In brief

  • The Senate has extended the inquiry by the Committee on Constitutionality to cover the circumstances of a trip to Mykonos on 8 July 2026, publicly reported as having been made on a private aircraft. The act sets five additional objectives, from the purpose of the journey to identifying the person or the entity that paid for the transport.
  • The deadline for submitting the report is rewritten: 30 days from entry into force, instead of the 14 days in the original wording. The old deadline had expired on 7 September 2026, one day before the new resolution was published.
  • The committee may ask for clarifications and may invite people to hearings, but it cannot establish any form of liability. Law no. 47/1992 gives the Plenum of the Constitutional Court exclusive competence over the disciplinary misconduct of its judges.
Act: Senate Resolution no. 118/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 764 of 8 September 2026
In force from: 8 September 2026, the date of publication

The parliamentary inquiry opened by the Senate in August is given a second subject, unconnected with the first. Through Resolution no. 118 of 8 September 2026, published in the Official Gazette of Romania no. 764 of the same day, the Senate plenary amended and supplemented Resolution no. 113/2026, the act by which the inquiry had been approved in August. The checks by the Committee on Constitutionality now extend to the circumstances of the trip made by the judge of the Constitutional Court Cristian Deliorga to Mykonos, on 8 July 2026.

The addition is made through a new article, Article 21, inserted after Article 2 of the August resolution. The text says that the inquiry „is also extended to the circumstances of the trip”, which it describes as „publicly reported as having been made on a private aircraft of the Embraer Legacy 600 type, on the Bucharest to Mykonos route”. The wording carries legal weight: the resolution does not find that the flight took place in that way, it records that this is how it was publicly reported and asks the committee to check.

There are five additional objectives, lettered from a) to e). The committee has to clarify the circumstances and the purpose of the trip, the nature of the relations between the persons taking part and the judge, the way the costs were organised and covered, including who paid for the transport, any material or other benefits received in connection with the trip, as well as any other circumstances relevant to the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judge, of a nature to affect public confidence in the judicial work of the Court.

The second paragraph of the new article draws the limits. The checks are made „within the limits of the constitutional and regulatory powers of the committee, with due regard for the independence of the Constitutional Court and of its judges, without examining or censoring judicial rulings and without substituting for the authorities competent to establish forms of legal liability”. In short, the committee does not re-examine the decisions of the Court and does not stand in for the bodies that impose sanctions.

The second intervention concerns the calendar. Article 3 of the August resolution is rewritten in full: the report is submitted to the Standing Bureau of the Senate „within 30 days of the date of entry into force of this resolution”. Article II of the September resolution then expressly approves the continuation of the inquiry until that deadline expires, a wording that lets it be seen that the inquiry needed fresh cover in time.

The legal basis invoked in the preamble is Article 64(4) and Article 67 of the Constitution, plus Article 78 of the Senate’s Rules of Procedure, approved by Senate Resolution no. 28/2005. The August resolution had relied only on Article 67 and Article 78. Article 64(4) is the text which says that each chamber „shall set up standing committees and may institute committees of inquiry or other special committees”.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is the widening of the subject matter. Until 8 September 2026, the committee’s mandate was tied to a single event, the meeting of 14 August 2026 between interim Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan and the President of the Constitutional Court, Judge Elena-Simina Tănăsescu. From publication onwards, the committee also has a second event to clarify, one that took place more than a month before the first and concerns a different judge.

The second effect is one of calendar. The 14-day deadline in the original wording disappears and is replaced by one of 30 days, counted from entry into force. The old deadline had expired on 7 September 2026, one day before the new resolution was published, and Article II comes precisely in order to cover the continuation of the work.

The third effect is one of instruments. Under Article 78(4) of the Senate’s Rules of Procedure, the standing committee conducting an inquiry may invite, in order to provide information, „any dignitary, official or employee of the Government and of the other bodies of the public administration”. The persons invited have to be notified of the subject, the date and the conditions of the hearing at least 5 days in advance, and their travel and accommodation costs are borne by the Senate budget, at their request.

The fourth effect is the one the act rules out explicitly. The inquiry produces no sanctions. Law no. 47/1992 on the organisation and functioning of the Constitutional Court, republished, states in Article 65 that establishing the disciplinary misconduct of judges, the sanctions and the manner of applying them „falls within the exclusive competence of the Plenum of the Constitutional Court”. Article 66(1) adds that a judge of the Court may not be detained, arrested, searched or sent for criminal trial except with the approval of the plenum of the Court, at the request of the Prosecutor General.

The fifth effect is one of transparency. The objectives are written in the Official Gazette of Romania, point by point, so anyone can later compare the committee’s report with the list it was itself supposed to cover.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

Resolution no. 113/2026 had three articles and a single event. Article 1 designated the committee and the event, Article 2 listed four aspects to be clarified about that meeting, Article 3 set a report within 14 days. The current wording has, in addition, a whole article with five objectives about a different event and a different judge, and Article 3 is replaced.

The way the deadline is expressed has changed as well. The old Article 3 said only „within 14 days”, without showing the moment from which they run. The new Article 3 ties the deadline to entry into force, which is more precise, although, as can be seen below, not precise enough.

The legal basis in the preamble has changed. The August resolution invoked Article 67 of the Constitution and Article 78 of the Rules of Procedure. The September one adds Article 64(4) of the Constitution, the text on committees of inquiry. The addition does not change the nature of the procedure, which remains an inquiry carried out by a standing committee, not by a committee of inquiry set up specially.

What has not changed is the position of the Constitutional Court. Article 145 of the Constitution says that the judges of the Court are independent in the exercise of their mandate and irremovable for its duration, and Article 1(3) of Law no. 47/1992 says that the institution „is independent of any other public authority and is subject only to the Constitution and to this law”. No text was touched by the Senate resolution, nor could it have been: a resolution of one chamber does not amend the organic law of the Court.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • The objectives are written out concretely, letter by letter, not left to the committee’s judgement. Who pays for a journey and what benefits were received are verifiable questions, not general formulas.
  • The limits are placed in the text of the act itself. Paragraph (2) of the new article expressly prohibits examining the rulings of the Court and substituting for the authorities that establish liability.
  • The reporting deadline is now tied to an identifiable moment, entry into force, rather than left hanging as in the August wording.
  • The act uses the phrase „publicly reported”, so it does not treat press accounts as established facts and leaves the checking to the committee.

What remains a problem

  • The date on which the 30-day deadline expires can be read in two ways, 15 days apart, and the moment when the committee’s mandate lapses depends on it.
  • The hardest objectives, who paid for the transport and what benefits were received, concern private individuals, whom Article 78 of the Senate’s Rules of Procedure does not include among those who can be invited to a hearing.
  • The inquiry now covers two different events, two months apart, with two different judges, but there is still a single report and a single deadline.
  • The act does not say what happens to the report after it is filed with the Standing Bureau, whether it is debated in plenary and whether it becomes public.
  • The name of the judge appears six times in the text published in the Official Gazette of Romania, in an act that opens a check, not one that finds anything.

Practical advice

  1. Read the new Article 21 together with its paragraph (2). The first paragraph says what is being checked, the second says what the committee is not allowed to do, and without the second the text looks stronger than it is.
  2. Do not confuse a parliamentary inquiry with disciplinary or criminal proceedings. The committee draws up a report. Disciplinary sanctions for the judges of the Constitutional Court fall, under Article 65 of Law no. 47/1992, exclusively to the Plenum of the Court.
  3. Keep in mind two possible deadlines for the report, 23 September 2026 and 8 October 2026, and watch which of them the Standing Bureau takes on in practice.
  4. Check what the act says before picking up an account of it. The resolution speaks of a trip „publicly reported as having been made” on a private aircraft, not of a fact established by the Senate.
  5. If you want to follow the procedure, Article 78(5) of the Senate’s Rules of Procedure requires the persons invited to be notified at least 5 days in advance of the subject, the date and the conditions of the hearing. The summonses usually appear on the committee’s agenda.
  6. Bear in mind that no conclusion of the report touches the decisions already delivered by the Court. They remain final and generally binding under Article 147(4) of the Constitution.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Senate decide through Resolution no. 118/2026?
It amended and supplemented Senate Resolution no. 113/2026, extending the inquiry by the Committee on Constitutionality to the circumstances of the trip made by the judge of the Constitutional Court Cristian Deliorga to Mykonos, on 8 July 2026, and replaced the 14-day reporting deadline with one of 30 days.
What exactly does the committee have to clarify now?
Five additional objectives: the circumstances and the purpose of the trip, the nature of the relations between the persons taking part and the judge, the way the costs were organised and covered, including who paid for the transport, any benefits received in connection with the trip and any other circumstances relevant to the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judge.
Does the resolution state that the judge flew on a private plane?
No. The text says that the trip was „publicly reported as having been made on a private aircraft of the Embraer Legacy 600 type, on the Bucharest to Mykonos route” and asks the committee to check the circumstances. The act does not find facts and makes no accusations.
Can Parliament investigate a judge of the Constitutional Court?
No text forbids the Senate to check facts. Article 64(4) of the Constitution allows each chamber to institute committees of inquiry, and Article 78 of the Senate’s Rules of Procedure allows a standing committee to carry out an inquiry, within the limits of its subject-matter competence and with the approval of the plenary. The legal consequences, however, lie outside Parliament, under Article 65 and Article 66 of Law no. 47/1992.
What can and what cannot a parliamentary committee of inquiry do?
It can ask for documents and can invite persons to provide information, with at least 5 days’ notice. It cannot impose sanctions, cannot establish guilt and cannot censor court judgments or decisions of the Constitutional Court. Its result is a report.
Who can sanction a judge of the Constitutional Court?
For disciplinary misconduct, exclusively the Plenum of the Constitutional Court, under Article 65 of Law no. 47/1992. For criminal offences, detention, arrest, search or committal for trial require the approval of the plenum of the Court, given by a two-thirds vote of the judges, at the request of the Prosecutor General. Termination of the mandate for a serious breach of duties is likewise decided in the plenum of the Court.
When does the report have to be submitted?
Within 30 days of entry into force. The wording in the act allows two readings, one leading to 23 September 2026 and one leading to 8 October 2026. The explanation is below, in the section on inconsistencies.
What happened to the 14-day deadline in the August resolution?
It had expired on 7 September 2026, one day before the new resolution was adopted and published. Article II of Resolution no. 118/2026 expressly approves the continuation of the inquiry until the new deadline expires.
Does the inquiry into the meeting of 14 August 2026 continue?
Yes. The objectives in Resolution no. 113/2026 remain in force, and Article II of the new resolution confirms them. The new objectives are added, and the conclusions on all of them go into the same report, under paragraph (3) of the newly inserted article.
When does Senate Resolution no. 118/2026 enter into force?
On 8 September 2026, the date of publication in the Official Gazette of Romania. Article III provides only for publication, and Article 12(3) of Law no. 24/2000 establishes that normative acts adopted by Parliament, other than laws, enter into force on the date of publication if they do not contain a later date.

Errors and inconsistencies in the published text

  • Article I point 2, the phrase „prezenta hotărâre”, this resolution, in the new Article 3, the one that sets the deadline for the report. The new text says that the report is submitted to the Standing Bureau „în termen de 30 de zile de la data intrării în vigoare a prezentei hotărâri”, within 30 days of the date of entry into force of this resolution. Under Article 62 of Law no. 24/2000 on the rules of legislative drafting, amending and supplementing provisions „are incorporated, from the date of their entry into force, into the basic act, becoming one with it”. Read that way, Article 3 is part of Senate Resolution no. 113/2026, and „prezenta hotărâre” means the August resolution, which entered into force on 24 August 2026, so the deadline expires on 23 September 2026. Read in the light of Article II of the present resolution, which refers to „the deadline provided for in Article I point 2” as to a deadline belonging to this resolution, the starting point is 8 September 2026, and the deadline expires on 8 October 2026. The difference is 15 days and it does not concern only the filing of a document: the same Article II ties the continuation of the inquiry to the expiry of that deadline, so the date on which the committee’s mandate lapses depends on it.

Editorial analysis

The clearest piece of information about this act is not in its text but in the calendar. Resolution no. 113/2026 was published on 24 August 2026 and gave the committee 14 days for the report, that is until 7 September 2026. Resolution no. 118/2026 was adopted and published on 8 September 2026, 15 days after the first, therefore one day after the deadline had expired. The wording in Article II, „the continuation of the parliamentary inquiry is approved”, reads differently in the light of this arithmetic: it does not extend work under way, it restores it.

The ratio between what is asked for and the time left is the second thing that does not show when the act is read from beginning to end. On the reading imposed by Article 62 of Law no. 24/2000, the committee has 15 days from 8 September 2026 to cover the four aspects from August, which it did not close in 14 days, plus five new objectives about an event 62 days old. Article 78(5) of the Senate’s Rules of Procedure requires each person invited to be notified at least 5 days in advance of the subject, the date and the conditions of the hearing. Three successive rounds of hearings use up those 15 days on their own.

The third point concerns the tools. Article 78(4) of the Rules of Procedure says what the committee can do: it may invite, in order to provide information, „any dignitary, official or employee of the Government and of the other bodies of the public administration”. A judge of the Constitutional Court falls into none of these categories, because Article 1(2) and (3) of Law no. 47/1992 places the Court outside the public administration, as the sole authority of constitutional jurisdiction, independent of any other authority. Nor does the person or the entity that may have paid for a private journey. Yet it is precisely objectives c) and d), the hardest ones, that call for information from such persons. For those, the committee’s only instrument is an invitation that nobody is obliged to honour.

That leaves the question of substance, whether there is any provision limiting parliamentary scrutiny of the Court. The answer, after reading the texts, is that there is no express prohibition, but every consequence is taken out of the hands of Parliament. Article 61(2) of Law no. 47/1992 says that judges cannot be held legally liable for the opinions and votes they express when adopting rulings. Article 65 gives the Plenum of the Court exclusive competence over disciplinary misconduct. Article 66 makes any criminal measure conditional on the approval of the plenum of the Court, by a two-thirds vote. Article 67(1)(c) and (2) likewise leave to the plenum of the Court the decision to terminate the mandate for a serious breach of the duties in Article 64. The Senate can find out facts and can make them public. That is all. Paragraph (2) of the new Article 21 says the same thing, in other words, and is the best written part of the resolution.

What should be changed

  • A deadline expressed as a date, not as a cross reference. „The report shall be submitted by 8 October 2026” removes the two possible readings and the 15 days of uncertainty about the moment when the committee’s mandate lapses.
  • Two inquiries, not one. The second event has a different date, a different judge and different facts to check. Separating them would give each its own deadline and objectives, and the report would no longer mix an office meeting with a trip abroad.
  • Stating what follows the filing of the report. Article 78(3) of the Rules of Procedure leaves it to the Standing Bureau to decide whether the report is put to debate or to approval by the Senate. Writing that choice into the resolution would say from the outset whether the public will ever see the conclusions.
  • A reference to the texts that establish liability. Paragraph (2) speaks generically of „the competent authorities”. Naming Article 65 and Article 66 of Law no. 47/1992 would show any reader exactly who can sanction a judge of the Court and on what conditions.
  • Setting out the means of carrying out the inquiry. Article 78(2) of the Rules of Procedure requires the request for approval to indicate „the means necessary to carry out” the inquiry. The published resolution says nothing about them, even though two of the five objectives call for information from private individuals, to whom the committee has no access under the rules of procedure.

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. 764 of 8 September 2026 8 pages PDF, 83 KB

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.