The Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR) on Thursday published the reasoning behind its 18 February decision declaring constitutional the Bolojan Government's draft law on the reform of magistrates' pensions.
Following publication of the reasoning in the Official Gazette, the law will be sent to President Nicusor Dan for promulgation, agerpres reports.
In its reasoning, the CCR notes that service pensions in the justice sector are intrinsically linked to the judicial authority expressly regulated by the Constitution and that the law's subject matter is homogeneous in terms of the social relations it governs. At the same time, the Court observes that the law provides for its entry into force on 1 January 2026, a relatively short interval from the date of its adoption.
'The Constitutional Court does not have the competence to examine the appropriateness of initiating legislative action or to quantify the budgetary impact of the legislative measures promoted or that should be promoted. Nor does the Constitutional Court have the competence to determine which legislative measures should be adopted. As such, the Court cannot review the financial calculations presented by the Government in the explanatory memorandum or in its point of view, nor does it have the authority to assess the appropriateness of various public policies promoted, just as the High Court of Cassation and Justice cannot arrogate such prerogatives,' the document states.
The Court further underlines that it does not have the authority to monitor the implementation of the Government's programme concerning the reform of service pensions across various sectors and cannot condition the reform of service pensions in the justice system on reforms affecting other categories of personnel.
'It is the exclusive decision of the Government/Parliament, as the case may be, to determine the appropriateness and timing of these reforms, regardless of the date from which they produce effects. Therefore, the Court cannot rule on matters relating to the appropriateness of measures to be taken following the issuance of European Commission Decision No. 3,490 of 28 May 2025. In this regard and on similar aspects, the Court has also ruled in Decision No. 479 of 20 October 2025,' the Constitutional Court said.
The Court notes that the service pension in the justice system currently comprises two components: contributory and non-contributory. The supplement granted by the state, in addition to the contributory component, is grounded not in Article 47(2) of the Constitution, but in Article 124(3), which enshrines the principle of the independence of justice. In Decision No. 900 of 15 December 2020, the Court stressed that 'in determining the amount of magistrates' service pensions, the legislator must respect the principle of judicial independence.'
The Court emphasises that the service pension is not eliminated for any category of personnel within the justice system.
'The contested law modifies this system and establishes a different legal regime for the service pension, based exclusively on Article 124(3) of the Constitution, rather than on a hybrid construct grounded in both Article 47(2) and Article 124(3). As such, the service pension is not abolished for any category of personnel within the justice system,' the CCR reasoning further states.
The Court also observes that there is an adequate relationship between the average pension in the public system and the service pension for justice system personnel established under the challenged law, indicating an 'axiological congruence' with the requirements set out by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its case law.
Furthermore, future generations will be able to opt either for the service pension established under the contested law or for a contributory pension under the general public pension system, in accordance with Law No. 303/2022, the Court notes.
The judges add that the legislator has the competence to adjust or eliminate in the future certain elements of the mechanism for determining the amount of the service pension, for reasons related to public policy in the field of pensions.
'The benefit of such an element of the pension right subsists only as long as the legal regulation providing for it remains in force. Its repeal removes that element from the mechanism for determining the service pension for the future, while only sums due at the time of repeal fall within the scope of protection of the right to private property,' the Constitutional Court concludes.
Comentează