According to a ruling of the Constitutional Court, the decision to limit the size of the stake of any of the SIF shareholders at 1% concerns the stock market and is intended to ensure its optimal operation, which is why the regulations concerning the threshold can not be construed as pertaining the general regime of the right to ownerships as mentioned in the Constitution.

The ruling once again confirmed the validity of the threshold, in a ruling in the lawsuit in which SIF "Transilvania" claimed the opposite. The decision of the Court was recently published in the Official Gazette, about two months after being issued by the judges of the Court.

In March 2009, the shareholders of SIF "Transilvania" (SIF3) decided to raise the holding threshold from 1% to 5% of the company"s share capital, but the Romanian National Securities Commission (CNVM) did not validate this amendment to the company"s Articles of Incorporation. SIF3 went to court in order to obtain the annulment of the decision by which the Romanian National Securities Commission refused to validate the amendment of the Articles of Incorporation of SIF3, and the lawsuit reached the Constitutional Court, after the lawyers of SIF3 claimed that the 1% cap was unconstitutional. However, the Court rejected the opinion of SIF3.

In 2009, the Constitutional Court had rejected in 2009 a similar claim that the 1% cap was unconstitutional, made by "Comrimet", a company owned by Cătălin Chelu, and the decision of June 11 made in the lawsuit brought by SIF3 reiterates some of the arguments used in the case of 2009.

For instance, the ruling of the Court states that the SIFs "can not be considered mere joint stock companies" and that the holding cap was introduced by the lawmaker "for reasons which concern the extensive interest of the public in the shares of the SIFs, companies which originate from t