Waiver of Advance Payment of Party Costs – Constitutional Court Ruling No. 269/2025

The Constitutional Court recently declared, in its Ruling No. 269/2025 of May 5, the unconstitutionality, with general binding force, of a restrictive interpretation of paragraph 2 of Article 26-A of the Regulation on Procedural Costs.

At issue was the rule according to which, in order to challenge the amounts listed in the itemized and substantiated note of party costs, the losing party would always be required to deposit, within 10 days, the full amount in advance — even if such amount was excessively burdensome or arbitrary.

This constitutional review did not question the general requirement of full deposit of cost notes — a requirement whose constitutionality has already been reaffirmed multiple times — but rather the absence of a possibility for the judge to waive the full deposit in cases of clear disproportionality.

While it is true that requiring full payment of the claimed costs serves a legally valid purpose — on the one hand, ensuring that the costs of the proceedings are effectively borne by the party responsible, and on the other, discouraging abusive or dilatory complaints and appeals — it is also true that this requirement can become a disproportionate economic barrier, especially if the amounts claimed are excessive, unfounded, or unpredictable.

The Constitutional Court found that this absolute requirement, without allowing the judge any discretion to assess the specific circumstances of the case, violates the right of access to justice and to the courts, as well as the constitutionally enshrined principle of proportionality.

Even though the State is legitimately entitled to impose charges for the functioning of the justice system — whether through advance deposits or payment obligations — it must not create obstacles that, in practice, prevent or unduly burden the exercise of that right.

With this decision, it is now clear that the judge may — and indeed must — conduct a form of internal review to assess the reasonableness of the claimed amount before requiring full deposit as a condition for lodging a complaint. This represents a step toward more accessible and balanced justice, protecting citizens against arbitrary demands and ensuring greater judicial oversight of potential abuses.

This ruling thus reaffirms a fundamental principle of the rule of law: justice cannot be a privilege reserved for those who can afford it.