You are here:

Key facts of the case:

The applicant challenged the constitutionality of Articles 33 par. (2) and Art. 39 par. (2) of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 80/2013 on court stamp duties ( art. 33 alin. (2) și art. 39 alin. (2) teza întâi din Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 80/2013 privind taxele judiciare de timbre) by which applicants are allowed to challenge stamp duties established by courts. If applicants want to challenge stamp duties the procedure by which they do this is not public, a judge decided upon this request in a procedure which is not public, without having to summon the parties to the case. The applicant claims this procedure is unconstitutional because it goes against the right to a fair trial. 

Key legal question raised by the Court:

The case looks at whether the procedure by which an applicant contests the application of stamp duties be public, and should applicants be summoned and allowed to present their arguments in a confrontational manner.

Outcome of the case:

The Constitutional Court stated that the procedure by which applicants can challenge the application of stamp duties is constitutional even if it is not public.