Re-examination of legal interdiction and appointment of a guardian/curator under Law 140/2022
Re-examination of legal interdiction or appointment of a guardian/curator under Law 140/2022
After analysing the report drawn up by the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM) three years after Law 140/2022 entered into force, and correlating it with my own study on the same subject at the level of Ilfov county, I find that fewer than half of the cases in which the interdiction measure should have been re-examined have actually been resolved. As of 13 November 2025, the CSM report indicated that of the 18,120 cases reopened for re-examination of interdiction, 11,579 had been resolved.
However, based on my own arithmetic — adding up the cases in the report where the court ordered replacement of interdiction with guardianship (7,698), replacement of interdiction with judicial counselling (90), and lifting of interdiction (67) — the total comes to only 7,855 cases.
The question arises: what happened to / how were the remaining 3,584 cases (31 %) — the difference between the 11,579 cases reported as resolved (per the CSM report) and the 7,855 obtained by adding up the cases centralised for each court of appeal — resolved? The report does not indicate what solution was pronounced or how they were disposed of.
I encountered a similar situation when analysing the cases registered at national level with special guardianship / judicial counselling as their object, under articles 164–186 of the Civil Code, listed on pages 13–14 of the Report: for 2,875 cases (approx. 29.6 %) out of the 9,721 cases reported as resolved (per the CSM report), it is not clear how they were resolved.
I addressed a request for clarification to the CSM, which directed me to the Judicial Inspection to find out in what manner the cases included in the total number of cases resolved at national level had actually been resolved, given that the solution is unknown?!
From the reply I received from the Judicial Inspection on 14.06.2026, it appears that this difference may cover cases in which the court declined jurisdiction, dismissed the action as devoid of purpose, took note of the withdrawal of the action, or dismissed the referral following the death of the protected person.
In short, the conclusion of this analysis is that, three years after Law 140/2022 entered into force, only 43 % of the 18,120 cases reopened for re-examination of interdiction have been resolved, and a large share (approx. 30 %) of the cases that the Superior Council of Magistracy counts as resolved are in fact cases whose actual outcome is unknown — leaving a question mark and considerable uncertainty about the effectiveness of the current procedure for re-examining interdiction and for establishing a protective measure.
Why did an accurate national analysis of the re-examination cases matter? Because the legislator's aim in enacting article 24 of Law 140/2022 was precisely to measure, three years after entry into force, the impact of the new legislation applicable to persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities, and, if appropriate, to adopt any improvement proposals arising from that study. As long as the figures are not clear and do not reflect the harsh reality — that three years in, fewer than half of the cases have been resolved — we risk being misled into believing that things are working, perhaps not as well as they should, but working.
This is entirely wrong and is contradicted by social realities and by the caseload of the courts.
As a lawyer involved in various such cases, I find that many files are left without object because of the extremely long duration of proceedings, during which the protected person dies. That is why these should be treated as urgent cases and dealt with promptly.
Because of financial hardship, and because of the secondary legislation linked to Law 140/2022 that places on the family member of the protected person the obligation to pay the costs of the psychiatric and psychological evaluation reports required under article 938 paragraphs 3–6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in many cases the relatives are forced to withdraw the action.
Another reason is the impossibility of obtaining public judicial aid — a fact also noted in the CSM report, which observes that at national level only a single court (Iași District Court) would grant such requests.
At the same time, in my view, psychiatric hospitals/wards cannot draw up these reports, and that is why the overwhelming majority refuse to do so. Why? Because the National Health Insurance House has stated, in various letters, that these evaluation services required for the two reports cannot be reimbursed by CNAS, as they are not included in the list of medical services.
The sad situation is that, at national level, psychiatric hospitals/wards are overwhelmingly occupied by long-term chronic patients because they have no appointed legal representative (guardian/curator), while the state spends far more through the services reimbursed to hospital units for these patients.
Research on the implementation of Law 140/2022
CSM Plenary Decision no. 148/13.11.2025
Request for information addressed to the CSM
CSM reply of 14.05.2026
Reply of the Judicial Inspection of 04.06.2026
Article 24 of Law 140/2022
In order to monitor the implementation of this law, the National Authority for the Protection of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Superior Council of Magistracy shall draw up, at the end of a three-year term from its entry into force, reports assessing its impact and, where appropriate, proposals for improving the legislation in this area.