The exception of unconstitutionality represents the main mechanism of concrete constitutional review within the Romanian legal system, structured according to the European (Kelsenian) model of constitutional jurisdiction. In this framework, constitutional review is exercised by a specialized body, the Constitutional Court of Romania, which examines the constitutionality of legislative provisions applicable to pending cases before ordinary courts. The complexity of this procedural mechanism derives from the interaction between ordinary jurisdiction and constitutional jurisdiction, as well as from the combination of statutory rules and jurisprudential developments that shape the procedure. The purpose of this study is to examine the procedural framework governing the settlement of the exception of unconstitutionality in Romania and to highlight the role played by the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court in shaping the specific rules of constitutional litigation. The research focuses on the normative framework established by the Constitution of Romania and by Law No 47/1992 on the organization and functioning of the Constitutional Court, as well as on the interpretative developments produced through constitutional case law. The analysis is based on a doctrinal and jurisprudential approach, combining the examination of constitutional and statutory provisions with the study of the relevant case law of the Constitutional Court. Particular attention is paid to the procedural stages before the Court, the determination of the object of the exception, the grounds of inadmissibility, and the subsidiary application of the rules of civil procedure. The study demonstrates that, beyond the legislative framework, the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court has played a decisive role in defining the procedural architecture of the exception of unconstitutionality. Through its decisions, the Court has clarified the limits of admissibility, the scope of constitutional review, and the procedural guarantees applicable within constitutional litigation. The conclusions emphasize the functional autonomy of Romanian constitutional procedure and the importance of case law in shaping a coherent procedural framework capable of ensuring effective access to constitutional justice and strengthening the protection of the supremacy of the Constitution.

Authored books

1. Deleanu I, Justiţia Constituţională (Lumina Lex Publishing House 1995) 246.

2. Suciu A, Excepțiile procesuale în Noul Cod de procedură civilă (Universul Juridic Publishing House 2014) 95.

3. Toader T, Safta M, Contencios constituțional (3rd edn, Hamangiu 2025).

4. Toader T, Safta M, Ghid de admisibilitate la Curtea Constituțională a României (Hamangiu, Ed a doua 2021).

Edited books

5. Lăzăroiu P, Safta M, ‘Interaction of Arbitration and Constitutional Courts’ in Alexander J Belohlavek, N Rozehnalová (eds), Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration – 2015: Interaction of Arbitration and Courts (Juris Publishing 2015) 159–179.

6. Safta M, ‘Redactarea și motivarea deciziilor Curții Constituționale’, Stefan Deaconu, Elena Simina Tanasescu (eds), In Honorem Ioan Muraru. Despre Constitutie in mileniul III (Hamangiu 2021).

7. Toader T, Safta M, ‘Enhancing Transparency of the Constitutional Courts – The Role of the New Technologies’ in Rainer Arnold, Javier Cremades (eds), Rule of Law, Technology and Environment (Springer, Cham 2025) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-76349-6_5

Journal articles

8. Fodor M, ‘Aspecte privind invocarea excepţiei de neconstituţionalitate, soluţionarea cererii de sesizare a Curţii Constituţionale şi regimul juridic al încheierii pronunţate asupra acestei cereri’ [2007] 6 Revista română de drept privat 47–64.

9. Jackson M, ‘Judicial avoidance at the European Court of Human Rights: Institutional authority, the procedural turn, and docket control’ [2022] 20(1) International Journal of Constitutional Law 112–140 https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moac003.

10. Safta M, ‘Activismul judiciar. Argumente pro şi contra’ [2022] 3 Revista Română de Jurisprudență 407.

11. Safta M, ‘The Role of Dissenting and Concurring Opinions in The Constitutional Jurisdiction’ [2016] 5(1) Perspectives of Law and Public Administration, Societatea de Stiinte Juridice si Administrative (Society of Juridical and Administrative Sciences) 207–213.

12. Toader T, Safta M, ‘Judecătorii și magistrații-asistenți din cadrul instanțelor de jurisdicție constituțională’ [2016] 2 Revista de Drept Constituțional 203–219.

Encyclopedias

13. Safta M, ‘Access to Constitutional/Supreme Courts’ in Rainer Grote, Frauke Lachenmann, Rüdiger Wolfrum (eds), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Comparative Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press) (accessed 05.03.2026).

Websites

14. Disant M, ‘Synthèse des réponses au questionnaire’ (accessed 05.03.2026).

15. Safta M, ‘Notă de jurisprudență a Curții Constituționale [16 decembrie 2019 – 3 ianuarie 2020]. Regimul juridic al încheierilor de sesizare a Curții Constituționale cu excepții de neconstituționalitate (II). Obiectul excepțiilor de neconstituționalitate’ (6 ianuarie 2020) (accessed 05.03.2026).

16. Stanciu L D, Safta M, ‘Rapport of the Constitutional Court of Romania’, Romania – Questionnaire XVIII Congress of the Conference of European Constitutional Courts (CECC) (CECC National Report, 2021) (accessed 05.03.2026).