Aside from buying time, the four CCR judges who boycotted two consecutive sessions of the Constitutional Court to postpone the vote of a majority of 5, which aimed to validate the legislation reducing special pensions for magistrates, can’t do much more.
The boycott continued on January 16, when a new session was scheduled, which could seriously discredit the CCR and potentially trigger legislative initiatives to modify the institution’s functioning.
If these are also rejected, then the entire Romanian judicial system will be called into question, and the launch of a referendum by the president on its reform will be hard to avoid.
The possibility of events unfolding as described above is a pessimistic one, with little chance of coming true, but theoretically valid.
After the second boycott carried out by Busuioc, Licu, Deliorga, and Stan, appointed by PSD, who left the room, depriving the CCR session of a quorum, the situation created indicates a strategic pact manifested by a minority to delay and discourage the vote of a majority.
Although such a situation was not explicitly foreseen by the legislator in Law 47/1992 regarding the organization and functioning of the Constitutional Court, there are quite precise references regarding the framework in which the actions of a CCR judge take place.
In addition to the provision currently being abusively used by the four, which states that in a CCR session, a vote cannot take place if there is not a quorum of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the total number of judges, i.e., 6, there is another one that says CCR judges are not allowed to abstain from voting.
"Constitutional Court judges are obliged... to cast their affirmative or negative vote, abstaining from voting not being permitted," as stated in article 64, paragraph c of the law.
The Obligation to Vote
Thus, a repeated boycott of the vote on magistrates' special pensions can be associated with a violation of an obligation expressly provided by law.
After the postponement on December 29, Mrs. Elena-Simina Tănăsescu, the President of the CCR, made a public statement indicating the emergence of preliminary acts that could lead to a violation of the law by the four judges who left the CCR sessions.
"The legal provision establishes that the interruption of deliberations can be made if, procedurally, it is requested by a judge, and on the merits, the request is justified for a better study of the issues under discussion," said Judge Tănăsescu.
"I cannot confirm or deny anything related to any such request, as the deliberation session did not end from yesterday until today, and it will not end until the next term...," she added.
The fact that the President of the CCR announces that the deliberation session has not ended suggests that the four, by repeatedly leaving the deliberation room, boycotted the session while they were under the legal obligation to vote.
For the current week, from December 29, 2025, until Sunday, January 4, 2026, the only person who was on leave was me, and I canceled it this morning.
Elena-Simina Tănăsescu, President of the Constitutional Court, statement announcing that the judges suspected of boycotting were not on leave during the CCR sessions
The statement, put into context, describes a deliberate and premeditated action by judges Busuioc, Licu, Deliorga, and Stan who violated the obligation to vote, as provided by Article 64 of the law.
The Mandate of CCR Judges is Not Optional
"Constitutional Court judges have an obligation to participate in court sessions and deliberations and to make decisions with a yes or no," announced lawyer Alexandru Dimitriu (USR deputy), in a Facebook post.
"Their mandate is an active one, not optional, not a political one," the lawyer further stated.
"We have four judges who intentionally missed two sessions, although there was a 5 to 4 majority for adopting a decision. They did this to block the mandatory quorum of six judges," explained Dimitriu.
"This is not absence, it's a boycott. The boycott paralyzes the Constitutional Court and violates Law 47/1992. When a judge deliberately refuses to exercise their mandate, know that they are breaking the law, not just absent," explained lawyer Alexandru Dimitriu, USR deputy.
In this context, the statement by Augustin Zegrean, former President of the Constitutional Court, becomes even more shocking, who stated that the four judges were absent because they "do not want to vote for this law."
If the above statement is true, coming from a former President of the CCR, it means that Stan, Busuioc, Deliorga, and Licu are already outside the law.
A Sign that Did Not Come
With a hostile public opinion, actions indicating the premeditation of an illegal boycott at the CCR, a new majority within the Court, but also increasingly vocal political reactions, the four judges, supported by PSD, as well as large parts of the political and business elite that emerged in Romania after the fall of communism, have little room for maneuver.
Therefore, their actions seem more aimed at gaining time, waiting for a sign from elsewhere.
Nevertheless, the exposure they have taken on has compromised them, making it very difficult for them to be credible in their actions and to succeed in forming a new majority at the CCR.
Most likely, the four were waiting for a sign from Sorin Grindeanu, the leader of the PSD, who delayed, prompting them to react to get out of the complicated situation they had created for themselves.
"...the absence from the session on December 29 did not mean a blockage of the Court's activities, but a decision related to respecting the operating rules and the legal framework governing the activity of the Constitutional Court of Romania," wrote Deliorga, Stan, Licu, and Busuioc, in a lengthy message justifying their refusal to vote in the CCR session, two days in a row.
What's even more interesting is that the judges nominated by PSD, suspected of boycotting, announce that their message is a private one, implying a lack of any professional responsibility for what they wrote in the statement.
"These clarifications express exclusively the position of the authors and do not represent an official communication of the Constitutional Court," wrote the four, which actually means that it is a subjective opinion not based on verifiable actions, decisions, and events.
The message of the four is, in reality, a white flag confirming that negotiations have taken place somewhere, but for now, it is difficult to discern the meaning of the victory of the new CCR majority and how the reform in the justice system will proceed.