Mayor of Grumăzești escapes loss of mandate: judicial control lifted by Neamț Court
The Neamț Court revoked judicial control of Mayor Constantin Matasă on 30 October 2026, preventing loss of his mayoral mandate. An anomaly in the Administrative Code allowed this consequence after 6 months of judicial control.
Neamț Court lifts judicial control of Mayor Matasă, mandate remains intact
According to Lumea Justiției, judge Mihaela-Maria Bumbu at the Neamț Court revoked on 30 October 2026 the judicial control measure applied to the mayor of Grumăzești commune, Constantin Matasă, a PSD member. Matasă had been under this measure for over four and a half months — approaching the six-month threshold which, under the Administrative Code, would have automatically resulted in loss of his mayoral mandate.
The decision followed acceptance of a challenge filed by the defendant against Order no. 642 from 23 October 2026, issued by the preliminary chamber judge at Târgu Neamț Court. The Court annulled that order and, retrying the case, granted Matasă Constantin's request for revocation of judicial control, originally imposed through Order no. 359/10.06.2026. The mayor will continue to be tried in a state of freedom, in accordance with the minutes of Order no. 440/2026 from case file no. 2467/321/2026/a1.10.
Case with serious charges, committal for trial in June 2026
Matasă was committed for trial on 10 June 2026 by prosecutor Cătălin-Andrei Tamaș at the Office of the Prosecutor attached to Târgu Neamț Court, based on indictment no. 1512/121/P/2024, verified by chief prosecutor Constantin-Cristinel Diaconu. The charges concern abuse of office, misappropriation, intellectual forgery and instigating intellectual forgery.
Committed for trial on the same day he had been detained for 24 hours, the mayor was presented to the court with a request for preventive arrest. Judge Alina-Roxana Chitaș at Târgu Neamț Court rejected the prosecution's request and imposed judicial control on Matasă — a measure successively extended until 30 October. Among the restrictions imposed through judicial control was a ban on exercising the office in the performance of which he is presumed to have committed the acts — namely, the office of mayor.
Anomaly in the Administrative Code, seven years old
Lawyer Răzvan Doseanu, one of Mayor Matasă's defence counsel — alongside Mihaela Cristea and Mihai Ciocoiu — flagged last week, in an analysis sent to Lumea Justiției, a contradiction contained in the Administrative Code since 2019, when it came into force.
Specifically, article 159 section 1 of the Administrative Code provides that the mayor's mandate is suspended by operation of law in case of preventive arrest or house arrest, without establishing a maximum duration for such measures. Consequently, a mayor can remain in preventive arrest even for a year or two and, upon release, resume his mandate if there has been no final conviction.
The situation is radically different in the case of judicial control: if this measure includes a ban on exercising office and is extended for six months, the mayor loses his mandate under article 160 section 1 letter g of the same code. The legal text invoked refers to "inability to exercise office due to serious, certified illness, or other sound reasons proven, which do not allow carrying out activities in good conditions for 6 months, during a calendar year."
The practical effect of this asymmetry: judicial control, considered a lighter measure than preventive arrest, can become more harmful to a local official than actual deprivation of liberty.
Charges brought by Târgu Neamț Prosecutor's Office
The indictment imputes to Mayor Matasă that, during the period November 2023 – June 2025, in his capacity as deputy mayor and, subsequently, mayor of Grumăzești commune, Neamț county, he ordered on 24 separate occasions that the driver of the administrative-territorial unit, Cucoradă Constantin, perform work for the benefit of commercial company SC CABLU TV NET SRL — a company which the defendant in fact managed. The act allegedly caused damage of 6,307.16 lei to the commune's assets, representing the equivalent of working hours falsely recorded at the administrative-territorial unit and actually performed for the benefit of the private company, whereby the defendant obtained unwarranted patrimonial gain. The principal charge is abuse of office with obtaining unwarranted gain, in continuous form, with 24 material acts.
The case remains on the court's docket, with Matasă to continue being tried in a state of freedom, following the lifting of judicial control.
Source: Lumea Justiției