CC – 04.02.2026

{{COURTdecisionBOX

|Jurisdiction=Romania
|Court-BG-Color=
|Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png
|Court_Abbrevation=CC
|Court_Original_Name=Curtea Constituțională
|Court_English_Name=Constitutional Court
|Court_With_Country=CC (Romania)

|Case_Number_Name=04.02.2026
|ECLI=

|Original_Source_Name_1=Constitutional Court
|Original_Source_Link_1=https://www.ccr.ro/comunicat-de-presa-iii-4-februarie-2026/
|Original_Source_Language_1=Romanian
|Original_Source_Language__Code_1=RO
|Original_Source_Name_2=
|Original_Source_Link_2=
|Original_Source_Language_2=
|Original_Source_Language__Code_2=

|Date_Decided=04.02.2026
|Date_Published=
|Year=2026

|GDPR_Article_1=
|GDPR_Article_Link_1=
|GDPR_Article_2=
|GDPR_Article_Link_2=

|EU_Law_Name_1=Article 7 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
|EU_Law_Link_1=
|EU_Law_Name_2=Article 8 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
|EU_Law_Link_2=
|EU_Law_Name_3=
|EU_Law_Link_3=
|EU_Law_Name_4=
|EU_Law_Link_4=

|National_Law_Name_1=Article 1(3) Romanian Constitution
|National_Law_Link_1=
|National_Law_Name_2=Article 1(5) Romanian Constitution
|National_Law_Link_2=
|National_Law_Name_3=Article 147(4) Romanian Constitution
|National_Law_Link_3=
|National_Law_Name_4=Article 148 Romanian Constitution
|National_Law_Link_4=
|National_Law_Name_5=Article 20 Romanian Constitution
|National_Law_Link_5=
|National_Law_Name_6=Article 26 Romanian Constitution
|National_Law_Link_6=
|National_Law_Name_7=Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights
|National_Law_Link_7=
|National_Law_Name_8=
|National_Law_Link_8=
|National_Law_Name_9=
|National_Law_Link_9=

|Party_Name_1=The Institution of the Romanian President
|Party_Link_1=
|Party_Name_2=
|Party_Link_2=
|Party_Name_3=
|Party_Link_3=

|Appeal_From_Body=
|Appeal_From_Case_Number_Name=
|Appeal_From_Status=
|Appeal_From_Link=
|Appeal_To_Body=
|Appeal_To_Case_Number_Name=
|Appeal_To_Status=Unknown
|Appeal_To_Link=

|Initial_Contributor=
|
}}

The Constitutional Court held that a legal provision establishing a register for contagious diseases was unconstitutional because it failed to ensure appropriate safeguards for the protection of the fundamental rights and liberties of the individual.

== English Summary ==

=== Facts ===
The Romanian Constitutional Court examined the constitutionality of the legal provision in Article 2 Governmental Ordinance no. 7/2025 establishing a register for contagious diseases.

The Institution of the President of Romania requested the constitutional check. It argued that the measure went beyond what was necessary because the personal data concerning the health of a person were stored for the entirety of that individual’s life with the express prohibition of erasure. This allegedly breached Article 1(3) Romanian Constitution, Article 26 Romanian Constitution, Article 20 Romanian Constitution, as well as Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights (EHCR), Article 148 Romanian Constitution, Article 7 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EUCFR) and Article 8(2) EUCFR.

Furthermore, the Institution of the President emphasised that the legal provision fails to provide the necessary safeguards for the protection of the fundamental rights and liberties of the individual. Namely, the legal act failed to specify the liability of the controller and the applicable sanctions for breaches, and to ensure the confidentiality of the personal data processing among other shortcomings. This allegedly breached Article 26 Romanian Constitution, Article 1(5) Romanian Constitution, and Article 147(4) Romanian Constitution.

=== Holding ===
The Constitutional Court held that the legal provision was unconstitutional.

It found that the legal act failed to provide the necessary safeguards in relation to controller liability, sanctions, and confidentiality.

However, the Court found that the measure of storing personal data concerning health for the entire duration of an individual’s life without the possibility of erasure was not in itself unconstitutional and did not violate the fundamental right to private life. The Court pointed out that the aim of such a legal provision is justified by its scientific or statistical purpose and abides by European legal provisions on health safety.

== Comment ==
”Share your comments here!”

== Further Resources ==
”Share blogs or news articles here!”

== English Machine Translation of the Decision ==
The decision below is a machine translation of the Romanian original. Please refer to the Romanian original for more details.

<pre>
PRESS RELEASE III, February 4, 2026

The Constitutional Court, unanimously, admitted the objection of unconstitutionality formulated by the President of Romania and found that both the Law on the approval of Government Ordinance no. 7/2025 and the provisions of art. II of Government Ordinance no. 7/2025, with reference to art. V paragraph (5) of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 180/2020 amending and supplementing Law no. 136/2020 on the establishment of measures in the field of public health in situations of epidemiological and biological risk, Government Emergency Ordinance no. 158/2005 on leaves and social health insurance benefits, as well as for establishing measures regarding the granting of sick leaves, are unconstitutional.

Summary

The Constitutional Court ruled that the measures relating to the development and operation of a new IT application (the Single Electronic Registry of Communicable Diseases – i-RUBT) for reporting and monitoring the evolution of communicable diseases cannot, in themselves, prejudice, through the intended purpose, the right to privacy or human dignity [art. 26 and art. 1 paragraph (3) of the Constitution], but they do not comply with the condition imposed by art. 1 paragraph (5) of the Constitution in terms of establishing by law appropriate and adequate guarantees associated with this fundamental right, so that both the approval law and the provisions of art. II of Government Ordinance no. 7/2025 [regarding the legislative measures contained in art. V paragraph (5) of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 180/2020] are unconstitutional.

Arguments

The Court examined exclusively criticisms of intrinsic unconstitutionality, formulated with regard to the legislative measures contained in art.V of Government Emergency Ordinance no.180/2020, amended by art.II of Government Ordinance no.7/2025, an ordinance approved by the law subject to constitutional review. These measures concern the development and operation of a new IT application (i-RUBT), designed to report and monitor the evolution of communicable diseases. The Court found that:

the measure of processing patient identification data and lifelong storage of their health data does not contravene, in itself, the right to privacy and human dignity, since it is justified by the scientific or statistical purpose pursued and meets the requirements imposed by European regulations on health security;
Derogations from the personal data protection regime as a fundamental right are permitted only to the extent that primary legislation includes adequate guarantees to ensure the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject; in the present case, these guarantees are either missing from the ordinance (confidentiality, liability and sanctions specific to the operator), or they are to be regulated by an infralegal act, so that the provisions of art.V paragraph (5) of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 180/2020 contravene the principle of legality and legal certainty.

*

The decision is final and generally binding.

The arguments retained in the motivation of the solution pronounced by the Constitutional Court will be presented in the decision, which will be published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I.

Unofficial document, intended for the media, which does not engage the responsibility of the Constitutional Court.
</pre>