The Constitutional Court of Romania decided on Wednesday, February 18, that the new law on the reform of magistrates’ pensions is constitutional. The referral filed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice was rejected by 6 votes to 3, and the decision is final and generally binding.
The decision comes after a tense journey. The debate was adjourned five times, and two previous meetings could not take place due to a lack of quorum. Finally, all nine constitutional judges reviewed the project and the submitted documents, including an extrajudicial accounting expertise submitted by the Supreme Court.
What does the new law change?
The project for which the Government pledged its responsibility in Parliament provides for significant changes.
The amount of service pensions of magistrates decreases from 80% to 70% of the last net salary. The pension will represent 55% of the average of the gross allowances of the last 60 months, but without exceeding 70% of the last net allowance received in the activity.
The retirement age will increase in stages up to 65 years. The transition period is 15 years, and each year the age threshold will be progressively increased, so that in 2042, judges and prosecutors will retire at 65.
The possibility of early retirement is maintained for those with 35 years of age, but before reaching the standard age, an annual penalty of 2% will be applied until the threshold provided for in the public system is reached.
In the previous form, the service pension represented 80% of the last gross salary, and retirement was possible even at 48–49 years, in the case of 25 years of service in the judiciary.
The arguments of the magistrates
The High Court of Cassation and Justice challenged the law, arguing that the changes “de facto cancel service pensions” and may affect the independence of the judiciary, citing standards set by decisions of the CJEU, ECHR and the Constitutional Court.
The supreme court also presented an accounting expertise according to which, in certain situations, the service pension could reach below the level of the pension calculated on a contributory basis.
All 102 judges present at the meeting of the United Sections of the ICCJ voted for the referral to the Constitutional Court.
Political and legal context
It is the second legislative attempt regarding the reform of magistrates’ pensions. A first draft was declared unconstitutional in October, on procedural grounds, as the Government had not requested the opinion of the Superior Council of Magistracy within the deadline, even though it is advisory.
The new form of the law received a negative opinion from the CSM, but the Executive went ahead with the assumption of responsibility in the Parliament.
The vote in the Constitutional Court reflects a clear division. According to the sources, six judges voted to reject the referral, and three for admission.
A reform with long-term impact
The CCR decision closes the legal stage of the dispute and allows the entry into force of the new rules. The reform fundamentally changes the philosophy of the system, reducing the percentage of the last salary and gradually aligning the retirement age with that of the public system.
However, it remains to be seen whether the changes will temper the public debate on special pensions or whether they will generate new tensions within the judicial system. What is certain is that, after years of controversies and failed legislative attempts, the reform is now entering a new stage, constitutionally validated.
Click to rate this post!
