Appointing a special curator — a much-needed measure that is almost non-existent in practice
After analysing the case-law of the courts in Ilfov County, I found that, according to the replies received from the two courts, in the 3 years since Law 140/2022 came into force, no case has provisionally appointed a special curator, under art. 167 of the Civil Code together with art. 943 para. (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
This leads me to believe that this institution — extremely useful and necessary both for the protected person and for the smooth conduct of the proceedings — is not being applied simply because its existence or the appointment procedure are not known.
For this reason I have written this article to support both practitioners and, above all, the persons for whose protection this interim measure was enacted.
When the special-curator institution becomes applicable
In cases concerning the re-examination of a placement under interdiction, under art. 20 para. (2) of Law 140/2022, or in cases concerning the establishment of a protective measure (judicial counselling / special guardianship), under art. 936–943 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
When and how it applies
Art. 167 of the Civil Code provides that „in case of need and until the request to establish judicial counselling or special guardianship is settled, the guardianship court may appoint a special curator to care for and represent the person whose protection has been requested, and to administer their assets.”
In my view, the word may should be removed, since as long as the court finds that there is a case of need, the appointment of a special curator should be mandatory.
Who can be appointed
Art. 943 para. (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure clarifies this, providing that „the court shall appoint, with priority, the agent designated in the protective mandate contract.”
Where there is no such agent, whom could the court appoint? In my view, this must be assessed case by case: where a person has already asked to be guardian, it is very straightforward to appoint that person.
However, in re-examination cases, the previously appointed guardian is often deceased and there is no one to take over the role, so as to ensure protection of the person in need.
In this specific situation I consider art. 3 of the Methodological Norms of 14 March 2007 for the application of Law no. 448/2006 on the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities to be applicable: „Where the family or legal representative of the person with a disability cannot ensure the exercise of that person''s rights, this duty falls, primarily, on the local public administration authorities of the person''s domicile or residence.”
By way of example
In one of the cases in which I requested the appointment of a special curator, the court granted my request, holding in its reasoning:
„By oral request made at the public hearing of 05.12.2025, the respondent B.N., through court-appointed counsel, in file no. 5057/XXX/202X concerning the re-examination of a placement under interdiction, requested the appointment of the local authority — Guardianship Authority — as special curator for the respondent B.N., pending settlement of the file.
In support, it was shown that the previously appointed guardian is now deceased and no person is available to take over this role in order to ensure the respondent''s protection.
The court finds that, in the present case, the conditions provided by law for appointing a special curator are met, until the final settlement of this file, in view of the respondent''s state of health as reflected in the documents on file, which show that she suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, with reduced capacity for self-care and asset management, and is currently placed in the Centre for the empowerment and rehabilitation of adults with disabilities XXXXX.”
In such situations I encourage you to file a request (oral or written) for the appointment of a special curator to ensure care and representation of the protected person while the case on re-examination of the interdiction, or on the establishment of a protective measure (judicial counselling / special guardianship), is being resolved — so that this adult person is not left unprotected during the fairly long proceedings.
Equally, I believe that courts should, more often, appoint a special curator even in the absence of an express request, since this measure would contribute to a smoother conduct of the proceedings.