not the headlines. The Court upheld three points and rejected one, so the law was not declared unconstitutional as a whole.
  6. Follow the re-examination in Parliament. The provisions declared unconstitutional must be brought into line with the decision, and the final version may keep the filing obligation without the publication requirement.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Constitutional Court decide, in short?
It upheld the objections concerning the publication of the statements of financial interests, both for office holders and officials and for spouses and partners, and declared unconstitutional the phrase „the person who is in a relationship similar to that of spouses”. It rejected as unfounded the objection concerning the penalty of termination of office for incompatibility and the related transitional provisions.
Can the law still enter into force?
Not in the form in which it was voted. Because this was a review carried out prior to promulgation, the law returns to Parliament so that its provisions can be brought into line with the Court’s decision. After re-examination and promulgation, it may enter into force in an amended form.
Are asset declarations still filed?
Yes. The decision does not touch the obligation to file the asset declaration and the statement of interests laid down by Law No 176/2010. What was stopped is only the online publication of a new document, the statement of financial interests.
Why did the phrase about relationships similar to those of spouses fall?
Because the law set no objective criterion for identifying the relationship, nor the moment from which the obligation arises, nor what happens when the relationship ends. The person would have had to classify themselves, and the Agency would afterwards have assessed the nature of the relationship, which the Court found contrary to Article 1 paragraph (5) and Article 26 of the Constitution.
What happens to the penalty of termination of office?
It remains constitutional. Article II point 17, which amends Article 25 of Law No 176/2010, and Article X, which provides for termination of office within 30 days for persons covered by an earlier final report or judgment, passed the constitutionality test in relation to the criticisms raised.
Who referred the matter to the Court?
A group of 27 senators from the parliamentary groups of the Save Romania Union and the National Liberal Party, through a referral registered on 6 August 2026, and the President of Romania, through a referral registered on 10 August 2026. The two files were joined at the hearing of 12 August 2026.
What is the dissenting opinion published together with the decision?
It is the position of two judges who disagreed with points 3 and 4 of the operative part. They argued that extending the review to points 1 to 42, which the authors of the referrals had not criticised, amounts to a review carried out of the Court’s own motion, and that the transitional provision breaches the principle of non-retroactivity of the law.

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. 696 of 21 August 2026 32 pages PDF, 201 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.